The science of terminology: history and evolution
Full text
6H. Picht | TheScienceofTerminology:HistoryandEvolution The Science of Terminology: History and Evolution HERIBERT PICHT Keywords: historical aspects of terminology, evolution of terminology theory, elements of terminology theory, terminology planning INTRODUCTION As the premise for my article I would like to outline some well-known facts that are widely agreed upon by the majority of the professional community of terminology. 1. Terminology is not an isolated phenomenon which can be researched and practiced without close contact with other fields of knowledge. Terminology is a transand interdisciplinary field of knowledge. 2. Terminology is embedded in ‘cultural discourse’, a concept which has been defined as “a very general semiotic concept, which corresponds to Wittgenstein’s ‘linguistic discourse’. This discourse includes verbal and non-verbal forms of representation in different quantitative constellations. Forms of representation often have a complementary function and may be interchangeable.” (Laurén, Picht 2000: 216) 3. The basic aim of terminology is a transfer of knowledge at different levels of professionalism with their corresponding registers. 4. Terminology consists – as do many other fields of knowledge – of a theoretical and an applied part. In the following I shall deal with evolutions which have taken place in the last few decades, but also point out some still unsolved research questions and problems. SOME HISTORICAL CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT TERMINOLOGY STILL RELEVANT TODAY The German philosopher Oehler (2007: 83), states that Plato in an epistemological paragraph of his 7th letter points out that the cognition of an object requires several cognitive media: the name, the definition, a
7Terminologija | 2011 | 18 clear representation by an illustration and the object itself. As terminologists we can recognise without any doubt this train of thought. Generally speaking the need for terminology has existed for as long as we are able to find evidence of professional communication. The question of terminology became and still becomes central as soon as professional communication fails or is hampered by a deficient terminology. Terminology as the most central part of any knowledge transfer is hardly questioned today. Looking into the historical evidence we can state some central terminological deficits: 1.Lackoforincorrectconceptualordering. Linné (1707-1778) established a systematisation of concepts by his works on taxonomy. The superior aim of all later classifications was the ordering of knowledge as expressed by terms. 2. Confusioncausedbyexcessivesynonymy. Beckmann (1739-1811), professor of philosophy and economics, criticised the multitude of unnecessary and confusing synonyms. 3. Lackoftermsfortheconceptinaparticularlanguage. Already in the Middle Ages the translators of the School of Toledo had to struggle with this problem. 4. Unclearandundefinedconcepts. Clausewitz, the German military theorist, wrote: Only when a clarification of the names and concepts has taken place, may one hope to proceed easily and with clarity in the treatment of the matter. 5. Languageplanningdeficits. Dürer tried to establish a German terminology for mathematical concepts – although without success. Berthollet, de Morveau, Fourcroy and Lavoisier were successful in creating a chemical terminology in the 18th century. Czechoslovakia after 1919, the Baltic States after 1919 and 1990, the Catalans, the Basques and several others had to fight the language planning problem – a problem which is increasingly acute in many language communities. From this small historical evidence we can deduce that it was first and foremost the specialists and language for specific purposes (LSP) mediators (translators) who felt the need to improve professional communication by solving basic terminological problems. The field of linguistics is only peripherally interested or involved in professional communication. The Brothers Grimm may be mentioned here as one exception.
8H. Picht | TheScienceofTerminology:HistoryandEvolution Another characteristic of the first historical attempts to improve terminologies is their empirical and not very scientific approach. Practical solutions were needed then and there and were proposed or realised without a thorough theoretical framework and foundation. However, that does not mean that early ‘terminologists’ were unaware of the theoretical issues and did not consider theoretical questions as Plato or Clausewitz did for example. Today’s theoretical research into the historical development of terminology is still rather weak. However, there are academic as well as lexicographical contributions such as articles, diploma theses and monoor multilingual wordlists related to this subject. A clearly academic approach with a corresponding theoretical foundation was launched by Grinev in 2004. He called the new scientific discipline ‘anthropolinguistics’. Its aim is to research the development and evolution of human language, cognition, knowledge creation and transfer predominantly from a diachronic point of view including LSP and terminology. The interand transdisciplinary approach is obvious considering the combination of knowledge and research from the following disciplines (according to Grinev-Griniewicz et al., forthcoming): gnoseology, epistemology, logic, semiotics, anthropology, the history of science and technology, artificial intelligence, heuristics, age psychology, pedagogical psychology, cognitive psychology, national psychology, ethnolinguistics, cognitive linguistics and culture studies. THE DAWN OF MODERN TERMINOLOGY The intensification of industrialisation and the increase of international commerce at the beginning of the last century gave birth to at least two phenomena of paramount importance: • standardisation, • the Wirtschaftslinguistik movement. In the decades to follow standardisation played and still plays an important role in the development and application of terminology. The Wirtschaftslinguistik movement originated in Austria, Germany, the Netherlands and some Nordic countries which felt the need and pressure to be able to communicate about professional matters with other language communities. Language studies related to LSP had to be established, but who and where were the trained teachers? In the beginning, classical phi-
9Terminologija | 2011 | 18 lologists had to recognise the existence of LSP – the term ‘Fachsprache’ was introduced by Blum in 1916 – and they had to find out how to teach LSP. The most salient element was terminology and therefore as good philologists they tried to approach the problem from a diachronic angle – the so-called ‘historische Wirtschaftslinguistik’. Perhaps the most important experience gained was the fact that no LSP can be taught or learned without professional knowledge – knowledge about the concepts and the terms. We find at this point in time the first encounter between linguistics and professional knowledge. Wirtschaftslinguistik split up into several branches (Picht 1998), the most important of which was the functional Wirtschaftslinguistik developed in the intellectual environment of the Prague School especially in the 1930s. After World War II this line of research was continued and further developed by Drozd and especially by Hoffmann combining it with the pragmatic approach to linguistics in the 1970s and 1980s. Another pioneer in the field of terminology was the engineer and economist Alfred Schlomann. In 1906 he started the compilation and publication of a total of 21 multilingual technical dictionaries in which he realised one of the classical requirements of terminology: the systematic ordering of knowledge (Schlomann-Lowe, Wright 2006: 153ff). THE FOUNDERS – WÜSTER, DREZEN, LOTTE The Austrian Eugen Wüster, the Latvian Ernst Drezen and the Russian Dmitrij Lotte are considered the spiritual fathers of modern termino logy. All three were engineers who recognised the deficits of professional communication. In 1931 Wüster’s doctoral theses “Internationale Sprachnormung in der Technik. Besonders in der Elektrotechnik” was published and in the same year Lotte wrote his central article “Pressing Problems in the Field of Scientific and Technical Terminology”. The common background in the natural sciences determined to a certain extent their synchronic approach to the pressing terminological problems. It seems to be only natural that all three men showed a special interest in standardisation as a vehicle to minimise terminological deficits in professional communication among specialists – a limitation which was quite understandable on the premises of that time, when linguistics was only marginally occupied with LSP. Apparently there was no direct contact between Wüster and Lotte. However, Wüster and Drezen knew each other; both were Esperantists. Although their original expectations towards the communicational possibilities of
1 0 H. Picht | TheScienceofTerminology:HistoryandEvolution Esperanto in LSP were abandoned, the main idea of international communication survived in terminology and can be noticed as a kind of red thread running through their works. By the way, Drezen promoted the translation into Russian and the publication of Wüster’s theses. Common to the three founders were the basic approaches to terminology such as • the concept as a unit of knowledge, • knowledge ordering, • term formation regulated by guidelines, • dynamic standardisation of concepts and terms. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE SCIENCE OF TERMINOLOGY In the beginning the development was not very coherent or even coordinated. Two mainstream developments can be observed. In the Soviet Union the evolution of the theory of terminology started rather early and has continued without mayor interruptions until today (Moschitz-Hagspiel 1994; Shelov, Leitchik 2004; Laurén, Picht 2006). The relationship between terminology and linguistics has been quite different in the Soviet Union and the Western countries. In the Soviet Union, very early famous linguists such as Reformatskij, Vinogradov, Vinokour and many others took part in the development of the theoretical foundations of terminology and LSP (Moschitz-Hagspiel 1994). Alexeeva quoting Leitchik (2004: 65) distinguishes three periods of development in Russia: 1. 1930s–60s: the period of accumulation of knowledge of the term. The term was defined as a special word or phrase to be studied using methods of linguistics and logic (central persons: the aforementioned founders). 2. 1960s–70s: period of comprehension of knowledge of the term. Terminology was regarded as a separate branch of science. 3. 1980s–today: characterized by research exceeding the boundaries of linguistics the subject of terminology came to be regarded as a component of a dynamic model of science. In Western countries, for different reasons, a clear-cut division in the periods of theoretical development is less obvious. In the 1930s it seemed to be more urgent to tackle problems in applied terminology on an empirical basis. In the Nordic countries Norway and Sweden recognised the necessity of practical terminology work and cen-
1 1Terminologija | 2011 | 18 tres such as RTT and TNC started working on terminological diction aries at the end of the 1930s and beginning of the 1940s, respectively. Further proof of this development was the publication of IEC’s multilingual and systematically ordered dictionary InternationalElectrotechnicalVocabulary in 1938. World War II interrupted nearly all theoretical research and only at the end of the 1950s do we find the first really theoretically oriented works in Western countries, for instance Wüster’s article “Das Worten der Welt” (Wüster 1959/60/2000). In the 1950s and 60s linguistics in general was not really interested in LSP and terminology. LSP and terminology were considered the same thing and treated as a lexicological problem which could be solved using traditional semantic theories – according to the opinion of the mostly pure linguist. Standardisation was not really understood and fought with the slogan ‘language cannot be standardised’. Nevertheless, on the one hand the tradition of the Wirtschaftslinguistik movement was not forgotten and on the other, linguists such as Leo Weisgerber were much closer to Wüster’s ideas than the mainstream linguistics at that time. In addition, in the 1960s and 70s the need for professional LSP translators and other language mediators became more and more obvious and led to the establishment of LSP studies at, for instance, the Copenhagen Business School and other academic institution in Western European countries. In such environments the need for terminologies and their significance for LSP translations were evident. It was equally evident that the adequate application of terminologies was inseparably connected to professional knowledge. The works of Jumpelt (1961) reflect this evolution. A fundamental change occurred – in my view – when Lothar Hoffmann in his book KommunikationFachsprache – combined textual linguistics and pragmatics with the following seven approaches to LSP and terminology: • the lexicological-terminological approach, • functional linguistics, • Wirtschaftslinguistik, • functional stylistics, • the natural science and philosophical approach, • the translation-related approach, • theory of sublanguages (Hoffmann 1976). Hahn (1983: 75) converted Hoffmann's description in the following model.
1 2 H. Picht | TheScienceofTerminology:HistoryandEvolution Figure 1: Hoffmann’s model of the vertical structure of LsPs The step towards professional communication including textual linguistics and pragmatics is quite obvious and although the element of terminology is apparently less visible, it can be easily deduced. Later Kalverkämper (1992: 61ff) incorporated Hoffmann’s model into a more complex LSP model including • the language system, • varieties as a sociological category, • stratification (Hoffmann’s model), • medium (written and oral), • interlinguality, • time as a chronological category. TERMINOLOGY – AN AUTONOMOUS DISCIPLINE? Apart from being an engineer Wüster was very well informed on the linguistics of his time, which is reflected in several of his works. On the other hand he recognised very well that terminology is not a mere linguistic discipline; in any case such as linguistics were defined in the 1960s and 70s. This can be seen quite clearly in his extensive article “Die allge-
1 3Terminologija | 2011 | 18 meine Terminologielehre – ein Grenzgebiet zwischen Sprachwissenschaft, Logik, Ontologie, Informatik und den Sachwissenschaften“ (1974/2000). In the approximately 25 years that followed, two positions could be singled out. On the one hand those who advocated for terminology as an absolutely independent discipline and on the other, terminology as a linguistic discipline belonging to applied linguistics. Since linguistics in the last three decades has widened its scope and quite a lot of other disciplines today belong to the array of linguistics such as sociolinguistics, ethnolinguistics, anthropolinguistics and many others, Laurén et al. (1998) argued that terminology today disposes of the same variety of non-linguistic elements as other disciplines adjacent to linguistics. According to this viewpoint terminology may be considered a linguistic discipline, however, within a widened and flexible framework of the discipline ‘linguistics’. That means: terminology is an autonomous, but not completely independent discipline of modern linguistics. Today, the question of autonomy, which caused much discussion, seems to be less salient. The idea of considering terminology as a meta-discipline necessary and appropriate for all fields of knowledge seems to me very attractive, since the approach to modern terminology necessarily includes elements from many different disciplines in order to cope with domainspecific problems (see also Budin 2001: 20). TERMINOLOGICAL SCHOOLS? The concept of terminological schools was imported in the 1970s from the Soviet Union. Felber named in his works the Prague School, the Vienna School and the Russian School. In addition, the Nordic and the Canadian approach should be mentioned in connection with this. The problem of the introduction of the School-concept, however, lies in the dissimilarity of the Russian and the Western School-concepts. The Western concept of ‘School’ implies a common theoretical approach, classification of the research object and basically common research strategies. The result of the introduction of a foreign concept with the same term – a false friend – was the impression that there existed fundamentally different approaches to terminological theory. In 1993 a collection of terminological articles from Eastern and Western Countries was published. A thorough comparison and analysis of the supposed ‘schools’ and ‘approaches’ was carried out based on the parameters of the central issues of terminological theory. The supposed differ-
1 4 H. Picht | TheScienceofTerminology:HistoryandEvolution ences which might justify the constitution of independent schools did not exist. There were differences, of course, which, however, were characterized as individual focal points determined by certain aims and purposes. They belonged all together to terminological theory and could be identified as complementary (Laurén, Picht 1993: 535f). Today, the discussion on terminological schools has died down; different opinions and ideas exist as is usual in scientific disciplines. The result of the IITF colloquium ApproachestoterminologicalTheories.AContrastiveStudyoftheState-of-the-Art held in 2005 in Bergamo was an up-todate comparison, which grossomodo and mutatismutandis confirmed the former analysis (Laurén, Picht 2006: 163f). FIELDS OF KNOWLEDGE WHICH CONTRIBUTE TO TERMINOLOGICAL THEORY Without going into the details of the argumentation in pro and contra I shall state as a kind of hypothesis that the following fields of knowledge have a share in the foundation of the central units of the theory of terminology: • all subject fields as the providers of objects and concepts – we may call it the semantics of terminology; • semiotics, including linguistics, socio-linguistics, cognitive linguistics, anthropolinguistics, etc. providing representational forms and their application under different pragmatic conditions and at different stages of development; • computer science and data processing; • knowledge engineering; • language planning and standardisation; • information and documentation including classification, thesauri and other knowledge ordering systems; • philosophy of science. ELEMENTS OF TERMINOLOGICAL THEORY AND THEIR EVOLUTION The central elements of terminological theory are: • the object and the concept, • representational forms of objects and concepts, • knowledge ordering, • terminography.
2 1Terminologija | 2011 | 18 garded that many terminologists were autodidacts, theoretically close to traditional lexicography and only a little familiar with the theoretical foundations available at the end of the 1970s. This panorama has changed completely. Today, terminology is taught at various levels and in different environments. Adequate and purposeoriented teaching materials and manuals have been developed. The didactic forms range from introductory and specialised courses for different user groups to extensive components of several semesters mostly embedded in academic studies such as LSP translation and communication studies. The Terminology Summer School offered by TermNet in cooperation with universities, the studies at Fachhochschule Köln and Vienna University and the Nordic MA studies in terminology may serve as examples. In short, we can state that terminology has developed into a complete academic discipline. STANDARDISATION AND LSP PLANNING The close connection between standardisation and terminology has a long tradition. It dates back to the time even before the founders of terminology. However, very early on they recognised the need for controlled intervention into the management of terminologies and their development. Drezen underlined the dynamic nature of standardisation and Wüster introduced the idea of developing guidelines for practical terminology work in the 1930s. The foundation of ISO/TC 37 is a proof of this fact. Although the World War II interrupted this development, the basic idea survived and after the war ISO/TC 37 continued its original work. Without being able within this context to go into details about the further development, it can be stated that the working range of TC 37 has expanded considerably. A simple comparison of the number and subjects of the first recommendations and standards in existence in 1972 with today’s thematic array of standards and drafts at different levels of elaboration reveals the interest in and the necessity of standardising methodological issues of terminology on the one hand, and on the other the application of these standards in practice. In other words, standardisation has developed as a medium of LSP planning in standardisable fields of knowledge and embraces not only the corpus but also the status – using Einar Haugen’s terminology.
2 2 H. Picht | TheScienceofTerminology:HistoryandEvolution All language planning and especially LSP planning has always had the bias of prescriptivism traditionally considered the opposite of descriptivism. This dichotomy, however, as many other dichotomies is a simplification; in any case it does not depict the reality in LSP planning. In order to get closer to the facts in LSP and terminology planning, the following model may illustrate on the one hand the proposal of the range of degrees between the extreme points of the dichotomy and on the other the important factors which influence any intervention in a language. Figure 4: degrees between description and prescription (Picht 2004: 197) The two vertical lines represent the synchrony-diachrony relation indicating that subsequent synchronic descriptions on a time axis form a diachrony. The left line indicates a gliding development, whereas the right one should be interpreted as intervals because a prescribed terminology is fixed for a certain time and the development becomes visible in small hops corresponding to Drezen’s concept of dynamic standardisation.
2 3Terminologija | 2011 | 18 The horizontal line represents the transition from free language development to absolutely controlled language development and terminology. The seven degrees indicated are only examples, in between the poles there may be other degrees of prescription depending on the purpose of a given case of prescription. In the middle of the model I have placed the three sociolinguistic factors and indicated their gliding influence on the different degrees of prescription. Language planning in general is a rather old subject field, at least in the Nordic countries and several other Western countries with less used languages or language minorities, for example Norway and the Catalans. Many of the language planning theories have been rather fuzzy or ideologically influenced. However, during the last ten years one can observe an increasing interest and activity concerned with the preservation and development of the national language or mother tongue respectively, especially as a defence against the increasing English influence noticeable in the LSP of many domains and justified by internationalisation and globalisation. In order to consolidate the field of language planning – including LSPs – an increasing number of theoretical works has been presented (e.g. Laurén et al. 2008: 139-195). CONCLUSIONS Taking into account the relatively short and often only fragmentary information and remarks about the historical evolution of the science of terminology I could offer in less than one hour – a thorough description would require at least a book – I am convinced that one today can state that: • The advent of the science of terminology is the logical consequence of the recognition of serious deficits in professional communication. • Science of terminology has developed from practical issues such as guidelines and recommendations in order to remedy communicational deficits passing phases of intensified theorisation and testing to become a complete science. • Science of terminology today fulfils all the requirements of a science with regard to its theoretical foundations, a variety of applications, an active research community, well developed teaching and training activities at the academic and practical levels and extensive publishing activity.
2 4 H. Picht | TheScienceofTerminology:HistoryandEvolution • Science of terminology has meta-status among all other sciences since terminology is a precondition for all kinds of creation of knowledge and its communication, knowledge ordering, knowledge exchange and knowledge proliferation. • Science of terminology is not limited to one particular science or group of sciences, but it serves all sciences, although some theoretical approaches have to be adapted to the nature of the different sciences. Perhaps, you may think that this evaluation is too positive and that there is still much to do. That is absolutely true, there is still much to do, but that is common to all sciences, because theories, approaches and applications have their life cycle until new findings change or replace them. The case of the science of terminology is not different; there is a basic theoretical foundation with does not exclude variants and other opinions, but these variants and other opinions do not invalidate the recognition of terminology as a science in its own right – on the contrary. reFerences Ahmad, Khurshid 1996: A Terminology Dynamic and the Growth of Knowledge: A Case Study in Nuclear Physics and in the Philosophy of Science. In: TKE’96TerminologyandKnowledgeEngineering; C. Galinski, K.-D. Schmitz (eds.), Frankfurt a. M., 1–11. Alexeeva, Larissa 2004: What is a Term? In: RussianTerminologyScience (1992–2002), S. D. Shelov, V. M. Leichik (eds.), Wien: TermNet Publisher, 62–78. Antia, Bassey Edem (ed.) 2007: IndeterminacyinTerminologyandLSP; Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Arntz, Reiner; Picht, Heribert 1982: EinführungindieübersetzungsbezogeneTerminologiearbeit; Hildesheim, Zürich, New York: Georg Olms Verlag. Budin, Gerhard 1994: Do we need an Object Theory? In: InternationalConferenceonTerminologyScience andTerminologyPlanning. Riga,17–19August1992.InternationalIITF-WorkshopTheoreticalIssuesof TerminologyScience. Riga,19–21August1992.IITF-Series4; Wien, 203–208. Budin, Gerhard 2001: A critical evaluation of the state-of-the-art of terminology theory. In: Terminology Science&Research, vol.12 (2001), no. 1–2; 7–23. Dahlberg, Ingetraut 1976: Über Gegenstände, Begriffe, Definitionen und Benennungen: Zur möglichen Neufassung von DIN 2330. In: Muttersprache 2/1976. Felber, Helmut 1984: Terminologymanual, Paris: General Information Programme and UNISIST. Felber, Helmut; Budin, Gerhard 1989: TerminologieinTheorieundPraxis.ForumfürFachsprachenforschung, Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Galinski, Christian; Picht, Heribert 1997: Graphic and Other Semiotic Forms of Knowledge Representation in Terminology Management. In: HandbookofTerminologyManagement, vol. 1; Sue Ellen Wright, Gerhard Budin (eds.), Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 42–61. Grinev, Sergej 1993: AnIntroductiontoTerminologyScience (title translated from Russian), Moscow. Grinev, Sergej 2004a: Evolution of Terminology and Culture: Establishing Foundations for Anthropological Linguistics. In: Siergiej Grinev-Griniewicz; Slawomir M. Raube; Patricia Thomas (eds.) Languageand Culture:EstablishingFoundationsforAnthropologicalLinguistics, Bialystok: Wyzsza Szkola Finansow i Zarzadzania w Bialymstoku, 27–42.
2 5Terminologija | 2011 | 18 Grinev, Sergej 2004b: Terminology in the era of globalisation. In: RussianTerminologyScience(1992–2002), S. D. Shelov, V. M. Leichik (eds), Wien: TermNet Publisher, 49–61. Grinev-Griniewicz, S.; Skopiuk, T.; Sorokina, E.; Thomas, P. (forthcoming) FoundationsofAnthropolinguistics. Hahn, Walther von 1983: Fachkommunikation.Entwicklung.LinguistischeKonzepte.BetrieblicheBeispiele; Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter. Hoffmann, Lothar 1976/1984: KommunikationsmittelFachsprache.EineEinführung, Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. (1984: 2. überarbeitete Auflage). ISO 1087-1:2000 Terminologywork–Vocabulary.Part1:Theoryandapplication. Jónsson, Sigurdur 2007: Detvildatänkandetochdetkultiverade.Isländskfackspråkligspråkvårdmedtyngdpunktpåförstahälftenav1900-talet, Vasa: Vasa University. Jumpelt, R.W. 1961: ÜbersetzungnaturwissenschaftlicherundtechnischerLiteratur:SprachlicheMaßstäbeund MethodenzurBestimmungihrerWesenszügeundProbleme, Berlin: Langenscheidt. Kalverkämper, Hartwig 1992: Hierarchisches Vergleichen als Methode in der Fachsprachenforschung. In: KontrastiveFachsprachenforschung. Baumann, K.-D.; Kalverkämper, H. (eds.). Forum für Fachsprachenforschung Band 20, Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, 61–77. Laurén, Christer; Picht, Heribert (Hg.) 1993: AusgewählteTextezurTerminologie, Wien: TermNet. Laurén, Christer; Myking, Johan; Picht, Heribert 1998: TerminologieunterderLupe.VomGrenzgebietzum Wissenschaftszweig, Wien: TermNet. Laurén, Christer; Picht, Heribert 2000: Att överföra budskap från en tid till en annan. En semiotisk studie. In: FackspråkochÖversättningsteori. VAKKI-symposium XX. Vasa 11–13.2.2000, Vasa: Vasa universitet, 215–223. Laurén, Christer; Picht, Heribert 2006: Approaches to Terminological Theories. A Comparative Study of the State-of-the-Art. In: Picht, Heribert (ed.): ModernApproachestoTerminologicalTheoriesandApplications, Bern: Peter Lang, 163–184. Laurén, Christer; Myking, Johan; Picht, Heribert; Jónsson, Sigurdur 2008: Insikterominsikt.Nordiskateser omfackkommunikation, Novus Forlag: Oslo. Moschitz-Hagspiel, Birgit 1994: DieSowjetischeSchulederTerminologie(1931–1991), Wien: TermNet, IITF-Series 5. Nuopponen, Anita 1994: Begreppssystemförterminologiskanalys. ActaWasaensia 38, Språkvetenskap 5, Oehler, Klaus 2007: BlickeausdemPhilosophenturm.EineRückschau, Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag. Oeser, Erhard 1988: Terminologie als Voraussetzung der Wissenstechnik. In: Czap, Hans; Galinski, Christian (eds.) TerminologyandKnowledgeEngineering. Supplement, Frankfurt/M: INDEKS Verlag, 224–231. Ozeki, Shuji 1987: Was ist der Begriff? In: Czap, Hans; Galinski, Christian (eds.) TerminologyandKnowledgeEngineering, Frankfurt/M.: INDEKS Verlag, 11–20. Picht, Heribert 1998: Wirtschaftslinguistik: ein historischer Überblick. In: Hoffmann, Lothar; Kalverkämper, Hartwig; Wiegand, Herbert Ernst (Hrsg.) Fachsprachen.EininternationalesHandbuchzurFachsprachenforschungundTerminologiewissenschaft, Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 336–341. Picht, Heribert 2003: The Object – a Unit of Knowledge? In: Лексикология.Терминоведение.Стилистика. Сборникнаучныхтрудов.ПосвящаетсяюбилеюВладимираМоисеевичаЛейчика, Москва-Рязань, 154–159. Picht, Heribert 2004: Überlegungen zum Gegenstand und zum Begriff in der Terminologie. In: Pluralitätin derFachsprachenforschung; K.-D. Baumann, H. Kalverkämper (Hrsg.); Forum für Fachsprachenforschung FFF 67, Tübingen: G. Narr Verlag, 313–340. Picht, Heribert 2005: Normative and Descriptive Terminology Work – a Real Dichotomy? In: VitalProblems oftheEnglishLinguisticsandLinguisticDidactics (translation of the Russian title of the publication), Moscow: Prometheus Publishing House, 189–198. Picht, Heribert 2010: Einige Gedanken zum Wesen der Begriffe im Recht. In: Synaps;Fagspråk,Kommunikasjon,Kulturkunnskap, Bergen: Institutt for fagspråk og interkulturell kommunikasjon, 19–25. Pilke, Nina 2000: Dynamiskafackbegrepp.Attstruktureravetandeomhandlingarochhändelserinomteknik, medicinochjuridik. ActaWasaensia 81, Språkvetenskap 15. Reineke, Detlef; Schmitz, Klaus-Dirk 2005: EinführungindieSoftwarelokalisierung, Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Schlomann-Lowe, Elizabeth; Wright, Sue Ellen 2006: The Life and Works of Alfred Schlomann: Terminology Theory and Globalization. In: Picht, Heribert (ed.): ModernApproachestoTerminologicalTheoriesandApplications, Bern: Peter Lang, 153–161.
2 6 H. Picht | TheScienceofTerminology:HistoryandEvolution Shelov, Serguey D.; Leichik, Vladimir, M. (eds.) 2004: RussianTerminologyScience(1992–2002), Wien: TermNet Publisher. Weissenhofer, Peter 1995: ConceptologyinTerminologyTheory,SemanticsandWord-formation.IITF-Series6, Wien: TermNet. Wright, Sue Ellen 2009: Jenseits der Fachkommunikation – ein Blick in die Zukunft der Terminologie. In: eDITion,Terminologiemagazin, 2/2009; 10–14. Wright, Sue Ellen 2007: Coping with indeterminacy. Terminology and knowledge representation resources in digital environments. In: IndeterminacyinTerminologyandLSP. Bassey Edem Antia (ed.), Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 157–179. Wüster, Eugen 1931/1970: InternationaleSprachnormunginderTechnik.BesondersinderElektrotechnik. 3. abermalsergänzteAuflage, Bonn: H. Bouvier u. Co. Verlag. Wüster, Eugen 1959/60 (2000): Das Worten der Welt schaubildlich und terminologisch dargestellt. In: TerminologieundWissensordnung; H. Picht, K.-D. Schmitz (Hrsg.); Wien: TermNet Publisher. Wüster, Eugen 1968: TheMachineTool, London: Technical Press. Wüster, Eugen 1974 (2000): Die allgemeine Terminologielehre – Ein Grenzgebiet zwischen Sprachwissenschaft, Logik, Ontologie, Informatik und den Sachwissenschaften. In: TerminologieundWissensordnung; H. Picht, K.-D. Schmitz (Hrsg.); Wien: TermNet Publisher. Wüster, Eugen 1979: EinführungindieAllgemeineTerminologielehreundTerminologischeLexikographie; Wien, New York: Springer Verlag. TerMInoLoGIJos MoKsLAs: IsTorIJA Ir rAIdA Straipsnis pradedamas istorinių terminologijos mokslo formavimosi aplinkybių apžvalga, kurioje aptariami Wirtschaftslinguistik judėjimas ir terminologijos pradininkų – E. Wüsterio, E. Drezeno ir D. Lotte’s – darbai. Išskiriama keletas teorinių terminologijos mokslo pagrindų raidos etapų, kuriuos parodo L. Hoffmanno ir H. Kalverkämperio modeliai. Keliami klausimai, ar terminologija yra atskira disciplina ir ar galima kalbėti apie terminologijos mokyklas. Apžvelgiamos žinių sritys, turėjusios įtakos terminologijos teorijos raidai, t.y. objektas ir sąvoka, objektų ir sąvokų vaizdavimo formos, žinių tvarkyba ir terminografija. Kalbama apie terminologijos mokymą, terminijos standartizavimą, specialiosios kalbos ir terminologijos planavimą, aptariamas deskriptyvinis ir preskriptyvinis požiūris į terminologiją ir jos planavimą. Kaip išvados formuluojami penki teiginiai apie terminologijos teorijos bei jos taikymo raidą ir dabartinę padėtį. Gauta 2011-11-14 Heribert Picht E-mail her[email protected]