Dimensions of Terminology Work

6Anita Nuopponen | Dimensions of Terminology Work Dimensions of Terminology Work AnitA nuopponen University of Vaasa Keywords: terminology work, normative terminology work, descriptive terminology work, dichotomies, translation-oriented terminology work, terminography, terminology management, standardization, concept-orientation, term-orientation 1. InTroDucTIon normative/descriptive, systematic/ad hoc, mono-/bi-/multilingual, concept-/term-oriented are some of the dichotomies or trichotomies in the literature on terminological activities. In his paper Dichotomies: impossible and indispensable? Johan Myking (2007: 265) discusses in depth the most common di-/trichotomies concerning the theoretical basis of termin ology field. He regards them as “important features of the metadiscourse of this discipline,” arguing that studying them might “contribute to a better understanding of the state-of-the-art within the field of terminology as well as current tensions and development trends”. These dichotomies are taken frequently also as departure points when motivating new theoretical approaches (see more e.g. in Myking 2001, 2007; Budin 2001; Antia 2001; cabré 1999, 2003; Temmerman 2000). In this paper, dichotomies and trichotomies related to practical terminology work are taken as expressions for dimensions of terminology work. This paper is a contribution to the research into the state-of-the-art of terminology work. Tentative, multidimensional typology (concept system) of terminology work is outlined covering thirteen criteria of division, or “dimensions,” which are grouped into those related to target group, purpose, compiler, product, or method. In addition to some established di-/trichotomies in the literature, I have also looked for some new ones that can be detected when scrutinizing different ways of working with terminologies. They reveal criteria of division for different types of terminology work and borderlines between what could be regarded as terminology work and what belongs, for instance, to lexicography. In addition, some established dichotomies were reshuffled. 7Terminologija | 2018 | 25 The sources include literature on the theory and practice of the field of terminology: journals, conference reports, field overviews, handbooks (e.g. Wright & Budin 1997a, b; Steurs & Kockaert 2014; Felber 1984), textbooks (e.g. cabré 1999; Picht & Draskau 1985; Sager 1990), guidelines and standards (ISo 1087; ISo 704). In the following, the concept of terminology work and the designations utilized for it are discussed, and a framework for the analysis of the various dimensions and characteristics of terminology work is established. After that, each of them is explored more thoroughly. 2. TerMInology WorK The ISo standard 1087-1 (2000) defines terminology work as “work concerned with the systematic collection, description, processing and presentation of concepts and their designations”. The ISo 704 (2009: v) includes the following as the main activities of terminology work: – “identifying concepts and concept relations; – analysing and modelling concept systems on the basis of identified concepts and concept relations; – establishing representations of concept systems through concept diagrams; – defining concepts; – attributing designations (predominantly terms) to each concept in one or more languages; – recording and presenting terminological data, principally in print and electronic media (terminography).” I generally subscribe to the ISo 1087 (2000) definition for termin ology work, but for the purposes of this study I would prefer to stretch it to some extent in order to be able to address, among other things, also “non-systematic” terminology related work and to explore a more varied practices. In the literature of the field, we find at least following alternative designations for terminology work: terminography, terminology management, terminology processing and terminology. The last one (terminology) appears frequently in the literature. For instance, Vesna lušicky and Tanja Wissik (2015: 8) define the activity as follows: “The goal of terminology is to record and organize the meaning and usage of specialised terms and to make those available in various terminological resources like (online) termbases, dictionaries, glossaries, and terminology standards, in order to use them in texts, translation, and specialised discourse.” 8Anita Nuopponen | Dimensions of Terminology Work However, I would rather avoid this polysemous usage of the term terminology since it is not always clear from the context which “termin ology” the authors are talking about (research field, discipline, terminology work, set of terms, glossary of terms etc.). The term terminography, coined in analogy with lexicography, was suggested by Alain rey for “applied descriptive terminology” in the seventies (rey 1995: 23, 129). Terminography has found its way into international english usage alongside terminology work. It appears, for instance, in ISo 704 (2009) as seen above and in ISo 1087 (2000), but referring to a “part of terminology work concerned with the recording and presentation of terminological data”, which “may be presented in the form of term banks, glossaries, thesauri or other publications”. Instead of terminology work or terminography, Sue ellen Wright and gerhard Budin (1997a) use the term terminology management with the motivation that it would fit better in the english language usage and would be analogical with “information management” (ibid. 1997a: 2). According to them, terminology management consists of “structuring, storing, exchanging, disseminating and using terminological information for text production (including dic tionaries, etc.)”. Also for them, terminography is the activity of recording terminological information, and not the wider activity. KlausDirk Schmitz (2009), in his turn, prefers the ISo 704 usage of terminology work but wants to use the term terminology management instead of terminography (see also lušicky & Wissik 2015: 8). Juan Sager (1990) uses the term terminology processing, which however has not spread as much as the others have. In this article, the term terminology work will be utilized for the wider activity related with terminologies while terminology management is – as K.-D. Schmitz (2009) sees it – the “part of terminology work concerned with the recording and presentation of terminological data”. In the terminological literature, various types of terminology work are described quite differently. There are many synonymous terms and cases of polysemy. In this study, however, I have been more interested in their elements of different types of terminology work and concentrate mostly on their characteristics. Various types of terminology work that are described in the literature are taken here as complements to each other. (Figure 1). The focus on characteristics of terminology work is also a theoretical effort towards a multifaceted and multidimensional theory of terminology that g. Budin (2001: 20) mentions. The classification is tentative and open for further discussion and development. In the following, 9Terminologija | 2018 | 25 various characteristics of the different approaches will be separated and examined more or less as elements that could be put together in many different ways. Among several alternatives for grouping the different criteria of division I chose five main groups guided by the basic questions: to whom, why, by whom, which product, and how? (See Figure 1). Figure 1. dimensions of terminology work 1 0 Anita Nuopponen | Dimensions of Terminology Work 3. TerMInology WorK To WHoM? Target group. Terminology work has various target groups that have somewhat different needs. In addition, the questions “to whom” and “by whom” are intertwined and cannot always be separated from each other. normative terminology work and terminological standardization were introduced to address communication hinders among the domain experts and to meet their terminology needs. Another large terminology user group are translators, and it has been frequently emphasized that their needs differ from those of the subject specialists (see Wright & Wright 1997: 148). Moreover, they also do terminology work themselves (more in chapter 5). Indeed, special attention has been paid to how to integrate terminology work as a part of translation work (translation-oriented termin ology; e.g. Hohnhold 1990; Wright & Wright 1997). In addition to these two groups, terminology work can be targeted e.g. for internal (e.g. technical writers), or external users in organizations or companies (e.g. customers), students, laypersons, and general audience. Furthermore, not all users are humans but terminology work is done also for machine translation, machine-readable ontologies, and for the needs of various types of information systems. 4. WHy TerMInology WorK? There is a myriad of reasons why terminology work is needed. However, I shall take up only two basic dichotomies that lie behind terminology work. The first one is the immediacy to the needs the user has: terminology work either anticipates the needs of the user or is performed at request. The second one has to do with the purpose of the work: terminology work has as its purpose either to influence or to describe the usage of terms and concepts on a field. Immediacy. From the point of view of immediacy to user needs, terminology work can be either proactive and just-in-time terminology work (lISe guidelines 2013: 21–23), or something in between. For V. lušicky and T. Wissik (2015: 9), who are focusing on translation-oriented terminology work, proactive terminology work is “text-based terminology work that is concerned with the collection, description, procession and presentation of concepts and their designations before the translation process.” However, lISe guidelines (2013) use the term for a wider activity covering all types of terminology work that are “done by assessing probable 1 1Terminologija | 2018 | 25 future needs concerning domains to be discussed, texts to be translated, legislation to be passed, etc. Terminologists try to anticipate future needs by working on entire domains and text-specific terminology that is not already present in the terminological resource of reference.” (lISe guidelines 2013: 23) In this sense, proactive terminology work covers the activities required by terminology planning, such as assessing the present and future needs of organization, enterprise, subject field, language, country, etc. For instance, the eu has made far-reaching terminology planning strategies that define the terminology work to be done (see e.g. Fischer 2010). In addition, standardization of terminology is proactive as well as the termin ology work at companies. Kara Warburton (1997: 677) emphasizes that companies need “to identify their terminology needs and plan a course of action to meet those needs early in order to reduce work in the future”. While proactive terminology work anticipates the needs well ahead, at the other end of the continuum lies terminology work that is done at the moment of the need. It is often called ad-hoc terminology (work) but also the terms just-in time, on demand, express, or occasional terminology (work) could describe well its character (see e.g. ghallchobhair 2008; lISe report 2013). The term ad-hoc terminology (work) is utilized by different authors for different concepts, for example, as opposite to “systematic termin ology work” that I will return later on to. Ad-hoc or just-in time terminology work is done either by the user (“DIy terminology work”) or by various types of terminology services and centres, or in-house terminologists (“terminology on demand”). claudia Dobrina (2010: 82) describes the latter case as “terminological emergency ward”, which “has emerged to meet urgent and not too vast terminological needs”. It is needed when single or a set of terminological problems must be solved in a short time (lISe guidelines 2013: 23; cabré 1999: 152). Needs. Furthermore, a distinction between domain-oriented and textoriented terminology work can be done (e.g. Schmitz 2009). The need for the first one comes from the field, and its knowledge is taken as its point of departure. comprehensive material is collected including various types of relevant documents as well as field experts interviewed and consulted (Wright & Wright 1997: 148). An example of text-oriented terminology work is the preparatory work that translators do when solving terminological problems found in texts they translate. They do this by con- 1 2 Anita Nuopponen | Dimensions of Terminology Work sulting other texts for translation equivalents and other terminological data prior translating the text. Instead of systematic subject field study, the translators rather create their own terminology resources “presented with random extracts from a domain” (Wright & Wright 1997: 148). Systematic terminology work (management) has been described also as “subject-field-driven” while translator-oriented ad-hoc terminology as “textdriven” (Wright & Wright 1997: 147; Faber 1999: 98). Purpose. The main purpose and task for terminology work from the very beginning has been to facilitate the mutual understanding inside the special fields and over the language and other boundaries. In order to do this, two approaches can be taken: descriptive or normative (prescriptive) terminology work. Descriptive terminology work ideally would result in terminological products (vocabularies, term bases, etc.) that cover all the terminological and conceptual variation of the target field and comment the relationships between the variants leaving the selection of the most suitable one to the user. The purpose of the normative or prescriptive terminology work is to make “the target audience to adopt the preferred term and avoid rejected ones” (Karsch 2014: 294), such as terminology concerning a product or service of a company, legal system, etc. Same methods can be utilized for most of the work processes because descriptive work constitutes the first part of the normative work process (see cabré 1999: 132). In addition to these two types of terminology work, Helmut Felber (1984: 189) reminds us that there is also the type of terminography “used by scientific communities which is based on the idea that scientific concepts are in a constant flux. For them scientific terminology can only be recommended but not prescribed.” 5. By WHoM? Expertise. Those who work with terminologies in one way or another, could be roughly divided into three overlapping categories: “creators,” “compilers & mediators” and “users”. The first ones are domain experts (syn. subject specialists, subject matter experts, SME) who create and use concepts and terms of their field in the first place (Sager 1990: 197; cabré 1999: 121). They create concept systems, define concepts and agree on shared terminology – or promote their own. The results of this kind of terminology work are documented either explicitly or implicitly in stand- 1 3Terminologija | 2018 | 25 ards, handbooks, articles, textbooks, technical documents, etc. Terminological methods, ISo standards and guidebooks have been targeted for this group. The work of these terminology “creators” could be treated as “primary” when opposed to what terminologists and others involved do when collecting and analyzing terminological data, and producing and disseminating terminological products (“secondary”). The third group, “users,” are those who need terms and concepts in their work, such as translators, technical writers, teachers, information and documentation specialists, laymen and students as well as those who work in the field. The terminology related work the “users” do consists e.g. of searching for relevant terms, concepts, definitions, and equivalents (“tertiary”). The difference between the groups that do terminology related job could be said to lie in their relationship to the object of terminology work and their degree of expertise in the subject matter. At one end of the continuum, there are the domain experts who “own” the terminology, i.e. they know the terminology of their field and have a say in, which terms to select and how to define concepts. They have a decisive role in terminology project groups, and terminologists need to consult them (see e.g. Picht & Draskau 1985: 167; cabré 1999: 121) and documents written by them. At the other end of the continuum, there are those, who do terminology work or search terminology without being field specialists. In between these two ends is the type of terminology work that is done as cooperation between terminologists and domain experts (see below). It must be noted that an expert is also a “user” and, for instance, a terminologist or translator could be also an expert and a “creator” (more on expertise e.g. in Karsch 2014: 295–296). Collaboration. As to the organization of the work, we could identify a difference between terminology work according to the degree of collaboration, whether it is an individual, intraor interorganizational effort. In addition, the dimension of national and international cooperation has been present from the very beginning. At its best, terminology work is a collaborative effort, and different types of collaborative models have been suggested in the literature (Felber 1984: 29; Picht & Draskau 1985; Karsch 2014) the basic model requiring collaboration at least between a terminologist and a domain expert. Heribert Picht & Jennifer Draskau (1985: 167) even point out that “Terminologists [–] who imagine that their work can succeed without expert advice [–] have misunderstood some of the 1 4 Anita Nuopponen | Dimensions of Terminology Work basic principles of their profession”. The latest developments are crowdsourcing efforts enabled by web-based platforms and cloud services (Karsch 2014). Continuity. Terminology work can be a freestanding onetime or recurrent effort, or it can be continuous practice integrated in the processes of an organization or e.g. in the work of a translator. Some projects are carried out only once but sometimes projects are repeated – as it is done e.g. in standardization. This is because subject fields are not static but changes occur, which also influence concepts, concept systems and terms. Terminology projects can reach from extensive to more restricted undertakings starting with establishing a project group, planning and budget making, etc. and finally ending e.g. with a finished product in a form of a vocabulary or a set of entries in a terminological database. Terminological literature quite often describes terminology work as a project, even though it is not always possible or even necessary to go to such lengths. In many cases, a small-scale terminology work would do, such as for adhoc work, query answering, or terminology database maintenance in order to research for missing entries, equivalents or subfield terminologies. As mentioned above, terminology work is also done as a continuous process, e.g. in a company or an organization. This kind of terminology work is something for which the term terminology management would be suited for, especially when a terminology management system is utilized. For instance, cristina Valentini (2016: 35) describes the terminology management of Patent cooperation Treaty Termbase (PcT) in the following way: “concepts and terms are contributed daily by PcT staff terminologists, translators, and short-term terminology trainees. contributions may involve creation of new records for concepts not existing in the PcT Termbase or completion of existing records by adding missing languages.” 6. WHIcH ProDucT? Product. Depending on the product, terminology work processes differ from each other – at least in the final steps, when the results are compiled and presented. one end of the “product continuum” consists of a single term, definition, or equivalents, e.g. when processing terminology queries, or adding entries in a term bank. At the other end lies an extensive terminological vocabulary in a form of e.g. print, e-book, pdf, webpages, a set of entries in a term bank or a whole term bank. Another 2 1Terminologija | 2018 | 25 ISo 1087-1 2000 Terminology work – Vocabulary – Part 1. Theory and application, geneva: International organization for Standardization. ISo 704 2009 Terminology work – Principles and methods, geneva: International organization for Standardization. Karsch B. 2014: Terminology work and crowdsourcing. coming to terms with the crowd. – Handbook of Terminology. F. Steurs, H. Kockaert (eds.), Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing company, 291–303. Kuhmonen K. 1999: Kurkistus termipalvelun kulissien taakse. – Toimikunnista termitalkoisiin. K. Kuhmonen (ed.), Helsinki: Tekniikan Sanastokeskus, 154–158. laurén c., Myking J., Picht H. 1997: Terminologi som vetenskapsgren, lund: Studentlitteratur. lISe guidelines 2013: chiocchetti e., Heinisch-obermoser B., löckinger g., lušicky V., ralli n., Stanizzi I. & Wissik T. Guidelines for collaborative legal/administrative terminology work, Bolzano: eurAc research. lušicky V., Wissik T. 2015: Procedural Manual on Terminology. Translation-Oriented Terminology Work. Available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.731.8552&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Myking J. 2001: Socioterminology, terminology planning and standardization. – IITF Journal 12, no. 1–2, 49–64. Myking J. 2007: Dichotomies: impossible and indispensable? – Evidence-based LSP – Translation, text and terminology. Ahmad K., rogers M. (eds.), 265–283. Also at: http://www.computing.surrey.ac.uk/lsp2003/ lSP ProceeDIngS.pdf. Picht H., Draskau J. 1985: Terminology: An Introduction, Surrey: university of Surrey. Pointer report PoInTer – Proposals for an operational Infrastructure for terminology in europe. 1996. At: http://www.computing.surry.ac.uk/ai/pointer/report/intro.html. rey A. 1995: Esseys on Terminology. Translated and edited by J.c. Sager, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing company. Sager J. 1990: A Practical Course in Terminology Processing, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing company. Schmitz K.-D. 2009: Applied Principles of Terminology Work. Slides. Terminology Summer School, 06–10 July 2009, cologne. Available at: http://www.termnet.org/downloads/english/events/tss2009/TSS2009_ KDS_TerminologyWork.pdf. Steurs F., Kockaert H. 2014: Handbook of Terminology 1, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing company. Tamás D., Papp M. e., Petz A. 2016: Translator as Terminologist. – The Modern Translator and Interpreter. Ildikó Horváth (ed.), Budapest: eötvös loránd university, 57–78. Available: http://www.eltereader.hu/ media/2016/04/HorvathTheModernTranslator.pdf. Temmerman r. 2000: Towards New Ways of Terminology Description: The sociocognitive approach, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing company. Valentini c. 2016: Quality control in Terminology Management. – Term Bases and Linguistic Linked Open Data. H. erdman Thomsen, A. Pareja-lora, B. nistrup Madsen (eds.), copenhagen Business School, 34–43. Available at: http://openarchive.cbs.dk/handle/10398/9323. Valentini c., Westgate g., rouquet P. 2016: The PcT Termbase of the World Intellectual Property organization. Designing a database for multilingual patent terminology. – Terminology. International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Issues in Specialized Communication 22, Issue 2, 171–200. Warburton K. 1997: globalization and terminology management. – Handbook of Terminology Management: Application-oriented terminology 2. compiled by S. e. Wright, g. Budin, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing company, 677–696. Wright S. e., Budin g. 1997a: Handbook of Terminology Management: Basic aspects of terminology 1, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing company. Wright S. e., Budin g. 1997b: Handbook of Terminology Management: Application-oriented terminology 2, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing company. Wright S. e., Wright l. D. 1997: Terminology Management for Technical Translation. – Handbook of Terminology Management 1: Basic aspects of terminology. compiled by S. e. Wright, g. Budin, Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing company, 147–159. Wüster e. 1969: Die vier Dimensionen der Terminologiearbeit. – Mitteilungsblatt für Dol metscher und Übersetzer 2/15 (März), 1–6. 2 2 Anita Nuopponen | Dimensions of Terminology Work TerMINoLoGIJos dArBo AsPeKTAI Straipsnyje aptariami įvairūs terminologijos darbo aspektai. Nagrinėjama terminologijos literatūra, ieškant aiškių ir numanomų dichotomijų ir trichotomijų, susijusių su tiksline grupe, poreikio tenkinimo skuba, įvairiais poreikiais, tikslu, ekspertize, bendradarbiavimu, tęstinumu, produktu, kalba, medžiaga, priemone, orientacija ir sistemiškumu. Kaip tyrimo rezultatas pateikta daugiaaspektė terminologijos darbo tipologija (sąvokų sistema), kurios kategorijos gali būti įvairiai derinamos. Pavyzdžiui, terminologijos darbas gali būti savarankiška vienkartinė ar pasikartojanti veikla, kurios produktas – spausdintas, el. knygos ar pdf formatu parengtas, tinklalapyje pateiktas ar kaip terminų straipsnių rinkinys terminų banke įdėtas terminų žodynas. Be to, terminologijos darbas gali būti organizuota, bendradarbiavimu paremta veikla, kurios imasi projekto grupė, organizacijos padalinys ar profesionalus terminologas, jis gali būti vertėjo ar spe cia liųjų tekstų rengėjo darbo dalis, atliekama nuolat ar pagal poreikį. Šiuolaikinis terminologijos darbas labai įvairus. Jam reikia tokių metodų ir principų, žinynų ir vadovėlių, kurie galėtų aprėpti įvairius poreikius ir suteiktų tinkamą pagrindą skirtingų tipų terminologijos darbui: terminologijos planavimui, greitai atliktinam terminologijos darbui, įvairioms tikslinėms grupėms numatytai veiklai, įskaitant kompiuterijos sprendimus, projektus, tęstinę terminologijos tvarkybą ir kt. gauta 2018-07-03 Anita nuopponen university of Vaasa P.o. Box 700 65101 Vaasa Finland