Coping with the Main Terms of Terminology

3 9Terminologija | 2018 | 25 Coping with the Main Terms of Terminology1 PeeP Nemvalts Tallinn University Keywords: concept, designator, harmonisation, term, termstock, terminology, terminology standard, vocabulary InTroduCTIon Most terminologists seem to agree that all terminological work – term planning, management, harmonisation and standardisation – should be grounded on a clear understanding of concept-based assessment of any term and on the necessity to manage any system of concepts in a way where each concept is defined as precisely as possible. Bearing in mind that every concept refers to a real-world entity, this paper deals with the designative relation between terms as linguistic units and concepts as knowledge units. M. Teresa Cabré et al. (2007: 1) have stated “diversity of approaches to the notion of “term” is determined by the needs of specific applications. But needs must not lead to confusion about the nature of terms.” I believe the nature of ‘term’ as the concept is to be a designator of a (specialised) concept in some field. Though this could be any symbol, it is mostly a lexical unit of a language. Whether this designator consists of one or more lexemes and has simpler or more complex morphological or syntactic structure does not change the nature of term. Therefore, other proposed designators for ‘a designator of a (specialised) concept’ than term, such as unit of understanding (Temmerman 2000) or specialised knowledge unit (Cabré 2003), or even terminological unit (Cabré et al. 2007) do not make it clearer what is the essence of the concept designated by the term term. 1 This paper is based on the talk “The essence of terminology and work on Estonian terms” at the 2nd International Scientific Conference on Terminology in Vilnius 1–2 June 2017, the first short version of this was presented at the EAFT-EAT Summit 2016 in Luxembourg: “What is the proper meaning of the term terminology?”. The study has been supported by the Estonian Ministry of Education and research through the Eestikeelse terminoloogia programm 2013–2017. 4 0 Peep Nemvalts | Coping with the Main Terms of Terminology Being aware of past discussions on “the terminology of terminology” in textbooks of the field and elsewhere, I do not think it is necessary to refer to these here. My purpose is to strive towards clarity of the conceptual system by using a term system which is as unambiguous as possible. The aim of this paper is to examine how the most central terms of terminology (like concept, designation, term, terminology, vocabulary) have been used and to discuss if there is any reason to adjust the usage of these terms henceforth. The desire for unambiguousness holds true for every national language, including English. My starting point is term usage in Estonian, but as English is used both as lingua franca and is also the main working language for term standardisation, my focus will be on English and I will suggest coinages in order to solve some ambiguity problems found in English terms. MonoSEMy AS MAJor prErEquISITE For dISTInCT TErM SySTEMS Within any speciality, it is desirable that a consistent conceptual system is mirrored by an orderly system of purposefully functional terms, emerging from the language structure. Every language has its own morphological, syntactic and word formational means. However, one of the most essential features of a functional term in any specialised language is monosemy (combined with a monoreferential relation between a concept and real-world entity). Whatever language is used, every specialist should understand what is the concept and which terms are the most appropriate to designate the concepts of their subject field. This is the only way to ensure that fellow specialists and other interested people understand what exactly is meant in a text. users of specialised language often talk about defining terms (or words), mistakenly considering the terms concept and term as synonyms. E.g., “Therefore it seems logical to turn to the definition of this word in the defining dictionaries with the aim of establishing the exact meanings of this term” (Griniewicz 2016: 7). Studying the usage of the Lithuanian term sąvoka ‘concept’ in academic Lithuanian, Asta Mitkevičienė (2017: 125) has concluded that the features of a term are ascribed to a concept. According to Arvi Tavast (2008: 38–39), a study of the press subcorpus of the Tartu university corpus of standard Estonian featured the word mõiste (“concept”) in the meaning ‘knowledge unit’ in 31% and in the 4 1Terminologija | 2018 | 25 meaning of a lexical unit (= term) in 29% of relevant occurrences. In 2002–2004, he posed the question “Mis on mõiste?” (“What is a concept?”) to Estonian MA students of translation studies at the beginning of their terminology course. This survey shows that only 12% of respondents identified the Estonian word mõiste (“concept”) as a knowledge unit, whereas 46% considered it to be a lexical unit (Tavast 2008: 39–40). difficulties in finding good terms appears to be a major issue for doctoral students at all Estonian universities. In 2012 in collaboration with some sociologists of Tallinn university, we conducted a survey of their opinions on using academic languages (roosmaa et al. 2014)2. A webbased questionnaire was answered by 240 respondents, 92% of whom had Estonian as their first language. The selection of phd students was representative of both the universities present and subjects taught in Estonia. Answers to the question “What is the most difficult for you while writing scientific texts in Estonian?” convinced that the biggest trouble is finding appropriate terms. This difficulty was admitted by 59% of phd students in natural sciences and technical disciplines, as well as by 44% of phd students in social sciences and humanities. The use of terms in Estonian academic texts was a problem for 70% of readers among phd students in the field of natural and technical sciences and for 58% in the field of social sciences and humanities. More specifically, difficulties in finding appropriate terms while writing Estonian specialised texts were frequent for 57% and occasional for 37% of phd students in social sciences and humanities. The same difficulties were frequent for 71% and occasional for 26% of phd students of nat ural and technical sciences. While writing scientific texts in English, difficulties of finding an appropriate term were frequent for 22% of phd students in social sciences and humanities and 21% of phd students of natural and technical sciences. These difficulties were occasional for 61% of phd students in social sciences and humanities and 60% of phd students of natural and technical sciences. Finding an appropriate Estonian term was never problematic for only 3% of phd students of natural and technical sciences and for 6% in social sciences and humanities. Finding an appropriate English term was never 2 The survey was part of the study Estonian as Language of Higher Education and Science, supported by Eu through the Primus programme of European Social Fund. 4 2 Peep Nemvalts | Coping with the Main Terms of Terminology challenging for 19% of phd students of natural and technical sciences and for 17% in social sciences and humanities. Self-assessment of their knowledge of academic languages resulted in average3 as follows: 4,0 for academic Estonian and 3,2 for academic English among phd students of social sciences and humanities and 3,7 for academic Estonian and 3,6 for academic English among phd students of natural and technical sciences. The fact that native Estonian students find it slightly less difficult to use English terms may indicate a less critical attitude towards the terms used in English scientific texts. These widespread problems in choosing an appropriate term for a concept in any specialised language could often be caused by polysemy or, in some cases, by synonymy. Consequently, there are strong reasons why terminology courses are needed for every speciality on all levels of higher education. It is also necessary for specialists in any field to keep on receiving training in terminology and to take part in practical term work. The most crucial issue to clarify is: what is the essence of the concept ‘terminology’ and how clearly the meaning of the term terminology is interpreted. Everyone dealing with terms of any field should ask the following questions: •What does the term terminology designate? •Has terminology been used as a monosemic, unambiguous term? •How many different meanings this term is supposed to have? And last, but not least: •For how many concepts is it appropriate to use this term as a designator? or, to put it another way: is it reasonable to use the term terminology for designating several concepts? It is also preferable to avoid polysemy in denoting closely related concepts. However, the term designation has been used both for the concept of ‘distinguishing name, sign, or title’ and for the concept ‘the act of designating, indicating or identifying’. I prefer designation only for the latter meaning, and suggest the term designator to be used solely for ‘distinguishing name, sign (of a concept)’. unfortunately, the international terminology standard (ISo 1087-1:2002) inlcudes designator merely as an admitted term (entry 3.4.1) and designation is preferred for the concept ‘representation of a concept (3.2.1) by a sign which denotes it’. 3 Average on the scale of 1-5 where 5 = very good, 1 = very poor. 4 3Terminologija | 2018 | 25 The concept system would be clearer if the process of designating or labelling (designation) and the lexical label as a tool (designator) were consistently distinguished. rute Costa and Christophe roche (2013) have posed some questions about designation as used in ISo 704 and ISo 1087, including “Is a designation a representation?” and “Are “designation” and “term” synonyms? Sometimes it looks like. Sometimes it does not”. The fact that such questions arise, confirms that the term designation is not univocal. nor is the term terminology. professor of economics uno Mereste was known to the larger public as a member of the Estonian parliament and as an author of many articles on the usage of Estonian as a general language, as well as a legal language and indeed as specialised language of his own subject field, economics. He has coined several economy terms in Estonian and has asserted that the Estonian (et) term terminoloogia may denote four different concepts (Mereste 1969): defined either from the viewpoint of ontology or gnoseology, and either in a narrower or wider sense. u. Mereste’s table included only Estonian examples, but same kind of ambiguous usage can be found in several languages, including English (en), Finnish (fi) and Swedish (sv), sometimes terminology or its counterparts in other languages meaning ‘special(ised) vocabulary’, sometimes ‘study of terms’, sometimes ‘special(ised) language, LSp’, etc. (cf. Table 1). Table 1. Polysemic usage of estonian terminoloogia, designating four concepts, by U. Mereste (1969). English, Finnish and Swedish are added by me in order to explain the possible conceptual differences if these would be made. It does not mean that all of these words are actively used as terms in those three languages. et terminoloogia fi terminologia sv terminologi en terminology onToLoGy GnoSEoLoGy narrower sense et ‘oskussõnavara’ fi ‘termistö, oppisanasto’ sv ‘fackord (och -uttryck)’ en ‘specialised vocabulary’ ‘oskussõnaõpetus’ ‘termioppi’ ‘terminologilära, fackordlära’ ‘study of terms’ WIdEr SEnSE et ‘oskuskeel, erialakeel’ fi ‘ammatti-, erikoiskieli’ sv ‘fackspråk’ en ‘specialised language’ ‘oskuskeeleõpetus’ ‘erikoiskielten tutkimus’ ‘fackspråksforskning’ ‘LSp theory, research of LSp’ 4 4 Peep Nemvalts | Coping with the Main Terms of Terminology Estonian terminologist and lexicographer rein Kull (2000: 142) has observed that terminoloogia in Estonian, as well as its equivalents in English (terminology), German (Terminologie), French (terminologie), and russian (тepминoлoгия) have also been used to designate the concept of ’specialised language’, that is to say polysemous manner. Language planner and terminologist Tiiu Erelt (2007: 12) considers it impossible to designate the concept ‘specialised language’ by the term terminology and its equivalents in Estonian, German, Finnish and russian, but is satisfied with the three other concepts that are designated with this term (cf. Table 2. For comparability reasons, I have modified T. Erelt’s table to match u. Mereste’s pattern). The title of her book, Terminiõpetus (‘study of terms’), is synonymous with oskussõnaõpetus in Estonian. Table 2. Polysemic usage of estonian terminoloogia and its equivalents in Finnish, German, english and russian, designating three concepts, by T. erelt (2007) et terminoloogia fi terminologia de Terminologie en terminology ru терминология (onToLoGy) (GnoSEoLoGy) nArroWEr SEnSE et ‘oskussõnavara’ fi ‘termistö’ de ‘Fachwortschatz’ en ‘specialized vocabulary’ ru ‘терминология ‘oskussõnaõpetus, terminiõpetus’ ‘oppi termeistä’ ‘Terminologielehre, Fachwortlehre’ ‘terminology science,’ ‘терминоведение’ WIdEr SEnSE et ‘oskuskeel, erialakeel’ fi ‘ammatti-, erikoiskieli’ de ‘Fachschprache’ en ‘specialised language’ ru ‘язык науки и техники’ ‘oskuskeeleõpetus’ ‘oppi erikoiskielistä’ ‘Terminologielehre, Fachschprachlehre’ ‘terminology science, LSp theory’ ‘терминология’ Likewise, M. T. Cabré Castellví (1999: 32) has noted: “The word terminology refers to at least three different concepts: a. The principles and conceptual bases that govern the study of terms b. The guidelines used in terminographic work c. The set of terms of a particular special subject The first concept refers to the whole field, the second, to its methodology, and the third to the sets of terms on a specific topic.” 4 5Terminologija | 2018 | 25 Some other comparable terms always are monosemic. When we need to designate the concept ‘a sum or stock of words employed by a language, group, or individual, (or work or in a field of knowledge)’, we can use designators vocabulary or lexis or wordstock – and these are monosemes (cf. Figure 1), the same way as the Estonian equivalents sõnavara or leksika. Likewise, a monosemic relation is undoubtedly true between the concept ‘study of words’ and the term lexicology (en), leksikoloogia or sõnavaraõpetus (et) – nobody tries to claim that the intensions of the concepts ‘study, science of lexis,’ and ‘language’ coincide or that the terms lexicology and vocabulary both designate the same concept – that of ‘a sum or stock or set of words’. In contrast, different meanings of terminology often occur in the same text by the same author. While in some occasions the precise meaning of this term (i.e. the designated concept) can be guessed from the context, it is not always clear enough in other instances. Such ambiguity may cause confusion as to what concept exactly is meant, and in worst cases, the reader or listener misinterprets the term used. In some contexts, the author is forced to use double designators in order to ensure proper meaning, like terms and terminology by Isabel durán-Muñoz (2014: 84): “… it works at the level of terms (terminology), that is, the domains share the same concepts but name them differently.”. ToWArdS SySTEMATIC TErM HArMonISATIon And TErMSToCK pLAnnInG one of the most basic documents for terminologists and everyone dealing with the terms of any speciality is the international terminology standard (ISo 1087-1:2002)4 where those introductory statements are found: 4 Here I refer to the publication of the standard which consists of the English text of the International Standard ISo 1087-1:2000 Terminology work – Vocabulary – part 1. Theory and application and an identical Estonian translation of the English text. Figure 1. Monosemic designative usage of lexicology and the terms designating the object of study in lexicology 4 6 Peep Nemvalts | Coping with the Main Terms of Terminology [1] “The main purpose of this international terminology standard is to provide a systemic description of the concepts in the field of terminology and to clarify the use of the terms in this field.” (ISo 1087-1:2002: V) [2] “This International Standard establishes a basic vocabulary for the theory and application of terminology work.” (ISo 10871:2002: VII) Here, several central terms are used: concept, term, terminology, – but also – vocabulary [2]. Terms like terminology planning, terminology work and terminology standard, as used in [3] do not help to provide a systemic description, because the word terminology in these terms is not monosemic.5 That is why it is not quite appropriate in a context like this. please note that vocabulary as used in [3 en] below is clearly a monosemic term and for defining the scope of this Standard: “This International Standard establishes a basic vocabulary for the theory and application of terminology work.” (ISo 1087-1:2002: 1) However, using vocabulary (entry 3.7.2) as designator for a subdivision of terminological dictionary (entry 3.7.1) does not seem necessary. Vocabulary (of a subject field) can be presented in dictionaries and glossaries. [3 en] “3.6.4 terminology planning activities aimed at developing, improving, implementing and disseminating the termino logy (3.5.1) of a subject field (3.1.2) noTE Terminology planning involves all aspects of terminology work (3.6.1) and has among other objectives the objective of achieving vocabulary control through such normative documents as thesauri and terminology standards.” (ISo 1087-1:2002: 14) The corresponding term entry 3.6.4 in the Estonian translation of the Standard, cf. [3 et], does not make the use of the word terminoloogia, instead the precise designator termin (en term) occurs, resulting in a compound noun terminikorrastus. However, the phrase “the termino logy (3.5.1) of a subject field (3.1.2)” in the English version of the Standard corresponds to “mingi valdkonna (3.1.2) termino loogia (3.5.1)“ in the Estonian translation. 5 Surely, polysemy is a reason why the word terminology returned 13 300 hits on ISo web pages, as Håvard Hjulstad pointed out in his talk at the EAFT-EAT Summit 2016 in Luxembourg. 4 7Terminologija | 2018 | 25 [3 et] “3.6.4 terminikorrastus oskuskeelekorraldus tegevused mingi valdkonna (3.1.2) termino loogia (3.5.1) arendamiseks, täiustamiseks, kasutuselevõtuks ja levitamiseks” (EVS-ISo 1087-1:2002) The second term oskuskeelekorraldus shown as a synonym in [3 et] is misleading, because the proper meaning of oskuskeel is ‘special language, LSp’. What are we planning when we plan terminology? And what is terminology work exactly? I suggest that instead of such polysemic terminology (en) and terminoloogia (et) monosemic terms would be used, like in [3.1]. [3.1. en] 3.6.4 termstock planning activities aimed at developing, improving, implementing and disseminating the terms ~ termstock (3.5.1) of a subject field (3.1.2) noTE Termstock planning involves all aspects of term(inological) work (3.6.1) and has among other objectives the objective of achieving vocabulary control through such normative documents as thesauri and term standards. [3.1. et] “3.6.4 terminikorrastus tegevused mingi valdkonna (3.1.2) terminivara (3.5.1) arendamiseks … Just like the concept of ‘a sum, stock or set of words’ is best designated by a univocal English term as wordstock (cf. fig. 1), it would be the best solution to designate the concept of ‘a sum, stock or set of terms’ with an analogous coinage termstock (cf. fig. 2). This could be a shorter unambiguous term in comparison to specialised vocabulary. Similar kind of parallel term formation can be found, for example, in Estonian and Finnish (cf. table 3). In Estonian both terms are compounds, whereas in Finnish these are derivatives. Table 3. similar concepts designated by similarly formed terms in three languages en wordstock termstock et sõnavara termnivara fi sanasto termistö ‘a sum, stock or set of words’ ‘a sum, stock or set of terms’ 5 4 Peep Nemvalts | Coping with the Main Terms of Terminology universitetų doktorantų apklausos, tinkamo termino radimas – viena iš pagrindinių problemų. Sunkumą parinkti tinkamus estiškus ir angliškus terminus dažnai lemia daugiareikšmiškumas. Kiekviena kalba turi tik jai būdingas morfologines, sintaksines ir darybines priemones, tačiau vienas iš svarbiausių bet kurioje specialiojoje kalboje tinkamai funkcionuojančio termino bruožų yra vienareikšmiškumas. Nepaisant to, pats pagrindinis terminas terminology žymi keturias sąvokas. Net terminologijos standarte ISo 1087-1 išskirtos dvi terminology reikšmės. Straipsnio autorius mano, kad angliškas terminas terminology bei jo atitikmenys kitomis kalbomis turėtų būti nuosekliai ir vienareikšmiškai vartojami tik vienai sąvokai – ‘mokslui apie terminus’ – žymėti ir siūlo vartoti darinį termstock vietoj standarte terminijos reikšme vartojamo termino terminology. Kai kurie kiti terminai – terminology planning, terminology work, terminology science ir designation – aptariami atsižvelgiant į jų vienareikšmiškumą ir vartojimo nuoseklumą sąvokų sistemoje. Sistemiškas terminų darninimas ir terminijos planavimas yra būtinas kuo didesniam vienareikšmiškumui bet kurioje žinių srityje, įskaitant termi nologiją, pasiekti. Gauta 2018-07-28 peep nemvalts Tallinn university School of Humanities, Centre for Academic Estonian narva mnt 25, 10120 Tallinn, Estonia peep.nemv[email protected]