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]