The science of terminology: history and evolution

6H. Pich | TheScienceo Te minology:His o yandE olu ion The Science o Te minology: His o y and E olu ion HERIBERT PICHT Keywo ds: his o ical aspec s o e minology, e olu ion o e minology heo y, elemen s o e minology heo y, e minology planning INTRODUCTION As he p emise o my a icle I would like o ou line some well-known ac s ha a e widely ag eed upon by he majo i y o he p o essional com- muni y o e minology. 1. Te minology is no an isola ed phenomenon which can be esea ched and p ac iced wi hou close con ac wi h o he ields o knowledge. Te - minology is a ans- and in e disciplina y ield o knowledge. 2. Te minology is embedded in ‘cul u al discou se’, a concep which has been de ined as “a e y gene al semio ic concep , which co esponds o Wi gens ein’s ‘linguis ic discou se’. This discou se includes e bal and non- e bal o ms o ep esen a ion in di e en quan i a i e cons ella ions. Fo ms o ep esen a ion o en ha e a complemen a y unc ion and may be in e changeable.” (Lau én, Pich 2000: 216) 3. The basic aim o e minology is a ans e o knowledge a di e en le els o p o essionalism wi h hei co esponding egis e s. 4. Te minology consis s – as do many o he ields o knowledge – o a heo e ical and an applied pa . In he ollowing I shall deal wi h e olu ions which ha e aken place in he las ew decades, bu also poin ou some s ill unsol ed esea ch ques- ions and p oblems. SOME HISTORICAL CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT TERMINOLOGY STILL RELEVANT TODAY The Ge man philosophe Oehle (2007: 83), s a es ha Pla o in an epis emological pa ag aph o his 7 h le e poin s ou ha he cogni ion o an objec equi es se e al cogni i e media: he name, he de ini ion, a 7Te minologija | 2011 | 18 clea ep esen a ion by an illus a ion and he objec i sel . As e minolo- gis s we can ecognise wi hou any doub his ain o hough . Gene ally speaking he need o e minology has exis ed o as long as we a e able o ind e idence o p o essional communica ion. The ques- ion o e minology became and s ill becomes cen al as soon as p o es- sional communica ion ails o is hampe ed by a de icien e minology. Te minology as he mos cen al pa o any knowledge ans e is ha dly ques ioned oday. Looking in o he his o ical e idence we can s a e some cen al e mi- nological de ici s: 1.Lacko o inco ec concep ualo de ing. Linné (1707-1778) es ablished a sys ema isa ion o concep s by his wo ks on axonomy. The supe io aim o all la e classi ica ions was he o de ing o knowledge as exp essed by e ms. 2. Con usioncausedbyexcessi esynonymy. Beckmann (1739-1811), p o esso o philosophy and economics, c i icised he mul i ude o un- necessa y and con using synonyms. 3. Lacko  e ms o  heconcep inapa icula language. Al eady in he Middle Ages he ansla o s o he School o Toledo had o s uggle wi h his p oblem. 4. Unclea andunde inedconcep s. Clausewi z, he Ge man mili a y heo is , w o e: Only when a cla i ica ion o he names and concep s has aken place, may one hope o p oceed easily and wi h cla i y in he ea - men o he ma e . 5. Languageplanningde ici s. Dü e ied o es ablish a Ge man e mi- nology o ma hema ical concep s – al hough wi hou success. Be holle , de Mo eau, Fou c oy and La oisie we e success ul in c ea ing a chem- ical e minology in he 18 h cen u y. Czechoslo akia a e 1919, he Bal- ic S a es a e 1919 and 1990, he Ca alans, he Basques and se e al o he s had o igh he language planning p oblem – a p oblem which is inc easingly acu e in many language communi ies. F om his small his o ical e idence we can deduce ha i was i s and o emos he specialis s and language o speci ic pu poses (LSP) media- o s ( ansla o s) who el he need o imp o e p o essional communica ion by sol ing basic e minological p oblems. The ield o linguis ics is only pe iphe ally in e es ed o in ol ed in p o essional communica ion. The B o he s G imm may be men ioned he e as one excep ion. 8H. Pich | TheScienceo Te minology:His o yandE olu ion Ano he cha ac e is ic o he i s his o ical a emp s o imp o e e mi- nologies is hei empi ical and no e y scien i ic app oach. P ac ical solu ions we e needed hen and he e and we e p oposed o ealised wi hou a ho ough heo e ical amewo k and ounda ion. Howe e , ha does no mean ha ea ly ‘ e minologis s’ we e unawa e o he heo e ical issues and did no conside heo e ical ques ions as Pla o o Clausewi z did o example. Today’s heo e ical esea ch in o he his o ical de elopmen o e mino- logy is s ill a he weak. Howe e , he e a e academic as well as lexico- g aphical con ibu ions such as a icles, diploma heses and mono- o mul ilingual wo dlis s ela ed o his subjec . A clea ly academic app oach wi h a co esponding heo e ical ounda- ion was launched by G ine in 2004. He called he new scien i ic disci- pline ‘an h opolinguis ics’. I s aim is o esea ch he de elopmen and e olu ion o human language, cogni ion, knowledge c ea ion and ans e p edominan ly om a diach onic poin o iew including LSP and e mi- nology. The in e - and ansdisciplina y app oach is ob ious conside ing he combina ion o knowledge and esea ch om he ollowing disciplines (acco ding o G ine -G iniewicz e al., o hcoming): gnoseology, epis e- mology, logic, semio ics, an h opology, he his o y o science and ech- nology, a i icial in elligence, heu is ics, age psychology, pedagogical psy- chology, cogni i e psychology, na ional psychology, e hnolinguis ics, cogni i e linguis ics and cul u e s udies. THE DAWN OF MODERN TERMINOLOGY The in ensi ica ion o indus ialisa ion and he inc ease o in e na ional comme ce a he beginning o he las cen u y ga e bi h o a leas wo phenomena o pa amoun impo ance: • s anda disa ion, • he Wi scha slinguis ik mo emen . In he decades o ollow s anda disa ion played and s ill plays an im- po an ole in he de elopmen and applica ion o e minology. The Wi scha slinguis ik mo emen o igina ed in Aus ia, Ge many, he Ne he lands and some No dic coun ies which el he need and p essu e o be able o communica e abou p o essional ma e s wi h o he language communi ies. Language s udies ela ed o LSP had o be es ablished, bu who and whe e we e he ained eache s? In he beginning, classical phi- 9Te minologija | 2011 | 18 lologis s had o ecognise he exis ence o LSP – he e m ‘Fachsp ache’ was in oduced by Blum in 1916 – and hey had o ind ou how o each LSP. The mos salien elemen was e minology and he e o e as good philologis s hey ied o app oach he p oblem om a diach onic angle – he so-called ‘his o ische Wi scha slinguis ik’. Pe haps he mos impo an expe ience gained was he ac ha no LSP can be augh o lea ned wi h- ou p o essional knowledge – knowledge abou he concep s and he e ms. We ind a his poin in ime he i s encoun e be ween linguis ics and p o essional knowledge. Wi scha slinguis ik spli up in o se e al b anches (Pich 1998), he mos impo an o which was he unc ional Wi scha s- linguis ik de eloped in he in ellec ual en i onmen o he P ague School especially in he 1930s. A e Wo ld Wa II his line o esea ch was con- inued and u he de eloped by D ozd and especially by Ho mann com- bining i wi h he p agma ic app oach o linguis ics in he 1970s and 1980s. Ano he pionee in he ield o e minology was he enginee and econo- mis Al ed Schlomann. In 1906 he s a ed he compila ion and publica- ion o a o al o 21 mul ilingual echnical dic iona ies in which he eal- ised one o he classical equi emen s o e minology: he sys ema ic o - de ing o knowledge (Schlomann-Lowe, W igh 2006: 153 ). THE FOUNDERS – WÜSTER, DREZEN, LOTTE The Aus ian Eugen Wüs e , he La ian E ns D ezen and he Russian Dmi ij Lo e a e conside ed he spi i ual a he s o mode n e mino logy. All h ee we e enginee s who ecognised he de ici s o p o essional com- munica ion. In 1931 Wüs e ’s doc o al heses “In e na ionale Sp achno - mung in de Technik. Besonde s in de Elek o echnik” was published and in he same yea Lo e w o e his cen al a icle “P essing P oblems in he Field o Scien i ic and Technical Te minology”. The common backg ound in he na u al sciences de e mined o a ce ain ex en hei synch onic app oach o he p essing e minological p oblems. I seems o be only na u al ha all h ee men showed a special in e es in s anda di- sa ion as a ehicle o minimise e minological de ici s in p o essional communica ion among specialis s – a limi a ion which was qui e unde - s andable on he p emises o ha ime, when linguis ics was only ma - ginally occupied wi h LSP. Appa en ly he e was no di ec con ac be ween Wüs e and Lo e. How- e e , Wüs e and D ezen knew each o he ; bo h we e Espe an is s. Al hough hei o iginal expec a ions owa ds he communica ional possibili ies o 1 0 H. Pich | TheScienceo Te minology:His o yandE olu ion Espe an o in LSP we e abandoned, he main idea o in e na ional com- munica ion su i ed in e minology and can be no iced as a kind o ed h ead unning h ough hei wo ks. By he way, D ezen p omo ed he ansla ion in o Russian and he publica ion o Wüs e ’s heses. Common o he h ee ounde s we e he basic app oaches o e mino- logy such as • he concep as a uni o knowledge, • knowledge o de ing, • e m o ma ion egula ed by guidelines, • dynamic s anda disa ion o concep s and e ms. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE SCIENCE OF TERMINOLOGY In he beginning he de elopmen was no e y cohe en o e en co- o dina ed. Two mains eam de elopmen s can be obse ed. In he So ie Union he e olu ion o he heo y o e minology s a ed a he ea ly and has con inued wi hou mayo in e up ions un il oday (Moschi z-Hagspiel 1994; Shelo , Lei chik 2004; Lau én, Pich 2006). The ela ionship be ween e minology and linguis ics has been qui e di e en in he So ie Union and he Wes e n coun ies. In he So ie Union, e y ea ly amous linguis s such as Re o ma skij, Vinog ado , Vinokou and many o he s ook pa in he de elopmen o he heo- e ical ounda ions o e minology and LSP (Moschi z-Hagspiel 1994). Alexee a quo ing Lei chik (2004: 65) dis inguishes h ee pe iods o de elopmen in Russia: 1. 1930s–60s: he pe iod o accumula ion o knowledge o he e m. The e m was de ined as a special wo d o ph ase o be s udied using me hods o linguis ics and logic (cen al pe sons: he a o emen ioned ounde s). 2. 1960s–70s: pe iod o comp ehension o knowledge o he e m. Te - minology was ega ded as a sepa a e b anch o science. 3. 1980s– oday: cha ac e ized by esea ch exceeding he bounda ies o linguis ics he subjec o e minology came o be ega ded as a componen o a dynamic model o science. In Wes e n coun ies, o di e en easons, a clea -cu di ision in he pe iods o heo e ical de elopmen is less ob ious. In he 1930s i seemed o be mo e u gen o ackle p oblems in applied e minology on an empi ical basis. In he No dic coun ies No way and Sweden ecognised he necessi y o p ac ical e minology wo k and cen- 1 1Te minologija | 2011 | 18 es such as RTT and TNC s a ed wo king on e minological dic ion a ies a he end o he 1930s and beginning o he 1940s, espec i ely. Fu he p oo o his de elopmen was he publica ion o IEC’s mul ilingual and sys ema ically o de ed dic iona y In e na ionalElec o echnicalVocabula y in 1938. Wo ld Wa II in e up ed nea ly all heo e ical esea ch and only a he end o he 1950s do we ind he i s eally heo e ically o ien ed wo ks in Wes e n coun ies, o ins ance Wüs e ’s a icle “Das Wo en de Wel ” (Wüs e 1959/60/2000). In he 1950s and 60s linguis ics in gene al was no eally in e es ed in LSP and e minology. LSP and e minology we e conside ed he same hing and ea ed as a lexicological p oblem which could be sol ed using adi ional seman ic heo ies – acco ding o he opinion o he mos ly pu e linguis . S anda disa ion was no eally unde s ood and ough wi h he slogan ‘language canno be s anda dised’. Ne e heless, on he one hand he adi ion o he Wi scha slinguis ik mo emen was no o go - en and on he o he , linguis s such as Leo Weisge be we e much close o Wüs e ’s ideas han he mains eam linguis ics a ha ime. In addi ion, in he 1960s and 70s he need o p o essional LSP ansla- o s and o he language media o s became mo e and mo e ob ious and led o he es ablishmen o LSP s udies a , o ins ance, he Copenhagen Business School and o he academic ins i u ion in Wes e n Eu opean coun- ies. In such en i onmen s he need o e minologies and hei signi icance o LSP ansla ions we e e iden . I was equally e iden ha he adequa e applica ion o e minologies was insepa ably connec ed o p o essional knowledge. The wo ks o Jumpel (1961) e lec his e olu ion. A undamen al change occu ed – in my iew – when Lo ha Ho mann in his book Kommunika ionFachsp ache – combined ex ual linguis ics and p agma ics wi h he ollowing se en app oaches o LSP and e minology: • he lexicological- e minological app oach, • unc ional linguis ics, • Wi scha slinguis ik, • unc ional s ylis ics, • he na u al science and philosophical app oach, • he ansla ion- ela ed app oach, • heo y o sublanguages (Ho mann 1976). Hahn (1983: 75) con e ed Ho mann's desc ip ion in he ollowing model. 1 2 H. Pich | TheScienceo Te minology:His o yandE olu ion Figu e 1: Ho mann’s model o he e ical s uc u e o LsPs The s ep owa ds p o essional communica ion including ex ual linguis- ics and p agma ics is qui e ob ious and al hough he elemen o e mi- nology is appa en ly less isible, i can be easily deduced. La e Kal e kämpe (1992: 61 ) inco po a ed Ho mann’s model in o a mo e complex LSP model including • he language sys em, • a ie ies as a sociological ca ego y, • s a i ica ion (Ho mann’s model), • medium (w i en and o al), • in e linguali y, • ime as a ch onological ca ego y. TERMINOLOGY – AN AUTONOMOUS DISCIPLINE? Apa om being an enginee Wüs e was e y well in o med on he linguis ics o his ime, which is e lec ed in se e al o his wo ks. On he o he hand he ecognised e y well ha e minology is no a me e lin- guis ic discipline; in any case such as linguis ics we e de ined in he 1960s and 70s. This can be seen qui e clea ly in his ex ensi e a icle “Die allge- 1 3Te minologija | 2011 | 18 meine Te minologieleh e – ein G enzgebie zwischen Sp achwissenscha , Logik, On ologie, In o ma ik und den Sachwissenscha en“ (1974/2000). In he app oxima ely 25 yea s ha ollowed, wo posi ions could be singled ou . On he one hand hose who ad oca ed o e minology as an absolu ely independen discipline and on he o he , e minology as a linguis ic discipline belonging o applied linguis ics. Since linguis ics in he las h ee decades has widened i s scope and qui e a lo o o he dis- ciplines oday belong o he a ay o linguis ics such as sociolinguis ics, e hnolinguis ics, an h opolinguis ics and many o he s, Lau én e al. (1998) a gued ha e minology oday disposes o he same a ie y o non-lin- guis ic elemen s as o he disciplines adjacen o linguis ics. Acco ding o his iewpoin e minology may be conside ed a linguis ic discipline, howe e , wi hin a widened and lexible amewo k o he discipline ‘lin- guis ics’. Tha means: e minology is an au onomous, bu no comple ely independen discipline o mode n linguis ics. Today, he ques ion o au onomy, which caused much discussion, seems o be less salien . The idea o conside ing e minology as a me a-discipline necessa y and app op ia e o all ields o knowledge seems o me e y a ac i e, since he app oach o mode n e minology necessa ily includes elemen s om many di e en disciplines in o de o cope wi h domain- speci ic p oblems (see also Budin 2001: 20). TERMINOLOGICAL SCHOOLS? The concep o e minological schools was impo ed in he 1970s om he So ie Union. Felbe named in his wo ks he P ague School, he Vienna School and he Russian School. In addi ion, he No dic and he Canadian app oach should be men ioned in connec ion wi h his. The p oblem o he in oduc ion o he School-concep , howe e , lies in he dissimila i y o he Russian and he Wes e n School-concep s. The Wes e n concep o ‘School’ implies a common heo e ical app oach, classi ica ion o he esea ch objec and basically common esea ch s a - egies. The esul o he in oduc ion o a o eign concep wi h he same e m – a alse iend – was he imp ession ha he e exis ed undamen- ally di e en app oaches o e minological heo y. In 1993 a collec ion o e minological a icles om Eas e n and Wes - e n Coun ies was published. A ho ough compa ison and analysis o he supposed ‘schools’ and ‘app oaches’ was ca ied ou based on he pa am- e e s o he cen al issues o e minological heo y. The supposed di e - 1 4 H. Pich | TheScienceo Te minology:His o yandE olu ion ences which migh jus i y he cons i u ion o independen schools did no exis . The e we e di e ences, o cou se, which, howe e , we e cha ac e - ized as indi idual ocal poin s de e mined by ce ain aims and pu poses. They belonged all oge he o e minological heo y and could be iden i- ied as complemen a y (Lau én, Pich 1993: 535 ). Today, he discussion on e minological schools has died down; di e - en opinions and ideas exis as is usual in scien i ic disciplines. The esul o he IITF colloquium App oaches o e minologicalTheo ies.ACon as- i eS udyo  heS a e-o - he-A held in 2005 in Be gamo was an up- o- da e compa ison, which g ossomodo and mu a ismu andis con i med he o me analysis (Lau én, Pich 2006: 163 ). FIELDS OF KNOWLEDGE WHICH CONTRIBUTE TO TERMINOLOGICAL THEORY Wi hou going in o he de ails o he a gumen a ion in p o and con a I shall s a e as a kind o hypo hesis ha he ollowing ields o knowledge ha e a sha e in he ounda ion o he cen al uni s o he heo y o e - minology: • all subjec ields as he p o ide s o objec s and concep s – we may call i he seman ics o e minology; • semio ics, including linguis ics, socio-linguis ics, cogni i e linguis ics, an h opolinguis ics, e c. p o iding ep esen a ional o ms and hei applica ion unde di e en p agma ic condi ions and a di e en s ages o de elopmen ; • compu e science and da a p ocessing; • knowledge enginee ing; • language planning and s anda disa ion; • in o ma ion and documen a ion including classi ica ion, hesau i and o he knowledge o de ing sys ems; • philosophy o science. ELEMENTS OF TERMINOLOGICAL THEORY AND THEIR EVOLUTION The cen al elemen s o e minological heo y a e: • he objec and he concep , • ep esen a ional o ms o objec s and concep s, • knowledge o de ing, • e minog aphy. 2 1Te minologija | 2011 | 18 ga ded ha many e minologis s we e au odidac s, heo e ically close o adi ional lexicog aphy and only a li le amilia wi h he heo e ical ounda ions a ailable a he end o he 1970s. This pano ama has changed comple ely. Today, e minology is augh a a ious le els and in di e en en i onmen s. Adequa e and pu pose- o ien ed eaching ma e ials and manuals ha e been de eloped. The di- dac ic o ms ange om in oduc o y and specialised cou ses o di e - en use g oups o ex ensi e componen s o se e al semes e s mos ly embedded in academic s udies such as LSP ansla ion and communica- ion s udies. The Te minology Summe School o e ed by Te mNe in coope a ion wi h uni e si ies, he s udies a Fachhochschule Köln and Vienna Uni e si y and he No dic MA s udies in e minology may se e as examples. In sho , we can s a e ha e minology has de eloped in o a comple e academic discipline. STANDARDISATION AND LSP PLANNING The close connec ion be ween s anda disa ion and e minology has a long adi ion. I da es back o he ime e en be o e he ounde s o e - minology. Howe e , e y ea ly on hey ecognised he need o con olled in e en ion in o he managemen o e minologies and hei de elopmen . D ezen unde lined he dynamic na u e o s anda disa ion and Wüs e in oduced he idea o de eloping guidelines o p ac ical e minology wo k in he 1930s. The ounda ion o ISO/TC 37 is a p oo o his ac . Al hough he Wo ld Wa II in e up ed his de elopmen , he basic idea su i ed and a e he wa ISO/TC 37 con inued i s o iginal wo k. Wi h- ou being able wi hin his con ex o go in o de ails abou he u he de elopmen , i can be s a ed ha he wo king ange o TC 37 has ex- panded conside ably. A simple compa ison o he numbe and subjec s o he i s ecommenda ions and s anda ds in exis ence in 1972 wi h oday’s hema ic a ay o s anda ds and d a s a di e en le els o elabo a ion e eals he in e es in and he necessi y o s anda dising me hodological issues o e minology on he one hand, and on he o he he applica ion o hese s anda ds in p ac ice. In o he wo ds, s anda disa ion has de el- oped as a medium o LSP planning in s anda disable ields o knowledge and emb aces no only he co pus bu also he s a us – using Eina Hau- gen’s e minology. 2 2 H. Pich | TheScienceo Te minology:His o yandE olu ion All language planning and especially LSP planning has always had he bias o p esc ip i ism adi ionally conside ed he opposi e o desc ip i - ism. This dicho omy, howe e , as many o he dicho omies is a simpli ica- ion; in any case i does no depic he eali y in LSP planning. In o de o ge close o he ac s in LSP and e minology planning, he ollowing model may illus a e on he one hand he p oposal o he ange o deg ees be ween he ex eme poin s o he dicho omy and on he o he he im- po an ac o s which in luence any in e en ion in a language. Figu e 4: deg ees be ween desc ip ion and p esc ip ion (Pich 2004: 197) The wo e ical lines ep esen he synch ony-diach ony ela ion indi- ca ing ha subsequen synch onic desc ip ions on a ime axis o m a diach ony. The le line indica es a gliding de elopmen , whe eas he igh one should be in e p e ed as in e als because a p esc ibed e minology is ixed o a ce ain ime and he de elopmen becomes isible in small hops co esponding o D ezen’s concep o dynamic s anda disa ion. 2 3Te minologija | 2011 | 18 The ho izon al line ep esen s he ansi ion om ee language de el- opmen o absolu ely con olled language de elopmen and e minology. The se en deg ees indica ed a e only examples, in be ween he poles he e may be o he deg ees o p esc ip ion depending on he pu pose o a gi en case o p esc ip ion. In he middle o he model I ha e placed he h ee sociolinguis ic ac- o s and indica ed hei gliding in luence on he di e en deg ees o p esc ip ion. Language planning in gene al is a a he old subjec ield, a leas in he No dic coun ies and se e al o he Wes e n coun ies wi h less used languages o language mino i ies, o example No way and he Ca alans. Many o he language planning heo ies ha e been a he uzzy o ideo- logically in luenced. Howe e , du ing he las en yea s one can obse e an inc easing in e es and ac i i y conce ned wi h he p ese a ion and de elopmen o he na ional language o mo he ongue espec i ely, especially as a de ence agains he inc easing English in luence no iceable in he LSP o many domains and jus i ied by in e na ionalisa ion and globalisa ion. In o de o consolida e he ield o language planning – in- cluding LSPs – an inc easing numbe o heo e ical wo ks has been p e- sen ed (e.g. Lau én e al. 2008: 139-195). CONCLUSIONS Taking in o accoun he ela i ely sho and o en only agmen a y in o ma ion and ema ks abou he his o ical e olu ion o he science o e minology I could o e in less han one hou – a ho ough desc ip- ion would equi e a leas a book – I am con inced ha one oday can s a e ha : • The ad en o he science o e minology is he logical consequence o he ecogni ion o se ious de ici s in p o essional communica ion. • Science o e minology has de eloped om p ac ical issues such as guidelines and ecommenda ions in o de o emedy communica- ional de ici s passing phases o in ensi ied heo isa ion and es ing o become a comple e science. • Science o e minology oday ul ils all he equi emen s o a science wi h ega d o i s heo e ical ounda ions, a a ie y o applica ions, an ac i e esea ch communi y, well de eloped eaching and aining ac i i ies a he academic and p ac ical le els and ex ensi e publish- ing ac i i y. 2 4 H. Pich | TheScienceo Te minology:His o yandE olu ion • Science o e minology has me a-s a us among all o he sciences since e minology is a p econdi ion o all kinds o c ea ion o knowledge and i s communica ion, knowledge o de ing, knowledge exchange and knowledge p oli e a ion. • Science o e minology is no limi ed o one pa icula science o g oup o sciences, bu i se es all sciences, al hough some heo- e ical app oaches ha e o be adap ed o he na u e o he di e en sciences. Pe haps, you may hink ha his e alua ion is oo posi i e and ha he e is s ill much o do. Tha is absolu ely ue, he e is s ill much o do, bu ha is common o all sciences, because heo ies, app oaches and applica- ions ha e hei li e cycle un il new indings change o eplace hem. The case o he science o e minology is no di e en ; he e is a basic heo- e ical ounda ion wi h does no exclude a ian s and o he opinions, bu hese a ian s and o he opinions do no in alida e he ecogni ion o e minology as a science in i s own igh – on he con a y. eFe ences Ahmad, Khu shid 1996: A Te minology Dynamic and he G ow h o Knowledge: A Case S udy in Nuclea Physics and in he Philosophy o Science. In: TKE’96Te minologyandKnowledgeEnginee ing; C. Galin- ski, K.-D. Schmi z (eds.), F ank u a. M., 1–11. Alexee a, La issa 2004: Wha is a Te m? In: RussianTe minologyScience (1992–2002), S. D. Shelo , V. M. Lei- chik (eds.), Wien: Te mNe Publishe , 62–78. An ia, Bassey Edem (ed.) 2007: Inde e minacyinTe minologyandLSP; Ams e dam, Philadelphia: John Ben- jamins Publishing Company. A n z, Reine ; Pich , He ibe 1982: Ein üh ungindieübe se zungsbezogeneTe minologiea bei ; Hildesheim, Zü ich, New Yo k: Geo g Olms Ve lag. Budin, Ge ha d 1994: Do we need an Objec Theo y? In: In e na ionalCon e enceonTe minologyScience andTe minologyPlanning. Riga,17–19Augus 1992.In e na ionalIITF-Wo kshopTheo e icalIssueso  Te minologyScience. Riga,19–21Augus 1992.IITF-Se ies4; Wien, 203–208. Budin, Ge ha d 2001: A c i ical e alua ion o he s a e-o - he-a o e minology heo y. In: Te minology Science&Resea ch, ol.12 (2001), no. 1–2; 7–23. Dahlbe g, Inge au 1976: Übe Gegens ände, Beg i e, De ini ionen und Benennungen: Zu möglichen Neu assung on DIN 2330. In: Mu e sp ache 2/1976. Felbe , Helmu 1984: Te minologymanual, Pa is: Gene al In o ma ion P og amme and UNISIST. Felbe , Helmu ; Budin, Ge ha d 1989: Te minologieinTheo ieundP axis.Fo um ü Fachsp achen o schung, Tübingen: Gun e Na Ve lag. Galinski, Ch is ian; Pich , He ibe 1997: G aphic and O he Semio ic Fo ms o Knowledge Rep esen a ion in Te minology Managemen . In: Handbooko Te minologyManagemen , ol. 1; Sue Ellen W igh , Ge - ha d Budin (eds.), Ams e dam/Philadelphia, 42–61. G ine , Se gej 1993: AnIn oduc ion oTe minologyScience ( i le ansla ed om Russian), Moscow. G ine , Se gej 2004a: E olu ion o Te minology and Cul u e: Es ablishing Founda ions o An h opological Linguis ics. In: Sie giej G ine -G iniewicz; Slawomi M. Raube; Pa icia Thomas (eds.) Languageand Cul u e:Es ablishingFounda ions o An h opologicalLinguis ics, Bialys ok: Wyzsza Szkola Finansow i Za zadzania w Bialyms oku, 27–42. 2 5Te minologija | 2011 | 18 G ine , Se gej 2004b: Te minology in he e a o globalisa ion. In: RussianTe minologyScience(1992–2002), S. D. Shelo , V. M. Leichik (eds), Wien: Te mNe Publishe , 49–61. G ine -G iniewicz, S.; Skopiuk, T.; So okina, E.; Thomas, P. ( o hcoming) Founda ionso An h opolinguis ics. Hahn, Wal he on 1983: Fachkommunika ion.En wicklung.Linguis ischeKonzep e.Be ieblicheBeispiele; Be - lin, New Yo k: Wal e de G uy e . Ho mann, Lo ha 1976/1984: Kommunika ionsmi elFachsp ache.EineEin üh ung, Be lin: Akademie-Ve lag. (1984: 2. übe a bei e e Au lage). ISO 1087-1:2000 Te minologywo k–Vocabula y.Pa 1:Theo yandapplica ion. Jónsson, Sigu du 2007: De  ilda änkande ochde kul i e ade.Isländsk acksp åkligsp åk å dmed yngd- punk på ö s ahäl ena 1900- ale , Vasa: Vasa Uni e si y. Jumpel , R.W. 1961: Übe se zungna u wissenscha liche und echnische Li e a u :Sp achlicheMaßs äbeund Me hodenzu Bes immungih e WesenszügeundP obleme, Be lin: Langenscheid . Kal e kämpe , Ha wig 1992: Hie a chisches Ve gleichen als Me hode in de Fachsp achen o schung. In: Kon as i eFachsp achen o schung. Baumann, K.-D.; Kal e kämpe , H. (eds.). Fo um ü Fachsp achen- o schung Band 20, Tübingen: Gun e Na Ve lag, 61–77. Lau én, Ch is e ; Pich , He ibe (Hg.) 1993: Ausgewähl eTex ezu Te minologie, Wien: Te mNe . Lau én, Ch is e ; Myking, Johan; Pich , He ibe 1998: Te minologieun e de Lupe.VomG enzgebie zum Wissenscha szweig, Wien: Te mNe . Lau én, Ch is e ; Pich , He ibe 2000: A ö e ö a budskap ån en id ill en annan. En semio isk s udie. In: Facksp åkochÖ e sä nings eo i. VAKKI-symposium XX. Vasa 11–13.2.2000, Vasa: Vasa uni e si e , 215–223. Lau én, Ch is e ; Pich , He ibe 2006: App oaches o Te minological Theo ies. A Compa a i e S udy o he S a e-o - he-A . In: Pich , He ibe (ed.): Mode nApp oaches oTe minologicalTheo iesandApplica- ions, Be n: Pe e Lang, 163–184. Lau én, Ch is e ; Myking, Johan; Pich , He ibe ; Jónsson, Sigu du 2008: Insik e ominsik .No diska ese  om ackkommunika ion, No us Fo lag: Oslo. Moschi z-Hagspiel, Bi gi 1994: DieSowje ischeSchulede Te minologie(1931–1991), Wien: Te mNe , IITF-Se ies 5. Nuopponen, Ani a 1994: Beg eppssys em ö  e minologiskanalys. Ac aWasaensia 38, Sp åk e enskap 5, Oehle , Klaus 2007: BlickeausdemPhilosophen u m.EineRückschau, Hildesheim: Geo g Olms Ve lag. Oese , E ha d 1988: Te minologie als Vo ausse zung de Wissens echnik. In: Czap, Hans; Galinski, Ch is ian (eds.) Te minologyandKnowledgeEnginee ing. Supplemen , F ank u /M: INDEKS Ve lag, 224–231. Ozeki, Shuji 1987: Was is de Beg i ? In: Czap, Hans; Galinski, Ch is ian (eds.) Te minologyandKnowl- edgeEnginee ing, F ank u /M.: INDEKS Ve lag, 11–20. Pich , He ibe 1998: Wi scha slinguis ik: ein his o ische Übe blick. In: Ho mann, Lo ha ; Kal e kämpe , Ha wig; Wiegand, He be E ns (H sg.) Fachsp achen.Einin e na ionalesHandbuchzu Fachsp achen- o schungundTe minologiewissenscha , Be lin, New Yo k: Wal e de G uy e , 336–341. Pich , He ibe 2003: The Objec – a Uni o Knowledge? In: Лексикология.Терминоведение.Стилистика. Сборникнаучныхтрудов.ПосвящаетсяюбилеюВладимираМоисеевичаЛейчика, Москва-Рязань, 154–159. Pich , He ibe 2004: Übe legungen zum Gegens and und zum Beg i in de Te minologie. In: Plu ali ä in de Fachsp achen o schung; K.-D. Baumann, H. Kal e kämpe (H sg.); Fo um ü Fachsp achen o schung FFF 67, Tübingen: G. Na Ve lag, 313–340. Pich , He ibe 2005: No ma i e and Desc ip i e Te minology Wo k – a Real Dicho omy? In: Vi alP oblems o  heEnglishLinguis icsandLinguis icDidac ics ( ansla ion o he Russian i le o he publica ion), Moscow: P ome heus Publishing House, 189–198. Pich , He ibe 2010: Einige Gedanken zum Wesen de Beg i e im Rech . In: Synaps;Fagsp åk,Kommuni- kasjon,Kul u kunnskap, Be gen: Ins i u o agsp åk og in e kul u ell kommunikasjon, 19–25. Pilke, Nina 2000: Dynamiska ackbeg epp.A s uk u e a e andeomhandlinga ochhändelse inom eknik, medicinochju idik. Ac aWasaensia 81, Sp åk e enskap 15. Reineke, De le ; Schmi z, Klaus-Di k 2005: Ein üh ungindieSo wa elokalisie ung, Tübingen: Gun e Na Ve lag. Schlomann-Lowe, Elizabe h; W igh , Sue Ellen 2006: The Li e and Wo ks o Al ed Schlomann: Te mi- nology Theo y and Globaliza ion. In: Pich , He ibe (ed.): Mode nApp oaches oTe minologicalTheo- iesandApplica ions, Be n: Pe e Lang, 153–161. 2 6 H. Pich | TheScienceo Te minology:His o yandE olu ion Shelo , Se guey D.; Leichik, Vladimi , M. (eds.) 2004: RussianTe minologyScience(1992–2002), Wien: Te mNe Publishe . Weissenho e , Pe e 1995: Concep ologyinTe minologyTheo y,Seman icsandWo d- o ma ion.IITF-Se ies6, Wien: Te mNe . W igh , Sue Ellen 2009: Jensei s de Fachkommunika ion – ein Blick in die Zukun de Te minologie. In: eDITion,Te minologiemagazin, 2/2009; 10–14. W igh , Sue Ellen 2007: Coping wi h inde e minacy. Te minology and knowledge ep esen a ion esou ces in digi al en i onmen s. In: Inde e minacyinTe minologyandLSP. Bassey Edem An ia (ed.), Ams e dam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 157–179. Wüs e , Eugen 1931/1970: In e na ionaleSp achno munginde Technik.Besonde sinde Elek o echnik. 3. abe malse gänz eAu lage, Bonn: H. Bou ie u. Co. Ve lag. Wüs e , Eugen 1959/60 (2000): Das Wo en de Wel schaubildlich und e minologisch da ges ell . In: Te - minologieundWissenso dnung; H. Pich , K.-D. Schmi z (H sg.); Wien: Te mNe Publishe . Wüs e , Eugen 1968: TheMachineTool, London: Technical P ess. Wüs e , Eugen 1974 (2000): Die allgemeine Te minologieleh e – Ein G enzgebie zwischen Sp achwissen- scha , Logik, On ologie, In o ma ik und den Sachwissenscha en. In: Te minologieundWissenso dnung; H. Pich , K.-D. Schmi z (H sg.); Wien: Te mNe Publishe . Wüs e , Eugen 1979: Ein üh ungindieAllgemeineTe minologieleh eundTe minologischeLexikog aphie; Wien, New Yo k: Sp inge Ve lag. Te MInoLoGIJos MoKsLAs: IsTo IJA I AIdA S aipsnis p adedamas is o inių e minologijos mokslo o ma imosi aplinkybių ap- ž alga, ku ioje ap a iami Wi scha slinguis ik judėjimas i e minologijos p adininkų – E. Wüs e io, E. D ezeno i D. Lo e’s – da bai. Išski iama kele as eo inių e minologi- jos mokslo pag indų aidos e apų, ku iuos pa odo L. Ho manno i H. Kal e kämpe io modeliai. Keliami klausimai, a e minologija y a a ski a disciplina i a galima kalbė i apie e minologijos mokyklas. Apž elgiamos žinių s i ys, u ėjusios į akos e minologi- jos eo ijos aidai, .y. objek as i są oka, objek ų i są okų aizda imo o mos, žinių a kyba i e minog a ija. Kalbama apie e minologijos mokymą, e minijos s anda i- za imą, specialiosios kalbos i e minologijos plana imą, ap a iamas desk ip y inis i p esk ip y inis požiū is į e minologiją i jos plana imą. Kaip iš ados o muluojami penki eiginiai apie e minologijos eo ijos bei jos aikymo aidą i daba inę padė į. Gau a 2011-11-14 He ibe Pich E-mail he [email p o ec ed]