Pamela Faber BenítezpersName (2009date). “The cognitive shift in terminology and specialized translation.” MonTi: Monografías de Traducción e Interpretacióntitle·j.
Object of study — terminologyterm theory itself - the several accounts of what a termterm is, what a concept is, and whether the relation between them is one-to-one
Research question — what the successive theories of terminologyterm assume about termsterm and concepts, and which of those assumptions survive contact with how specialized language is actually used
Contribution — a critical overview of terminologyterm theories from Wuster's General Terminologyterm Theory to frame-based terminologyterm, tracing one movement - prescriptive to descriptive - and naming what each successor still cannot do
phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | a founding theory that required one term per concept, and a literature that found polysemy, synonymy and variation everywhere it looked — “The reason for this was that the first approximations to terminology had normalization as a primary objective. Great pains were taken to strive for totally unambiguous communication through standardization. This signified univocity or one-to-one reference between term and concept. The fact that the majority of terms designate concepts that represent objects in a specialized knowledge field meant that such an objective seemed possible to achieve. Nevertheless, it soon became apparent that this was more a desideratum than a reality.” | |
| claim-type | critique — “However, this is an extremely idealized vision of specialized communication. Even the most cursory examination of specialized language texts shows that terminological variation is quite frequent, and that such variation seems to stem from parameters of specialized communication, such as the knowledge and prestige of the speakers, text function, text content, etc. The same concept can often be designated by more than one term, and the same linguistic form can be used to refer to more than one concept.” | |
| method — evidence | — “Although for many years the GTT offered the only set of principles and premises for compiling terminological data, its rigid view of the semantics of terminological units projected a uniformly limited representation of specialized knowledge concepts without allowing for their multidimensional nature.” | |
| object of study — evidence | — “One of the basic assertions of General Terminology Theory (Wüster 1979; Felber 1984) is that terms in specialized language are inherently different from general language words because of the monosemic reference between terms and concepts. In other words, the general claim is that a term or a specialized language unit can be distinguished from a general language word by its single-meaning relationship with the specialized concept that it designates,” | |
| research question — evidence | — “Terminology theory seems to be evolving from prescriptive to descriptive with a growing focus on the study of specialized language units from a social, linguistic and cognitive perspective.” | |
| contribution — evidence | — “Terminology theory seems to be evolving from prescriptive to descriptive with a growing focus on the study of specialized language units from a social, linguistic and cognitive perspective.” | |
| transfer | from cognitive psychology (Rosch's Prototype Theory): categorization in terminology is based on Prototype Theory, using degrees of typicality as the configurational pattern for conceptual categories — “The model of categorization in Cognitive Linguistics and sociocognitive terminology is based on Rosch’s (1978) Prototype Theory, which uses degrees of typicality as the configurational pattern for conceptual categories or domains.” | transfers[0] |
| transfer | from cognitive linguistics (frame semantics): frames are carried into terminology as cognitive structuring devices based on experience, providing the background knowledge that motivates the existence of words — “Frames also fall within cognitive linguistic approaches, and are a type of cognitive structuring device based on experience that provide the background knowledge and motivation for the existence of words in a language as well as the way those words are used in discourse.” | transfers[1] |
| mechanism | THE FOUNDING THEORY REQUIRED ONE TERM PER CONCEPT. `a term or a specialized language unit can be distinguished from a general language word by its single-meaning relationship with the specialized concept that it designates` — “One of the basic assertions of General Terminology Theory (Wüster 1979; Felber 1984) is that terms in specialized language are inherently different from general language words because of the monosemic reference between terms and concepts. In other words, the general claim is that a term or a specialized language unit can be distinguished from a general language word by its single-meaning relationship with the specialized concept that it designates,” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | and pursued it by standardization: `Great pains were taken to strive for totally unambiguous communication through standardization. This signified univocity or one-to-one reference between term and concept ... it soon became apparent that this was more a desideratum than a reality` — “The reason for this was that the first approximations to terminology had normalization as a primary objective. Great pains were taken to strive for totally unambiguous communication through standardization. This signified univocity or one-to-one reference between term and concept. The fact that the majority of terms designate concepts that represent objects in a specialized knowledge field meant that such an objective seemed possible to achieve. Nevertheless, it soon became apparent that this was more a desideratum than a reality.” | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | THE MAPPING FAILS IN BOTH DIRECTIONS AT ONCE - `The same concept can often be designated by more than one term, and the same linguistic form can be used to refer to more than one concept` - and the variation `seems to stem from parameters of specialized communication, such as the knowledge and prestige of the speakers` — “However, this is an extremely idealized vision of specialized communication. Even the most cursory examination of specialized language texts shows that terminological variation is quite frequent, and that such variation seems to stem from parameters of specialized communication, such as the knowledge and prestige of the speakers, text function, text content, etc. The same concept can often be designated by more than one term, and the same linguistic form can be used to refer to more than one concept.” | mechanisms[2] |
| mechanism | so the target moves as well as the aim: `standardization is a chimera since language is in constant change ... the use of one term instead of another can reflect the knowledge, social and professional status of a group of users, as well as the power relationships between speakers` — “According to socioterminologists, standardization is a chimera since language is in constant change. Polysemy and synonymy are inevitably present in terminology and specialized texts, and the use of one term instead of another can reflect the knowledge, social and professional status of a group of users, as well as the power relationships between speakers.” | mechanisms[3] |
| mechanism | AND THE OBJECT BEING CLASSIFIED DOES NOT HOLD STILL - `Terminological variation also points to the fact that concept systems and definitions are not static. This is a reality that any theory that aspires to explanatory adequacy must deal with` — “Terminological variation also points to the fact that concept systems and definitions are not static. This is a reality that any theory that aspires to explanatory adequacy must deal with.” | mechanisms[4] |
| mechanism | THE DISCIPLINE'S INDEPENDENCE WAS BOUGHT WITH THE CLAIM - `In its initial phase Terminology was interested in asserting its independence ... This goal led terminologists to go to great lengths to emphasize differences between the two even to the extent of affirming that terms are not words` — “In its initial phase Terminology was interested in asserting its independence from other knowledge areas, and creating a totally independent discipline. This goal led terminologists to go to great lengths to emphasize differences between the two even to the extent of affirming that terms are not words.” | mechanisms[5] |
| mechanism | and the successors give it up: frame-based terminology `maintains that trying to find a distinction between terms and words is no longer fruitful or even viable, and that the best way to study specialized knowledge units is by studying their behavior in texts` — “For example, it also maintains that trying to find a distinction between terms and words is no longer fruitful or even viable, and that the best way to study specialized knowledge units is by studying their behavior in texts.” | mechanisms[6] |
| mechanism | AND THE DEFINITIONS STOP BEING COPIED AND START BEING DERIVED - `Such definitions are not entered in a cut-and-paste fashion from other resources. Rather they are based on the data extracted from corpus analysis` — “Such definitions are not entered in a cut-and-paste fashion from other resources. Rather they are based on the data extracted from corpus analysis, which is the main source of paradigmatic and syntagmatic information about the term.” | mechanisms[7] |
| critiques | the General Terminology Theory's requirement of monosemic, one-to-one reference between terms and concepts — “One of the basic assertions of General Terminology Theory (Wüster 1979; Felber 1984) is that terms in specialized language are inherently different from general language words because of the monosemic reference between terms and concepts. In other words, the general claim is that a term or a specialized language unit can be distinguished from a general language word by its single-meaning relationship with the specialized concept that it designates,” | claim_relations[0] |
| critiques | prototype-based and idealized-cognitive-model accounts of category structure, as unconstrained and resting on the modeller's intuition — “Clear disadvantages of such representations are the fact that: (1) they are totally unconstrained; (2) they are based on an open-ended inventory of conceptual relations; (3) the resulting ICM and/or prototypical category seems to be largely based on the intuition of the modeler.” | claim_relations[1] |
| critiques | the Communicative Theory of Terminology, for describing conceptual representation without saying how such representations are created or constrained — “Although in a very general way the CTT bases its semantics on conceptual representation, it is more than a little vague when it comes to explaining how such representations are created, what they look like, and what constraints they might have:” | claim_relations[2] |
| extends | the descriptive turn begun by socioterminology and continued by sociocognitive terminology, into a frame-based account that takes syntax seriously — “For example, it also maintains that trying to find a distinction between terms and words is no longer fruitful or even viable, and that the best way to study specialized knowledge units is by studying their behavior in texts.” | claim_relations[3] |
| sense | `terminology` (small t) - the units in any specialized knowledge field; `Terminology` (capital T) - the study of specialized language. The disambiguation is carried entirely by the capital letter — “As has often been observed, terminology is a word that can either begin with an upper or lower-case letter. When terminology begins with a small t, it refers to the units in any specialized knowledge field. When it begins with a large T, it refers to the study of specialized language.” | senses[0] |
| sense | `monosemic reference` - a term distinguished from a general-language word by its single-meaning relationship with the concept it designates, and by the stability of that relationship in texts — “One of the basic assertions of General Terminology Theory (Wüster 1979; Felber 1984) is that terms in specialized language are inherently different from general language words because of the monosemic reference between terms and concepts. In other words, the general claim is that a term or a specialized language unit can be distinguished from a general language word by its single-meaning relationship with the specialized concept that it designates,” | senses[1] |
| sense | `domain` - in Terminology, either the knowledge area itself OR the categories of concepts within the specialized field, with different consequences either way — “Regarding conceptual domains, in Terminology there seem to be two views on the matter, which are not necessarily incompatible with each other. A domain sometimes refers to the knowledge area itself, and other times, refers to the categories of concepts within the specialized field. Evidently, whether a domain is defined as one or the other has dramatic consequences for its internal structure.” | senses[2] |
| sense | `terminological knowledge base` (Meyer) - a term bank whose concepts and designations are linked by meaningful relationships, not only generic-specific and part-whole — “When term bases become terminological knowledge bases, as conceived by Meyer, they enhance data because the concepts and designations are linked to each other by meaningful relationships. Although the traditional generic-specific and part-whole relationships are contemplated, there is a greater emphasis on other types of relationships that enrich the resulting knowledge structure, such as cause-effect, object-function, etc. (Bowker & L’Homme 2004).” | senses[3] |
| sense | `standardization` - the founding objective of the discipline, and in socioterminology `a chimera since language is in constant change` — “According to socioterminologists, standardization is a chimera since language is in constant change. Polysemy and synonymy are inevitably present in terminology and specialized texts, and the use of one term instead of another can reflect the knowledge, social and professional status of a group of users, as well as the power relationships between speakers.” | senses[4] |
| control | reading each theory against a task it must serve - specialized translation - rather than against its own stated aims — held — “Since Wüster believed that the function of Terminology was to create and standardize names for concepts, syntax was not regarded as falling within the scope of Terminology. Within the context of this theory, Terminology was also exclusively synchronic, and the diachronic dimension of terms was not considered. Wüster’s principal objectives (apud Cabré 2003: 173) were: 1. To eliminate ambiguity from technical languages by means of standardization of terminology in order to make them efficient tools of communication; 2. To convince all users of technical languages of the benefits of standardized terminology; 3. To establish terminology as a discipline for all practical purposes and to give it the status of a science.” — rules out a theory being judged coherent on its own terms while being useless for the work; the GTT 'did not even attempt to account for the syntax and pragmatics of specialized language ... it could not be usefully applied to translation' — “Although for many years the GTT offered the only set of principles and premises for compiling terminological data, its rigid view of the semantics of terminological units projected a uniformly limited representation of specialized knowledge concepts without allowing for their multidimensional nature.” | controls[0] |
| control | listing the founding theory's five premises and the five rebuttals against them point for point — held — “1. Language cannot be regarded as divorced from concepts since it plays a crucial role in the conception of categories.” — rules out a critique that argues past its target; each objection is attached to the premise it denies, so a reader can see which of the five survive — “1. Concepts have a central role in regards to their linguistic designations. 2. Concepts and categories have clear-cut boundaries. 3. Terminographic definitions should always be intensional. 4. Monosemic reference is the rule in terminology, where there is a oneto-one correspondence between terms and concepts. 5. Specialized language can only be studied synchronically.” | controls[1] |
| control | checking whether the successor theories deliver what they promise - asking the CTT how its conceptual representations are created and what constraints they have — failed — “With this affirmation the CTT seems to be avoiding the question of what specialized meaning is, and what its components are.” — rules out a replacement being credited for the ambition rather than the delivery; the answer is that the CTT 'is more than a little vague' on exactly that — “Although in a very general way the CTT bases its semantics on conceptual representation, it is more than a little vague when it comes to explaining how such representations are created, what they look like, and what constraints they might have:” | controls[2] |
| weight | the General Terminology Theory's requirement of monosemic, one-to-one reference between terms and concepts — 0.95 — “One of the basic assertions of General Terminology Theory (Wüster 1979; Felber 1984) is that terms in specialized language are inherently different from general language words because of the monosemic reference between terms and concepts. In other words, the general claim is that a term or a specialized language unit can be distinguished from a general language word by its single-meaning relationship with the specialized concept that it designates,” | claim_relations[0] |
| weight | prototype-based and idealized-cognitive-model accounts of category structure, as unconstrained and resting on the modeller's intuition — 0.9 — “Clear disadvantages of such representations are the fact that: (1) they are totally unconstrained; (2) they are based on an open-ended inventory of conceptual relations; (3) the resulting ICM and/or prototypical category seems to be largely based on the intuition of the modeler.” | claim_relations[1] |
| weight | the Communicative Theory of Terminology, for describing conceptual representation without saying how such representations are created or constrained — 0.85 — “Although in a very general way the CTT bases its semantics on conceptual representation, it is more than a little vague when it comes to explaining how such representations are created, what they look like, and what constraints they might have:” | claim_relations[2] |
| weight | the descriptive turn begun by socioterminology and continued by sociocognitive terminology, into a frame-based account that takes syntax seriously — 0.9 — “For example, it also maintains that trying to find a distinction between terms and words is no longer fruitful or even viable, and that the best way to study specialized knowledge units is by studying their behavior in texts.” | claim_relations[3] |
| outcome | control — held — “Although for many years the GTT offered the only set of principles and premises for compiling terminological data, its rigid view of the semantics of terminological units projected a uniformly limited representation of specialized knowledge concepts without allowing for their multidimensional nature.” — “Since Wüster believed that the function of Terminology was to create and standardize names for concepts, syntax was not regarded as falling within the scope of Terminology. Within the context of this theory, Terminology was also exclusively synchronic, and the diachronic dimension of terms was not considered. Wüster’s principal objectives (apud Cabré 2003: 173) were: 1. To eliminate ambiguity from technical languages by means of standardization of terminology in order to make them efficient tools of communication; 2. To convince all users of technical languages of the benefits of standardized terminology; 3. To establish terminology as a discipline for all practical purposes and to give it the status of a science.” | controls[0] |
| outcome | control — held — “1. Concepts have a central role in regards to their linguistic designations. 2. Concepts and categories have clear-cut boundaries. 3. Terminographic definitions should always be intensional. 4. Monosemic reference is the rule in terminology, where there is a oneto-one correspondence between terms and concepts. 5. Specialized language can only be studied synchronically.” — “1. Language cannot be regarded as divorced from concepts since it plays a crucial role in the conception of categories.” | controls[1] |
| outcome | control — failed — “Although in a very general way the CTT bases its semantics on conceptual representation, it is more than a little vague when it comes to explaining how such representations are created, what they look like, and what constraints they might have:” — “With this affirmation the CTT seems to be avoiding the question of what specialized meaning is, and what its components are.” | controls[2] |
| limitation | THE PAPER SAYS THE CATEGORY HAS NO AGREED CONTENT - `the structure of categories is a recurrent topic, and in this sense there have been many proposals regarding their organization. In the final analysis, however, the only consensus is that A category can be virtually anything` — “Indeed, the structure of categories is a recurrent topic, and in this sense there have been many proposals regarding their organization (Green & Evans 2006). In the final analysis, however, the only consensus is that a category can be virtually anything.” | limitations[0] |
| limitation | and that the structures are built by intuition and blessed afterwards - `in even the best terminology manuals, the question of how to develop such configurations is never truly explained, and as a general rule, they are regarded as a product of the terminologist's intuition, which is afterwards validated by consultation with experts` — “It is unfortunate that this focus has not as yet been accompanied by a systematic reflection on how to elaborate, design, and organize such a structure. For example, in even the best terminology manuals, the question of how to develop such configurations is never truly explained, and as a general rule, they are regarded as a product of the terminologist’s intuition, which is afterwards validated by consultation with experts.” | limitations[1] |
| limitation | THE PROTOTYPE MODEL IS REJECTED FOR A REASON THAT APPLIES TO ANY HAND-BUILT ONTOLOGY - prototypes `are not viable as a mode of category organization because at the end of the day they depend on the subjective evaluation of the terminologist. It is impossible to define the exact nature of the center of prototypical categories or explain how degrees of prototypicality can be objectively measured` — “This seems to point to the fact that prototypes, despite being a very seductive concept, are not viable as a mode of category organization because at the end of the day they depend on the subjective evaluation of the terminologist. It is impossible to define the exact nature of the center of prototypical categories or explain how degrees of prototypicality can be objectively measured.” | limitations[2] |
| limitation | with the same charge laid against idealized cognitive models: they are `totally unconstrained`, based on `an open-ended inventory of conceptual relations`, and the result `seems to be largely based on the intuition of the modeler` — “Clear disadvantages of such representations are the fact that: (1) they are totally unconstrained; (2) they are based on an open-ended inventory of conceptual relations; (3) the resulting ICM and/or prototypical category seems to be largely based on the intuition of the modeler.” | limitations[3] |
| limitation | and `domain` is ambiguous in the discipline that depends on it most - it `sometimes refers to the knowledge area itself, and other times, refers to the categories of concepts within the specialized field`, and which one is meant `has dramatic consequences for its internal structure` — “Regarding conceptual domains, in Terminology there seem to be two views on the matter, which are not necessarily incompatible with each other. A domain sometimes refers to the knowledge area itself, and other times, refers to the categories of concepts within the specialized field. Evidently, whether a domain is defined as one or the other has dramatic consequences for its internal structure.” | limitations[4] |
| limitation | This is a critical review, not a study: no corpus is measured, no theory is tested, and the judgements between theories - including that the CTT's relation to Linguistics is `A LIGHT FLIRTATION with various models rather than a MONOGAMOUS RELATIONSHIP with any one` - are the author's readings, argued rather than evidenced — “Despite its clear description of the nature of terminological units and the fact that it mentions a term’s “syntactic structure and valence”, the CTT avoids opting for any specific linguistic model. The relation of the CTT with Linguistics is more in the nature of a light flirtation with various models than a monogamous relationship with any one in particular.” | limitations[5] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | — “As has often been observed, terminology is a word that can either begin with an upper or lower-case letter. When terminology begins with a small t, it refers to the units in any specialized knowledge field. When it begins with a large T, it refers to the study of specialized language.” | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | — “The reason for this was that the first approximations to terminology had normalization as a primary objective. Great pains were taken to strive for totally unambiguous communication through standardization. This signified univocity or one-to-one reference between term and concept. The fact that the majority of terms designate concepts that represent objects in a specialized knowledge field meant that such an objective seemed possible to achieve. Nevertheless, it soon became apparent that this was more a desideratum than a reality.” | content_tags.findings[1] |
| finding | — “However, this is an extremely idealized vision of specialized communication. Even the most cursory examination of specialized language texts shows that terminological variation is quite frequent, and that such variation seems to stem from parameters of specialized communication, such as the knowledge and prestige of the speakers, text function, text content, etc. The same concept can often be designated by more than one term, and the same linguistic form can be used to refer to more than one concept.” | content_tags.findings[2] |
| finding | — “In its initial phase Terminology was interested in asserting its independence from other knowledge areas, and creating a totally independent discipline. This goal led terminologists to go to great lengths to emphasize differences between the two even to the extent of affirming that terms are not words.” | content_tags.findings[3] |
| finding | — “Terminological variation also points to the fact that concept systems and definitions are not static. This is a reality that any theory that aspires to explanatory adequacy must deal with.” | content_tags.findings[4] |
| finding | — “Indeed, the structure of categories is a recurrent topic, and in this sense there have been many proposals regarding their organization (Green & Evans 2006). In the final analysis, however, the only consensus is that a category can be virtually anything.” | content_tags.findings[5] |
| finding | — “It is unfortunate that this focus has not as yet been accompanied by a systematic reflection on how to elaborate, design, and organize such a structure. For example, in even the best terminology manuals, the question of how to develop such configurations is never truly explained, and as a general rule, they are regarded as a product of the terminologist’s intuition, which is afterwards validated by consultation with experts.” | content_tags.findings[6] |
| quantity | 5 premises — concept primacy, clear-cut boundaries, intensional definitions, monosemic reference, and synchronic study only — “1. Concepts have a central role in regards to their linguistic designations. 2. Concepts and categories have clear-cut boundaries. 3. Terminographic definitions should always be intensional. 4. Monosemic reference is the rule in terminology, where there is a oneto-one correspondence between terms and concepts. 5. Specialized language can only be studied synchronically.” | content_tags.quantities[0] |
| quantity | 3 objectives — eliminate ambiguity by standardization, convince users of its benefits, and give terminology the status of a science — “Since Wüster believed that the function of Terminology was to create and standardize names for concepts, syntax was not regarded as falling within the scope of Terminology. Within the context of this theory, Terminology was also exclusively synchronic, and the diachronic dimension of terms was not considered. Wüster’s principal objectives (apud Cabré 2003: 173) were: 1. To eliminate ambiguity from technical languages by means of standardization of terminology in order to make them efficient tools of communication; 2. To convince all users of technical languages of the benefits of standardized terminology; 3. To establish terminology as a discipline for all practical purposes and to give it the status of a science.” | content_tags.quantities[1] |
| definition | monosemic reference — “One of the basic assertions of General Terminology Theory (Wüster 1979; Felber 1984) is that terms in specialized language are inherently different from general language words because of the monosemic reference between terms and concepts. In other words, the general claim is that a term or a specialized language unit can be distinguished from a general language word by its single-meaning relationship with the specialized concept that it designates,” | content_tags.definitions[0] |
| definition | univocity — “The reason for this was that the first approximations to terminology had normalization as a primary objective. Great pains were taken to strive for totally unambiguous communication through standardization. This signified univocity or one-to-one reference between term and concept. The fact that the majority of terms designate concepts that represent objects in a specialized knowledge field meant that such an objective seemed possible to achieve. Nevertheless, it soon became apparent that this was more a desideratum than a reality.” | content_tags.definitions[1] |
| definition | Theory of the Doors — “Cabré (ibid.) proposes the Theory of the Doors, a metaphor representing the possible ways of accessing, analyzing, and understanding terminological units. She compares a terminological unit to a polyhedron, a three-dimensional solid figure with a varying number of facets. Similarly, a terminological unit can also be said to have three dimensions: a cognitive dimension, a linguistic dimension, and a communicative dimension. Each is a separate door through which terminological units can be accessed. Nonetheless, one’s choice of door (or focus) does not entail a rejection of the other two perspectives, which continue to reside in the background.” | content_tags.definitions[2] |
| definition | terminological knowledge base — “When term bases become terminological knowledge bases, as conceived by Meyer, they enhance data because the concepts and designations are linked to each other by meaningful relationships. Although the traditional generic-specific and part-whole relationships are contemplated, there is a greater emphasis on other types of relationships that enrich the resulting knowledge structure, such as cause-effect, object-function, etc. (Bowker & L’Homme 2004).” | content_tags.definitions[3] |
| concept | terminology — not defined in this paper's own words; with a small t, the units of any specialized knowledge field; with a large T, the study of specialized language. One word, two objects, distinguished only by capitalisation — “As has often been observed, terminology is a word that can either begin with an upper or lower-case letter. When terminology begins with a small t, it refers to the units in any specialized knowledge field. When it begins with a large T, it refers to the study of specialized language.” | concepts[0] |
| concept | monosemic reference — not defined in this paper's own words; the GTT's founding requirement - a single-meaning relationship between a term and the concept it designates — “One of the basic assertions of General Terminology Theory (Wüster 1979; Felber 1984) is that terms in specialized language are inherently different from general language words because of the monosemic reference between terms and concepts. In other words, the general claim is that a term or a specialized language unit can be distinguished from a general language word by its single-meaning relationship with the specialized concept that it designates,” | concepts[1] |
| concept | univocity — not defined in this paper's own words; one-to-one reference between term and concept, pursued through standardization and found to be 'more a desideratum than a reality' — “The reason for this was that the first approximations to terminology had normalization as a primary objective. Great pains were taken to strive for totally unambiguous communication through standardization. This signified univocity or one-to-one reference between term and concept. The fact that the majority of terms designate concepts that represent objects in a specialized knowledge field meant that such an objective seemed possible to achieve. Nevertheless, it soon became apparent that this was more a desideratum than a reality.” | concepts[2] |
| concept | terms — not defined in this paper's own words; specialized knowledge units - which the founding theory insisted were not words, and the successors treat as words with extra constraints — “In its initial phase Terminology was interested in asserting its independence from other knowledge areas, and creating a totally independent discipline. This goal led terminologists to go to great lengths to emphasize differences between the two even to the extent of affirming that terms are not words.” | concepts[3] |
| concept | terminological variation — not defined in this paper's own words; the same concept designated by more than one term, and the same form used for more than one concept - the observation the founding theory could not hold — “However, this is an extremely idealized vision of specialized communication. Even the most cursory examination of specialized language texts shows that terminological variation is quite frequent, and that such variation seems to stem from parameters of specialized communication, such as the knowledge and prestige of the speakers, text function, text content, etc. The same concept can often be designated by more than one term, and the same linguistic form can be used to refer to more than one concept.” | concepts[4] |
| concept | GTT — not defined in this paper's own words; Wuster's General Terminology Theory - the only set of principles for many years, and one whose rigid semantics allowed no multidimensionality — “Although for many years the GTT offered the only set of principles and premises for compiling terminological data, its rigid view of the semantics of terminological units projected a uniformly limited representation of specialized knowledge concepts without allowing for their multidimensional nature.” | concepts[5] |
| concept | standardization — not defined in this paper's own words; the founding objective, and what socioterminologists call 'a chimera since language is in constant change' — “According to socioterminologists, standardization is a chimera since language is in constant change. Polysemy and synonymy are inevitably present in terminology and specialized texts, and the use of one term instead of another can reflect the knowledge, social and professional status of a group of users, as well as the power relationships between speakers.” | concepts[6] |
| concept | Theory of the Doors — not defined in this paper's own words; Cabre's metaphor - a terminological unit as a polyhedron with cognitive, linguistic and communicative faces, each a separate way in — “Cabré (ibid.) proposes the Theory of the Doors, a metaphor representing the possible ways of accessing, analyzing, and understanding terminological units. She compares a terminological unit to a polyhedron, a three-dimensional solid figure with a varying number of facets. Similarly, a terminological unit can also be said to have three dimensions: a cognitive dimension, a linguistic dimension, and a communicative dimension. Each is a separate door through which terminological units can be accessed. Nonetheless, one’s choice of door (or focus) does not entail a rejection of the other two perspectives, which continue to reside in the background.” | concepts[7] |
| concept | prototypes — not defined in this paper's own words; the cognitive-linguistic model of category structure, rejected here because typicality cannot be measured objectively — “This seems to point to the fact that prototypes, despite being a very seductive concept, are not viable as a mode of category organization because at the end of the day they depend on the subjective evaluation of the terminologist. It is impossible to define the exact nature of the center of prototypical categories or explain how degrees of prototypicality can be objectively measured.” | concepts[8] |
| concept | ICM — not defined in this paper's own words; idealized cognitive model - unconstrained, open-ended in its relations, and resting on the modeller's intuition — “Clear disadvantages of such representations are the fact that: (1) they are totally unconstrained; (2) they are based on an open-ended inventory of conceptual relations; (3) the resulting ICM and/or prototypical category seems to be largely based on the intuition of the modeler.” | concepts[9] |
| concept | terminological knowledge bases — not defined in this paper's own words; term bases in which concepts and designations are linked by MEANINGFUL relationships - cause-effect and object-function, not only generic-specific — “When term bases become terminological knowledge bases, as conceived by Meyer, they enhance data because the concepts and designations are linked to each other by meaningful relationships. Although the traditional generic-specific and part-whole relationships are contemplated, there is a greater emphasis on other types of relationships that enrich the resulting knowledge structure, such as cause-effect, object-function, etc. (Bowker & L’Homme 2004).” | concepts[10] |
| concept | category — not defined in this paper's own words; the unit of conceptual organisation on which, the paper reports, 'the only consensus is that a category can be virtually anything' — “Indeed, the structure of categories is a recurrent topic, and in this sense there have been many proposals regarding their organization (Green & Evans 2006). In the final analysis, however, the only consensus is that a category can be virtually anything.” | concepts[11] |
| concept | domain — not defined in this paper's own words; ambiguous in Terminology between the knowledge area itself and the categories of concepts within it - and the choice changes the internal structure — “Regarding conceptual domains, in Terminology there seem to be two views on the matter, which are not necessarily incompatible with each other. A domain sometimes refers to the knowledge area itself, and other times, refers to the categories of concepts within the specialized field. Evidently, whether a domain is defined as one or the other has dramatic consequences for its internal structure.” | concepts[12] |
| a review whose judgements are readings, and it does not pretend otherwise | — “Despite its clear description of the nature of terminological units and the fact that it mentions a term’s “syntactic structure and valence”, the CTT avoids opting for any specific linguistic model. The relation of the CTT with Linguistics is more in the nature of a light flirtation with various models than a monogamous relationship with any one in particular.” | content_tags.statistics[0] |
Full text — tagged
The reference list is not part of the text we hold for this paper. Our copy was extracted from the publisher's page and the bibliography did not survive that extraction, so the article below ends before its references. Nothing has been removed by us.
THE COGNITIVE SHIFT IN TERMINOLOGYterm AND SPECIALIZED TRANSLATION Pamela Faber BenítezpersName University of Granada Abstract This article offers a critical analysis and overview of terminologyterm theories with special reference to scientific and technical translation. The study of specialized language is undergoing a cognitive shift, which is conducive to a greater emphasis on meaning as well as conceptual structures underlying texts and language in general. Terminologyterm theory seems to be evolving from prescriptive to descriptive with a growing focus on the study of specialized language units from a social, linguistic and cognitive perspective. In consonance with this, new voices are beginning to be heard, which offer different and complementary perspectives on specialized language and translation. Resumen Este artículo propone un análisis crítico y una visión global de las teorías terminológicas con especial atención a la traducción científica y técnica. El estudio de los tecnolectos está sometido en la actualidad a un cambio hacia el cognitivismo, que a su vez conduce a un énfasis mucho mayor tanto en el significado como en las estructuras conceptuales que subyacen en los textos y en la lengua en general. La terminología parece estar pasando del prescriptivismo al descriptivismo, con un interés creciente por enfocar el estudio de las unidades de los tecnolectos desde una perspectiva social, lingüística y cognitiva. En esta misma línea, comienzan a oírse nuevas voces que ofrecen perspectivas diferentes y complementarias en torno a los tecnolectos y la traducción. Keywords: Terminologyterm. Scientific and tecnical translation. Cognitivism. Meaning. Descriptivism. Palabras clave: Terminología. Traducción científica y técnica. Cognitivismo. Significado. Descriptivismo.
108 Pamela Faber BenítezpersName 1. Introduction Terminologyterm or specialized language is more than a technical or particular instance of general language. In today’s society with its emphasis on science and technology, the way specialized knowledge concepts are named, structured, described, and translated has put terminologyterm in the limelight. The information in scientific and technical texts is encoded in termsterm or specialized knowledge units, which can be regarded as access points to more complex knowledge structures. As such, they only mark the tip of the iceberg. Beneath the waters stretch the tentacles of a many-splendored conceptual domainterm, which represents the implicit knowledge underlying the information in the text. In order to translate this type of specialized language text, translators must go beyond correspondences at the level of individual termsterm, and be able to establish interlinguistic references to entire knowledge structures. Only then can they achieve the level of understanding necessary to create an equivalent text in the target language. 2. Specialized knowledge acquisition There has been a great deal of debate regarding how much a translator really needs to know about the specialized domainterm in order to translate a scientific or technical text. Some people even seem to believe that such texts should only be translated by experts in the field because in their opinion, it is impossible for translators to acquire the necessary expert knowledge. Although it is not infrequent for experts with an acceptable level of a second language to try to translate texts because of their knowledge of terminological correspondences, they generally find that writing an article in another language is far from simple. In a parallel way, there are translators who believe that their syntactic and semantic knowledge of two languages guarantees an adequate translation of a scientific or technical text without any other previous preparation or documentation. Both enterprises are generally destined to failure. The reason for this lies in the fact that knowledge of specialized language does not consist of a series of water-tight compartments. Terminological units and their correspondences possess both paradigmatic and syntagmatic structure. In other words, termsterm not only represent specialized concepts, but also have syntax and collocational patterns within general language. In this sense, merely knowing terminological correspondences is hardly sufficient since such units, when inserted in an appropriate (or inappropriate) context, create ripples that affect the text at all levels. However, for an acceptable MonTI 1 (2009) The Cognitive Shift in Terminologyterm and Specialized Translation 109 understanding of the text, linguistic knowledge in itself is not sufficient either since a translator must also be aware of the types of conceptual entities that the text is referring to, the events that they are participating in, and how they are interrelated. Generally speaking, it is quicker and more feasible to acquire knowledge of a specialized domainterm than knowledge of language, which is somewhat more complicated and takes considerably longer to master. However, this signifies that translators of specialized texts must also be closet terminologists and be capable of carrying out terminological management as a means of knowledge acquisition. This is one of the reasons why an understanding of terminologyterm and specialized knowledge representation is a key factor in successful scientific and technical translation. 3. Terminologyterm as a discipline Terminologyterm as a discipline of study is a relative newcomer. It arose from the need to facilitate specialized communication and translation, as well as knowledge transfer between text users belonging to different language communities and of similar as well as different knowledge levels. The theoretical proposals in this field have been mostly practice-based, arising from the elaboration of glossaries, specialized dictionaries and terminological and translation resources As a subject field with explicit premises, terminologyterm emerges from the need of technicians and scientists to unify the concepts and termsterm of their subject fields in order to facilitate professional communication and the transfer of knowledge (Cabré 2000a: 37). Precisely for this reason, Terminologyterm has been for some time a discipline in search of a theory with premises capable of accounting for specialized knowledge representation, categoryterm organization and description, as well as the semantic and syntactic behavior of terminological units in one or various languages. Over the years this quest for a set of theoretical principles has led terminologists to ask themselves inter alia whether Terminologyterm should be regarded as a branch of Philosophy, Sociology, Cognitive Science, or Linguistics (to name a few). Rather than say that Terminologyterm may stem from any or all of them, we take the position that Terminologyterm is essentially a linguistic and cognitive activity. In this sense termsterm are linguistic units which convey conceptual meaning within the framework of specialized knowledge texts. In the understanding of the nature of termsterm, this process of meaning transmission is as important as the concept that they designate. Terminological units are thus MonTI 1 (2009) 110 Pamela Faber BenítezpersName subject to linguistic analysis. Since this type of analysis can be carried out in a number of ways, it is necessary to choose the linguistic approach most in consonance with the object of study. Such an approach should be lexicallycentered and usage-based, as well as focus on meaning and conceptual representation. As we shall see, such is the case of cognitive linguistic approaches. In the past, Terminologyterm and Linguistics have mostly ignored each other. In its initial phase Terminologyterm was interested in asserting its independence from other knowledge areas, and creating a totally independent discipline. This goal led terminologists to go to great lengths to emphasize differences between the two even to the extent of affirming that termsterm are not words. In a parallel way, linguistic theory has largely ignored terminologyterm, probably because specialized language has been and is often regarded as merely a special case of general language. Thus, it was not considered as worthy of serious study because anything pertaining to general language was also presumed to be true of specialized language. However, interesting conclusions about specialized language, scientific translation, and language in general can be obtained when terminologyterm is studied in its own right. As such, it is most certainly susceptible to linguistic analysis within the framework of a linguistic model. Oddly enough, some years ago this seemingly innocuous affirmation would have caused quite a hue and cry in terminological circles. The reason for this was that the first approximations to terminologyterm had normalization as a primary objective. Great pains were taken to strive for totally unambiguous communication through standardizationterm. This signified univocityterm or one-to-one reference between termterm and concept. The fact that the majority of termsterm designate concepts that represent objects in a specialized knowledge field meant that such an objective seemed possible to achieve. Nevertheless, it soon became apparent that this was more a desideratum than a reality. 4. Theories of Terminologyterm As has often been observed, terminologyterm is a word that can either begin with an upper or lower-case letter. When terminologyterm begins with a small t, it refers to the units in any specialized knowledge field. When it begins with a large T, it refers to the study of specialized language. As a rule, terminologyterm theories can be classified as either prescriptive or descriptive. General Terminologyterm Theory (GTTterm), which has the virtue of being the first theoretical proposal in this area, is essentially prescriptive in nature. As shall be seen, the theories that subsequently arose in reaction to the GTTterm are descriptive, and show an increasing tendency to incorporate premises from cognitive linguistics since MonTI 1 (2009) The Cognitive Shift in Terminologyterm and Specialized Translation 111 they focus on the social, communicative, and cognitive aspects of terminologyterm. The vision that they offer is more realistic because they analyze termsterm as they actually are used and behave in texts. One might say that these new series are representative of a cognitive shift in terminologyterm. 4.1. General Terminologyterm Theory (GTTterm) Terminologyterm as a discipline began in the 1930’s with Eugen Wüster, the author of The Machine Tool, an Interlingual Dictionary of Basic Concepts (Wüster 1968), a systematically organized French and English dictionary of standardized termsterm (with a German supplement) intended as a model for future technical dictionaries. This multi-volume work inspired the GTTterm, and set out the initial set of principles for the compilation and description of terminological data with a view to the standardizationterm of scientific language. The GTTterm was later developed in Vienna by Wüster’s successors, who interpreted his ideas and carried on his work. Although for many years the GTTterm offered the only set of principles and premises for compiling terminological data, its rigid view of the semantics of terminological units projected a uniformly limited representation of specialized knowledge concepts without allowing for their multidimensional nature. Needless to say, the GTTterm did not even attempt to account for the syntax and pragmatics of specialized language, which was not regarded as relevant. In this sense, it could not be usefully applied to translation. The GTTterm focused on specialized knowledge concepts for the description and organization of terminological information. Within this framework concepts were viewed as being separate from their linguistic designation (termsterm). Concepts were conceived as abstract cognitive entities that refer to objects in the real world, and termsterm were merely their linguistic labels. As Terminologyterm struggled to acquire a semi-independent status, a considerable amount of effort was invested in distinguishing specialized language from general language, and in distinguishing termsterm from words. This radical emphasis on differences often seemed to convey the idea that termsterm were not even language at all, but rather abstract symbols referring to concepts in the real world. One of the basic assertions of General Terminologyterm Theory (Wüster 1979; Felber 1984) is that termsterm in specialized language are inherently different from general language words because of the monosemic referenceterm between termsterm and concepts. In other words, the general claim is that a termterm or a specialized language unit can be distinguished from a general language word by its single-meaning relationship with the specialized concept that it designates, MonTI 1 (2009) 112 Pamela Faber BenítezpersName and by the stability of the relationship between form and content in texts dealing with this concept (Pavel & Nolet 2001: 19). However, this is an extremely idealized vision of specialized communication. Even the most cursory examination of specialized language texts shows that terminological variationterm is quite frequent, and that such variation seems to stem from parameters of specialized communication, such as the knowledge and prestige of the speakers, text function, text content, etc. The same concept can often be designated by more than one termterm, and the same linguistic form can be used to refer to more than one concept. Furthermore, termsterm have distinctive syntactic projections, and can behave differently in texts, depending on their conceptual focus. This is something that happens in texts of all languages, and is a problem that translators inevitably have to deal with. Since Wüster believed that the function of Terminologyterm was to create and standardize names for concepts, syntax was not regarded as falling within the scope of Terminologyterm. Within the context of this theory, Terminologyterm was also exclusively synchronic, and the diachronic dimension of termsterm was not considered. Wüster’s principal objectives (apud Cabré 2003: 173) were: 1. To eliminate ambiguity from technical languages by means of standardizationterm of terminologyterm in order to make them efficient tools of communication; 2. To convince all users of technical languages of the benefits of standardized terminologyterm; 3. To establish terminologyterm as a discipline for all practical purposes and to give it the status of a science. Cabré (2000a: 169) rightly points out that Terminologyterm has suffered from a lack of innovative theoretical contributions because until very recently, there has been little or no theoretical discussion or confrontation of opinions. Another possible reason for the slow development of terminologyterm is the lack of interest shown by specialists in other areas of knowledge, such as Linguistics: The fifth reason, which may explain the continued homogeneity of the established principles, is the lack of interest in terminologyterm by specialists of other branches of science, for example linguistics, psychology, philosophy and history of science and even communication and discourse studies. For many years terminologyterm saw itself as a simple practice for satisfying specific needs or as a field of knowledge whose signs had nothing to do with the signs of language. However, the 1990s brought new proposals and ideas that paved the way to integrating Terminologyterm into a wider social, communicative, and linguistic context. According to L’Homme et al. 2003, examples of such approaches are socioterminology (Boulanger 1991; Guespin 1991; Gaudin1993, 2003), the MonTI 1 (2009) The Cognitive Shift in Terminologyterm and Specialized Translation 113 Communicative Theory of Terminologyterm (Cabré 2000ab, 2001ab, 2003; Cabré et al. 1998), and sociocognitive terminologyterm (Temmerman 1997, 2000, 2001, 2006). 4.2. Social and communicative terminologyterm theories In the early 1990’s socioterminology and Communicative Terminologyterm Theory appear on the horizon as a reaction to the hegemony of the GTTterm. Both theories present a more realistic view of terminologyterm since they base their description on how termsterm are actually used in communicative contexts. They describe terminological units in discourse and analyze the sociological and discourse conditions that give rise to different types of texts. 4.2.1. Socioterminology Socioterminology, as proposed by Gaudin (1993) applies sociolinguistic principles to terminologyterm theory, and accounts for terminological variationterm by identifying termterm variants against the backdrop of different usage contexts. Parameters of variation are based on the social and ethnic criteria in which communication among experts and specialists can produce different termsterm for the same concept and more than one concept for the same termterm. Gaudin (1993: 216) writes: [...] c’est que la socioterminologie, pour peu qu’elle veuille dépasser les limites d’une terminologie ‘greffière’, doit replacer la genèse des termes, leur réception, leur acceptation mais aussi les causes de leur échec et les raisons de leur succès, au sein des pratiques langagières et sociales concrètes des hommes qui les emploient. Ces pratiques sont essentiellement celles qui s’exercent dans des sphères d’activité. C’est pourquoi la socioterminologie devait rencontrer les réflexions sur les liens qui se nouent entre travail et langage. According to Pihkala (2001) the socioterminological approach focuses on the social and situational aspects of specialized language communication, which may affect expert communication and give rise to termterm variation. According to socioterminologists, standardizationterm is a chimera since language is in constant change. Polysemy and synonymy are inevitably present in terminologyterm and specialized texts, and the use of one termterm instead of another can reflect the knowledge, social and professional status of a group of users, as well as the power relationships between speakers. Terminological variationterm also points to the fact that concept systems and definitions are not static. This is a reality that any theory that aspires to explanatory adequacy must deal with. In this respect, socioterminology is closely linked to Gregory and Carroll’s MonTI 1 (2009) 114 Pamela Faber BenítezpersName (1978: 3-4) characterization of linguistic variation according to use and user even though this reference is not explicitly mentioned. Although socioterminology does not aspire to independent theoretical status, its importance resides in the fact that it opened the door for other descriptive theories of terminologyterm, which also take social and communicative factors into account, and which base their theoretical principles on the way termsterm are used in specialized discourse. 4.2.2. Communicative Theory of Terminologyterm (CTT) Linguistics and Terminologyterm began to draw closer to each other with the Communicative Theory of Terminologyterm (CTT) (Cabré 1999, 2000ab, 2001ab, 2003; Cabré et al. 1998). This proposal is more ambitious than socioterminology, and endeavors to account for the complexity of specialized language units from a social, linguistic and cognitive perspective. According to Cabré (2003), a theory of terminologyterm should provide a methodological framework for the study of terminological units. She underlines the fact that specialized knowledge units are multidimensional, and have a cognitive component, a linguistic component, and a sociocommunicative component. In this respect, they behave like general language words. Their specificity resides in a series of cognitive, syntactic, and pragmatic constraints, which affirm their membership in a specialized domainterm. In this sense, the CTT regards terminological units as “sets of conditions” (Cabré 2003: 184) derived from, inter alia, their particular knowledge area, conceptual structure, meaning, lexical and syntactic structure and valence, as well as the communicative context of specialized discourse. Cabré (ibid.) proposes the Theory of the Doorsterm, a metaphor representing the possible ways of accessing, analyzing, and understanding terminological units. She compares a terminological unit to a polyhedron, a three-dimensional solid figure with a varying number of facets. Similarly, a terminological unit can also be said to have three dimensions: a cognitive dimension, a linguistic dimension, and a communicative dimension. Each is a separate door through which terminological units can be accessed. Nonetheless, one’s choice of door (or focus) does not entail a rejection of the other two perspectives, which continue to reside in the background. According to Cabré, the CTT approaches units through the language door, but always within the general context of specialized communication. At this time the CTT is probably the best candidate to replace the General Theory of Terminologyterm as a viable, working theory of terminologyterm. It has led to a valuable body of research on different aspects of Terminologyterm such as MonTI 1 (2009) The Cognitive Shift in Terminologyterm and Specialized Translation 115 conceptual relations, terminological variationterm, termterm extraction, and the application of different linguistic models to terminologyterm. This has helped terminologyterm as a field to get its act together, and begin to question GTTterm premises, which previously were not open to doubt. However, the CTT is not without its shortcomings. Despite its clear description of the nature of terminological units and the fact that it mentions a termterm’s “syntactic structure and valence”, the CTT avoids opting for any specific linguistic model. The relation of the CTT with Linguistics is more in the nature of a light flirtation with various models than a monogamous relationship with any one in particular. Its view of conceptual semantics is also in need of clarification. Although in a very general way the CTT bases its semantics on conceptual representation, it is more than a little vague when it comes to explaining how such representations are created, what they look like, and what constraints they might have: […] specialised discourse presents an organised structure of knowledge. This structure could be represented as a conceptual map formed by nodes of knowledge, which can be represented by different types of units of expression, and by relations between these nodes (Cabré 2003: 189). Within this framework, terminological units are recognized as such because they represent knowledge nodes of a structure, and have a special meaning in this structure. If these factors are the prerequisites for termterm status, then one would think that conceptual representation, knowledge structure or ontology, and categoryterm organization would be an extremely important part of the CTT. However, this does not seem to be the case. Another area in need of clarification in the CTT is semantic meaning. According to this theory, a lexical unit is general by default and acquires a specialized meaning, when it appears in a specific type of discourse. A terminological unit is regarded to be the special meaning of a lexical unit since its meaning is extracted from the “set of information of a lexical unit” (Cabré 2003: 184). With this affirmation the CTT seems to be avoiding the question of what specialized meaning is, and what its components are. The only clue given is when Cabré (2003: 190) states that terminological meaning consists of a specific “selection of semantic features according to the conditions of every speech act”, which seems to implicitly say that she is in favor of some type of semantic decomposition. However, this can only be a supposition because nothing is explicitly said about the semantic analysis of specialized language units. This is a rather comfortable and safe position because it shunts any decisions in this respect back into the realm of Lexical Semantics, where MonTI 1 (2009) 116 Pamela Faber BenítezpersName there is already considerable disagreement as to the nature of word meaning and how it should be analyzed. 4.3. Cognitive-based theories of Terminologyterm Over the last decade linguistic theory seems to be in the process of undergoing something of a cognitive shift (Evans & Green 2006), which has led it to increasingly focus on the conceptual network underlying language. The fact that linguistic form cannot be analyzed as divorced from meaning has led linguists to begin to explore the interface between syntax and semantics (Faber & Mairal 1999). This trend is also happening in the area of terminologyterm. Cognitive-based terminologyterm theories, though similar in some ways to the CTT, also differ from it. It is not an accident that such theories have arisen in the context of translation. Despite the fact that they also focus on termsterm in texts and discourse, they make an effort to integrate premises from cognitive linguistics and psychology in their accounts of categoryterm structure and concept description. Relevant proposals in this area are sociocognitive terminologyterm (Temmerman 1997, 2000, 2006) and frame-based terminologyterm (Faber et al. 2005, 2006, 2007) 4.3.1. Sociocognitive Terminologyterm Insights from cognitive semantics (e.g. prototypeterm structure and metaphor) began to have an impact on terminologyterm theory with the advent of sociocognitive terminologyterm as proposed by Temmerman (1997, 2000). Sociocognitive terminologyterm (Temmerman 2000) concentrates on the cognitive potential of terminologyterm in domain-specific language and on terminological variationterm as related to verbal, situational and cognitive contexts in discourse and in a wide range of communicative environments (Temmerman et al. 2005) Temmerman (2000: 16) criticizes General Terminologyterm Theory, and offers examples from the life sciences to demonstrate that the basic principles of the GTTterm are unrealistic and incapable of describing or explaining specialized language as it is actually used in communicative situations such as specialized translation. The GTTterm premises that fall under fire are the following: 1. Concepts have a central role in regards to their linguistic designations. 2. Concepts and categories have clear-cut boundaries. 3. Terminographic definitions should always be intensional. 4. Monosemic referenceterm is the rule in terminologyterm, where there is a oneto-one correspondence between termsterm and concepts. 5. Specialized language can only be studied synchronically.
MonTI 1 (2009) The Cognitive Shift in Terminologyterm and Specialized Translation 117 Temmerman (2000) argues that these premises are not valid, and asserts that: 1. Language cannot be regarded as divorced from concepts since it plays a crucial role in the conception of categories. 2. Many categories have fuzzy boundaries and cannot be clearly defined. 3. Optimal definition structure and type should not be limited to only one mode and ultimately depends on the concept being defined. 4. Polysemy and synonymy frequently occur in specialized language, and must be included in any realistic terminological analysis. 5. Categories, concepts, as well as termsterm evolve over time and should be studied diachronically. In this sense, cognitive models play an important role in the development of new ideas. This declaration of principles is the launching pad for sociocognitive terminologyterm. This theory is also in consonance with both Gaudin’s socioterminology and Cabré’s Communicative Theory of Terminologyterm since it is descriptive rather than prescriptive, and regards termsterm as the starting point for terminological analysis. However, in the same way as the other approaches, it has very little to say about the syntactic behavior of termsterm. What makes sociocognitive terminologyterm different from other theories is its emphasis on conceptual organization, and its focus on categoryterm structure from the perspective of cognitive linguistics approaches. While GTTterm concept systems are organized in termsterm of isa and partof conceptual relations, sociocognitive categories are said to have prototypeterm structure, and conceptual representations initially take the form of cognitive models. Another significant difference is that sociocognitive terminologyterm is perhaps the first approach to truly take on board the historical or diachronic dimension of termsterm Temmerman (1997, 2001) analyzes three concepts from the same general domainterm of biology, and comes to the conclusion that only one of them can be adequately described by the methods of the GTTterm. The other two are much more susceptible to sociocognitive terminological methods. She claims that such methods give less prominence to traditional ways of defining concepts (generic termterm and differentiating features), and focus more on deriving termterm definitions from their use in text corpora. The way a concept is described may vary, depending on a number of different parameters e.g. the type of categoryterm being defined, the knowledge level of the text sender and the receiver, and the profile of the termbase user (Temmerman and Kerremans 2003). Categoryterm structure is prototypical, and the representations of relations between concepts in this framework are in the form of idealized cognitive models (ICMsterm) of the sort proposed by cognitive linguistics. This model of MonTI 1 (2009) 118 Pamela Faber BenítezpersName categorization is based on Rosch’s (1978) Prototypeterm Theory, which uses degrees of typicality as the configurational pattern for conceptual categories or domainsterm with little or no mention of their internal structure, the types of information contained, or the network formed. Nevertheless, the internal structure of conceptual categories is also important because this would presumably affect and constrain any type of interdomain mapping. According to Prototypeterm Theory, a conceptual map takes the form of a series of concentric circles with concepts placed intuitively either nearer or farther away from the prototypical center. However, neither prototypesterm nor idealized cognitive models provide a place for syntagmatic data. Nor do they solve the question of how to determine either the relevant prototypical center or the psychologically real schematic meaning within a concept. Clear disadvantages of such representations are the fact that: (1) they are totally unconstrained; (2) they are based on an open-ended inventory of conceptual relations; (3) the resulting ICMterm and/or prototypical categoryterm seems to be largely based on the intuition of the modeler. Perhaps, the most interesting part of sociocognitive terminologyterm is its focus on the study of termsterm and concepts from a diachronic perspective in reaction to the exclusively synchronic analysis of the GTTterm. For example, Temmerman et al. (2005) study the word splicing to identify the history of its meaning, particularly its evolution over time, its use by different cultural groups, and its presence in both general and specialized language. In this sense, the study supports the fact that metaphorical modeling is one of the mechanisms consciously or unconsciously used in the creation of scientific termsterm. The objective is to gain insight into cognition as it emerges from termsterm and descriptions in scientific publications. More recently, sociocognitive terminologyterm has also begun to focus on ontologies as a more viable way of implementing conceptual representations. This combination of terminologyterm and ontology is called termontography. Termontography is a hybrid termterm, which is a combination of terminologyterm, ontology, and terminography. Its objective is to link ontologies with multilingual terminological information, and to incorporate ontologies into terminological resources. Temmerman and Kerremans (2003) describe termontography as a multidisciplinary approach in which theories and methods for multilingual terminological analysis (Temmerman 2000) are combined with methods and guidelines for ontological analysis (Fernández et al. 1997; Sure and Studer 2003). Termontography, as outlined by Temmerman, seems to owe a great deal to the work done by Ingrid Meyer (Meyer et al. 1992; Meyer & McHaffie 1994; MonTI 1 (2009) The Cognitive Shift in Terminologyterm and Specialized Translation 119 Meyer, Eck & Skuce 1997; Bowker & L’Homme 2004) who was one of the first terminologists to perceive that termterm bases would be even more useful if their organization bore some resemblance to the way concepts are represented in the mind: …termterm banks would be more useful, and useful to a wider variety of people, eventually even machines, if they contained a richer and more structured conceptual component than they do at present. (Meyer, Bowker & Eck 1992: 159). When termterm bases become terminological knowledge basesterm, as conceived by Meyer, they enhance data because the concepts and designations are linked to each other by meaningful relationships. Although the traditional generic-specific and part-whole relationships are contemplated, there is a greater emphasis on other types of relationships that enrich the resulting knowledge structure, such as cause-effect, object-function, etc. (Bowker & L’Homme 2004). This opens the door to the multidimensional representation of concepts. Within the socioterminological framework, Kerremans et al. (2004) state that before building a domain-specific conceptual model or ontology, it is necessary to have an excellent grasp of the categories and their existing interrelationships, independent of any culture or language in the domainterm of interest. Such categories are referred to as units of understanding (UoU). However, one might reasonably question the existence of “pure” UoUs, when language and culture permeate mental representations at all levels of conceptualization. And supposing that such language-independent entities actually do exist, one might well ask what form they would actually take. Even though Termontography originated as a brainchild of sociocognitive terminologyterm, over the last few years it seems to have evolved far beyond it to the extent that it now seems to have acquired a life of its own, and to have become a totally different entity. The sophisticated knowledge engineering techniques and ontology creation processes described in recent articles (e.g. Kerremans, Temmerman & Zhao 2005) have little or no relation to the rather rudimentary cognitive model analysis first described by Temmerman (2001: 84-85). As it stands now, Termontography seems to have undergone a complete metamorphosis to the point of bearing little or no resemblance to the initial premises of sociocognitive terminologyterm. For example, the conceptual representations proposed are in the form of computer-implemented ontologies. No mention is made of prototypesterm, idealized cognitive models or radial categories, all of which seem to have been lost in the shuffle. This is not necessarily a bad thing since, if the truth be told, cognitive linguistics representations, with the possible exception of frames, MonTI 1 (2009) 120 Pamela Faber BenítezpersName do not work well in computer applications. Nevertheless, it is extremely difficult to reconcile the ontology engineering described in recent articles with the conceptual representation advocated in sociocognitive terminologyterm. The examples of termontographic conceptual relations mentioned by Kerremans et al. (2004) (e.g. ‘has_subtype’ and ‘is_kind_of’) appear to be rather similar to generic-specific relations of the traditional sort, which sociocognitive terminologyterm eschews. This seems to point to the fact that prototypesterm, despite being a very seductive concept, are not viable as a mode of categoryterm organization because at the end of the day they depend on the subjective evaluation of the terminologist. It is impossible to define the exact nature of the center of prototypical categories or explain how degrees of prototypicality can be objectively measured. Finally, as previously mentioned, in the same way as other terminologyterm theories, sociocognitivism studiously avoids dealing with syntax. The reason for this is probably that any syntactic analysis, whether of general or specialized language, must be either explicitly or implicitly based on a syntactic theory, and so far terminologyterm and syntax have generally had little or nothing to say about each other. 4.3.2. Frame-based Terminologyterm Frame-based terminologyterm (Faber et al. 2005; Faber et al. 2006; Faber et al. 2007) is another very recent cognitive approach to terminologyterm, which shares many of the same premises as the CTT and sociocognitive terminologyterm. For example, it also maintains that trying to find a distinction between termsterm and words is no longer fruitful or even viable, and that the best way to study specialized knowledge units is by studying their behavior in texts. Because the general function of specialized language texts is the transmission of knowledge, such texts tend to conform to templates in order to facilitate understanding, and are also generally characterized by a greater repetition than usual of termsterm, phrases, sentences, and even full paragraphs. This is something that specialized translators capitalize on when they use translation memories. Scientific and technical texts are usually terminology-rich because of the quantity of specialized language units in them, and they also are distinctive insofar as the syntactic constructions used. Specialized language units are mostly represented by compound nominal forms that are used within a scientific or technical field, and have meanings specific of this field as well as a syntactic valence or combinatory value. Naturally, such noun phrases have configurations that may vary from language to language. The heavy concentration of such units in these texts points to MonTI 1 (2009) The Cognitive Shift in Terminologyterm and Specialized Translation 121 the specific activation of sectors of domain-specific knowledge. As a result, understanding a terminology-rich text requires knowledge of the domainterm, the concepts within it, the propositional relations within the text, as well as the conceptual relations between concepts within the domainterm. This is the first step towards creating an acceptable target language text. All of these elements are targeted by frame-based terminologyterm. 4.3.2.1. Conceptual categories and categoryterm design As its name implies, frame-based terminologyterm uses Fillmore’s Frames (Fillmore 1976, 1982, 1985; Fillmore & Atkins 1992) to structure specialized domainsterm and create non-language-specific representations. Such configurations are the conceptual meaning underlying specialized texts in different languages, and thus facilitate specialized knowledge acquisition. The concept of domainsterm is problematic both in Terminologyterm and Linguistics. The structure of categories of specialized concepts is and always has been a crucial issue in Terminologyterm, precisely because the GTTterm opted for an onomasiological rather than a semasiological organization of terminological entries. However, in the type of conceptual representations proposed by the GTTterm, there is no effort made to create representations with explanatory adequacy from a psychological perspective. Domainsterm are also essential to the CTT and sociocognitive terminologyterm. It is unfortunate that this focus has not as yet been accompanied by a systematic reflection on how to elaborate, design, and organize such a structure. For example, in even the best terminologyterm manuals, the question of how to develop such configurations is never truly explained, and as a general rule, they are regarded as a product of the terminologist’s intuition, which is afterwards validated by consultation with experts. Regarding conceptual domainsterm, in Terminologyterm there seem to be two views on the matter, which are not necessarily incompatible with each other. A domainterm sometimes refers to the knowledge area itself, and other times, refers to the categories of concepts within the specialized field. Evidently, whether a domainterm is defined as one or the other has dramatic consequences for its internal structure. If the concept of domainterm is ambiguous in Terminologyterm, it is even more so in Linguistics. In many linguistic models, conceptual structure is not mentioned or even regarded as an issue. However, given the close relationship between language and thought, one would think that in order to better understand language, it would also be necessary to understand the concepts that linguistic forms designate. This is extremely important in any process of MonTI 1 (2009) 122 Pamela Faber BenítezpersName interlinguistic mediation, such as translation. In this sense, cognitive linguistic approaches have the virtue of regarding conceptual structure as a fundamental part of language and targeting this issue. Indeed, the structure of categories is a recurrent topic, and in this sense there have been many proposals regarding their organization (Green & Evans 2006). In the final analysis, however, the only consensus is that a categoryterm can be virtually anything. In addition, the structure of categoryterm members shows few if any constraints. Although in all likelihood it is difficult to create a definitive inventory of conceptual categories and categoryterm design, it is possible to propose models that are somewhat less vague. More often than not, linguistics literature gives the impression that language only reflects a weary world of cups, birds, bachelors, and commercial transactions. What is needed is a model of categories and categoryterm structure that can be realistically applied to language on a broader scope. Even though the notion of domainterm is central to cognitive linguistics, its indeterminacy is one of its most problematic aspects (Croft 1993: 339). Possibly, one way to begin to specify domainsterm is to adhere to Goldberg’s (1998: 205) view that the world is carved up into discretely classified event types, which correspond to Langacker’s (1991: 294-298) conceptual archetypes. In this case, the organization of such event types would be semantic-based since syntax is not sufficient in itself to account for meaning differentiation (Mairal & Faber 2002). Langacker (2000: 23) regards cognitive domainsterm as conceptualizations of any type or degree of complexity, which represent the multiple realms of knowledge and experience evoked by linguistic expressions. The most prominent domainsterm, which are the basis for linguistic meaning, would thus be those residing in the speaker’s apprehension of the immediate context. This is in consonance with the concept of situated cognition, which is presently in vogue. However, this rather loose interpretation of a cognitive domainterm is conducive to an ad hoc specification by which domainsterm are produced by linguistics in much the same way that a magician obligingly produces rabbits from a hat. The model of categorization in Cognitive Linguistics and sociocognitive terminologyterm is based on Rosch’s (1978) Prototypeterm Theory, which uses degrees of typicality as the configurational pattern for conceptual categories or domainsterm. In much research, even though reference is often made to specific domainsterm, little is said about their internal structure, the types of information contained, or the network formed.
MonTI 1 (2009) The Cognitive Shift in Terminologyterm and Specialized Translation 123 However, the internal structure of conceptual categories is also important because this would presumably affect and constrain any type of interdomain mapping. As previously mentioned, according to Prototypeterm Theory, a conceptual map would be in the form of a series of concentric circles with concepts placed intuitively either nearer or father away from the center. Geeraerts (1995) presents three major types of formal representations for conceptual domainsterm: the radial set model popularized by Lakoff (1987), the schematic network as defined by Langacker (1987, 1991), and the overlapping sets model introduced by Geeraerts (1989). Despite the existence of superficial differences, he argues that these three modes are in reality, notational variants because all of them account for salience effects, metaphor and metonymy, hierarchical semantic links, and discrepancies between intuitive and analytical definitions of polysemy. Nevertheless, the problem may very well lie in the analysis itself since none of the representational formats described explicitly provides a place for syntagmatic data. Nor do they solve the question of how to determine either the relevant prototypical center or the psychologically real schematic meaning within a concept. The specification of exactly how this should be done and the criteria motivating such decisions are never specified. 4.3.2.2. Methodological foundations of Frame-based terminologyterm Frames also fall within cognitive linguistic approaches, and are a type of cognitive structuring device based on experience that provide the background knowledge and motivation for the existence of words in a language as well as the way those words are used in discourse. However, frames have the advantage of making explicit both the potential semantic and syntactic behavior of specialized language units. This necessarily includes a description of conceptual relations as well as a termterm’s combinatorial potential. Frame Semantics (Fillmore 1976, 1982, 1985; Fillmore & Atkins 1992) and its practical application, the FrameNet Project (Fillmore & Atkins 1998; Fillmore et al. 2003; Ruppenhofer et al. 2006), assert that in order to truly understand the meanings of words in a language, one must first have knowledge of the semantic frames or conceptual structures that underlie their usage. Evidently, the same can be said for specialized language units. Frame-based terminologyterm focuses on: (1) conceptual organization; (2) the multidimensional nature of terminological units; and (3) the extraction of semantic and syntactic information through the use of multilingual corpora. In frame-based terminologyterm, conceptual networks are based on an underlying domainterm event, which generates templates for the actions and processes MonTI 1 (2009) 124 Pamela Faber BenítezpersName that take place in the specialized field as well as the entities that participate in them. Our methodology is based on deriving the conceptual system of the domainterm by means of an integrated top-down and bottom-up approach. The bottom-up approach consists of extracting information from a corpus of texts in various languages, specifically related to the domainterm. Our top-down approach includes the information provided by specialized dictionaries and other reference material, complemented by the help of experts in the field. In a parallel way, we specify the underlying conceptual framework of a knowledge-domain event (Faber & Jiménez 2002; Faber et al. 2006). The most generic or base-level categories of a domainterm are configured in a prototypical domainterm event or action-environment interface (Barsalou 2003). This provides a template applicable to all levels of information structuring. In this way a structure is obtained which facilitates and enhances knowledge acquisition since the information in termterm entries is internally as well as externally coherent (Faber et al. 2007). One of the basic premises of this approach is that the description of specialized domainsterm is based on the events that generally take place in them, and can be represented accordingly (Grinev & Klepalchenko 1999). Each knowledge area thus has its own event template (see figure 1). Accordingly, generic categories are configured in a domainterm event or action-environment interface (Barsalou 2003: 513; Faber et al. 2005), which provides a frame for the organization of more specific concepts. The specific concepts within each categoryterm are organized in a network where they are linked by both vertical (hierarchical) and horizontal (non-hierarchical) relations. Accordingly, each subdomain within the event is characterized by a template with a prototypical set of conceptual relations. This logically places much emphasis on terminological definitions, which are regarded as miniknowledge representations or frames. Such definitions are not entered in a cut-and-paste fashion from other resources. Rather they are based on the data extracted from corpus analysis, which is the main source of paradigmatic and syntagmatic information about the termterm. This is evident in the following description of erosion. For example, erosion is a process that conforms to the process template within the context of the Coastal Engineering Event. A process takes place over a period of time and can be divided into smaller segments or phases. It can happen at a specific season of the year, and may occur in a certain direction. It is induced by an agent (natural force) and affects a specific geographi- MonTI 1 (2009) The Cognitive Shift in Terminologyterm and Specialized Translation 125 Figure 1. Coastal Engineering Event cal place or environmental entity, thus producing a certain result that is often a modification in the affected entity. The study of corpus data (in this case, concordances from specialized language texts) is very informative of the attributes of erosion as a process as well as its relations to other entities in the same domainterm. These attributes will constitute its definition, map out its conceptual relations linking it with other concepts, and also give information about its combinatory potential in one or various languages. By analyzing concordances the following information about erosion comes to light: Erosion is a process: (1) dies is a result of soil weathering and erosion processes. Excessive loading of Erosion has a duration that can be short, medium, or long: (2) a community exhibits greater long-term erosion or accretion: exposure to high(3) F. & Balasch, J. C. (1988). Medium-term erosion rates in a small scarcely vegeta (4) as subject to both long– and short-term erosion, and understanding the causes of MonTI 1 (2009) 126 Pamela Faber BenítezpersName Erosion is a time-dependent process and thus, time is present either by making reference to periods or episodes or specifying its seasonal nature: Erosion measured in termsterm of time (5) t a multiple change of accumulation and erosion periods, which reflects tectonic Erosion according to the season when it occurs (6) the contrast between summer and winter erosion rates is stark. Predicted values (7) of summertime deposition and wintertime erosion ([Lee et al (1999)]). This type Erosion can be classified according to the affected entity, which can either be a geographical location or marine fauna: geographical location (8) ): Coastal submergence and marsh fringe erosion. Journal of Coastal Research, 2( (9) Processes and mechanisms of river bank erosion. In: R.D. Hey, J.C. Bathurst and (10) impact of afforestation on stream bank erosion and channel form. Earth Surface (11) , severity, and causes of coastal bluff erosion on the Cape Cod Bay shore of Tru marine fauna (12) see ICES, 1996) 2.1. Fin erosion Fin erosion is a pathological symptom common Erosion is a process with spatial movement and directionality: (13) r on Cape Cod Bay resulted in downdrift erosion for approximately 5,600 linear f (14) eam is near base level 1. Downward erosion is less dominant 2. Stream (15) e estudio Rainfall (l/m2) and vertical erosion/acretion (cm) in Enmedio Island Erosion is a process induced by a natural or human agent: (16) iglacial environments: nivation; eolian erosion and deposition; and fluvial eros (17) ited sediments from wind, water, or ice erosion. Given more time, these soils wi (18) urbances, for instance by flood-induced erosion, redistribution of sediment or a (19) e most important cause of human-induced erosion is interruption of sediment sour (20) stal bluffs and episodic, storm-induced erosion of dunes and barrier beaches. A (21) y 24 acres per year, while wave-induced erosion is approximately nine acres. Ac This basic information about erosion is activated in the creation of the more specific termsterm that appear in the corpus, and which are hyponyms of erosion. These complex nominal forms are in reality compressed propositions, which have their own syntax. In their extended form, they would be the following: MonTI 1 (2009) The Cognitive Shift in Terminologyterm and Specialized Translation 127 (22) Termterm storm-induced erosion Human-induced erosion wave-induced erosion verb INDUCE INDUCE INDUCE Agent (Arg1) Storm Humans Wave Result (Arg2) erosion erosion erosion (23) Termterm river bank erosion marsh fringe erosion Coastal bluff erosion verb OCCUR OCCUR OCCUR Process (Arg1) Erosion Erosion Erosion Location (Arg2) river bank marsh fringe coastal bluff These propositional representations can be activated in different ways, depending on the language involved and its rules for termterm formation. Such argument constructions provide the basic means of clausal expression in a language. For example (22) is an example of the construction: X causes Y. Such constructions can be regarded as basic units of language. According to Goldberg (1995: 5): In particular, constructions involving basic argument structure are shown to be associated with dynamic scenes: experientially grounded gestalts, such as that of someone volitionally transferring something to someone else, someone causing something to move or change state, someone experiencing something, something moving, and so on. She proposes that the basic clause types of a language form an interrelated network, with semantic structures paired with particular forms in as general a way as possible. This is extremely useful in the analysis of syntax in specialized language texts, and in the specification of definitional templates. Accordingly, the organization of information encoded in definitions can be structured in regards to its perceptual salience as well as its relationship to information configurations in the definitions of other related concepts within the same categoryterm (Faber et al. 2001; Faber 2002). Martin (1998) underlines the fact that frames as definition models offer more consistent, flexible, and complete representations.
4.3.2.3. Use of images Another important aspect of frame-based terminologyterm is that it has the virtue of dealing with the role of images in the representation of specialized concepts. It explains how the linguistic and graphical description of specialized MonTI 1 (2009) 128 Pamela Faber BenítezpersName entities are linked, and can converge to highlight the multidimensional nature of concepts as well as the conceptual relations within a specialized domainterm (Faber et al. 2007). It advocates a multimodal conceptual description in which the structured information in terminographic definitions meshes with the visual information in images for a better understanding of complex and dynamic concept systems. Traditionally, images have been classified according to their morphology in categories of photographs, drawings, animations, videos, diagrams, charts, graphics, schemes, views, etc. (Darian 2001; Monterde 2002). However, it is more useful to categorize images in termsterm of their most salient functions (Anglin et al. 2004) or in termsterm of their relationship with the real-world entity that they represent. The typology of images is based on the criteria of iconicity, abstraction and dynamism as ways of referring to and representing specific attributes of specialized concepts (Prieto Velasco 2005): – Iconic images resemble the real-world object represented through the abstraction of conceptual attributes in the illustration. – Abstraction in an illustration is a matter of degree, and refers to the cognitive effort required for the recognition and representation of the concept thus represented (Levie & Lentz 1982; Park & Hopkins 1993; Rieber 1994). – Dynamism implies the representation of movement (i.e. video and animation, as well as images showing different stages of a superordinate process respectively). However, such a representation need not include explicit movement if it illustrates the succession of discrete steps that make up the process. In this way frame-based terminologyterm endeavors to give a full accounting of the information necessary to fully describe a termterm, and which should be included in fully specified terminological entry.