Dr. Carlos F. Márquez Linares Dr. Enrique F. Quero Gervilla Doctoral Programme in Languages, Texts and Contexts Faculty of Translation and Interpreting university of granada

A. Theoretical Background

1. Terminological Units

According to Cabré (1999), terminology refers to three different phenomena:

1. 
   the whole field: the principles guiding term studies;
   

2. 
   its methodology: the norms used in terminography;
   

3. 
   a number of terms belonging to a certain special field (p. 32).
   

Terminology, in its broadest sense, is a scientific “interdisciplinary field” because it combines concepts and elements from different disciplines, such as “Linguistics, Logic, Ontology and Information Science” (ibidem). Terminology borrows certain elements following its cognitive, linguistic and communicative nature (Sager, 1990, p. 13). By borrowing elements from different disciplines following its special purposes, terminology acquires its unique features (Cabré 1999,

p. 32). Terminology reasonably claims to have independent status, because it has “a specific subject matter: the vocabulary of LSP” (Temmerman, 2000, p. 3). It is LSP, i.e. Language for Special Purposes (hereafter: LSP) that determines the special status of terminology. Terminological science studies concept-designation relations and principles guiding these relations in a particular subject field as well as methods of “collecting, processing, managing and presenting terminological data” in certain languages (Valeontis & Mantzari, 2006, p. 1).

Terminological science focuses, first and foremost, on the study of terminological units, i.e. terms. The nature of terminology is determined to a large extent by term-concept relations and the process of designation. Even though terminological studies are abundant and thoroughly developed, term definitions remain provisional and controversial. According to Karpova and Averbuh (2009, p. 13), a term is the “semantic center” of texts for special purposes. Antia (2000,

p. xix) refers to terms as “the information and knowledge centers”. Kageura (2002) agrees with Bessé, Nkwenti-Azeh and Sager on the following “provisional definition of a “term”: “a lexical unit consisting of one or more than one word which represents a concept inside a domain” (ibidem, p. 9). Ahmanova (1966) provides a simple definition of a term in “The Dictionary of Linguistic Terms”: “a word or a word combination of some specific (scientific, technical, etc.) language created (accepted, borrowed, etc.) to precisely define some special notions and to

designate special objects”. It should be considered that, for a long time, the ideas of notion and concept were used synonymously (Leichic & Shelov, 2003, p. 87).

All the definitions of terms share the common ground of emphasizing the importance of concept-term relations as well as the significance of semantic meaning which a term conveys in a certain domain, i.e. a subject field.

Terms function within LSP, which determines their special purposes and restricts both their content and form. Taking into consideration all the characteristic features of the terms mentioned, terms can be defined as distinctive signs which designate a certain concept and convey semantic meaning in texts for special purposes.

Professional and scientific communication is only possible provided a term and a corresponding concept are linked. Long before the main function of terminology was defined it had been postulated that a word, an object and a concept are linked. Ogden and Richards (1923,

p. 11) introduced a semantic triangle showing the link between a thought of reference, a symbol and a referent.

Terms, like any words in general language vocabulary, have two sides: a “systematic side” a “pragmatic” one (Cabré, 1999, p. 80). The systematic side is determined by the form and the content of a term, i.e. formal and semantic aspects, and also by their functions, i.e. a functional aspect. Terms are also significant from a pragmatic point of view, performing communicative functions and being the core of specialized communication.

Terms are units of codified resources, an established code, which is why they are necessarily systematic. From a formal point of view, as well as a semantic one, terms resemble general language units. Nevertheless, terms have a tendency towards conciseness, which leads to abbreviated forms, sign use, etc. Regarding the semantic side of a term, in theory, the term should designate a single explicitly defined concept, trying not to break a strict form requirement. According to Leichik (Leichik, 2007, p. 30; Leichik & Shelov, 2003, p. 88), terms borrow a “language substratum” from the lexical units of a natural language. From the terminological point of view, a term acquires the ability to designate a certain concept in the whole system of concepts belonging to a special field of knowledge. Consequently, a term

represents a “multi-strata product in which the natural language substratum and the logical superstratum are both present” (Leichik, 2007, p. 31; Leichik & Shelov, 2003, p. 88). The “logical superstratum” of terms allows them to designate special concepts. Terms, like general language elements, perform a number of functions: they reflect, describe, codify, fix and indicate some information. According to Kageura (2002, p. 14), “the basic function of terms is to express more sharply delineated meanings identified as necessary within a particular domain by the complexity and number of concepts that have to be clearly distinguished”.

Terms make special language discourse possible, serving as communicative and pragmatic units. Terminological units designate concepts belonging to special activities and disciplines, which makes their pragmatic side different from that of common language lexical units.

Terms function within LSP, being a “part of a structured system” (Cabré, 1999, p. 82). Terms are usually closely linked to the units of the same subject field, which are separated from terms functioning in other disciplines. Terms function in the context determined by their special field,

e.g. the term derivative behaves differently in the mathematical and management contexts:

• 
  “The derivative of a function represents an infinitesimal change in the function with respect to one of its variables” (Weisstein, n.d.);
  
• 
  “In June 2004, the total notional amount of derivatives traded over the counter was
  

$220 trillion.” (Stulz, n.d., p. 5).
In the first case, where the term is used to denote “the change of a function, f(x), with respect to an infinitesimally small change in the independent variable” (Collins), the term can be potentially linked to a number of expressions used in Mathematics: variables, functions, etc. The second case illustrates the usage of the management term, referring tо “a financial instrument, such as a futures contract or option, the price of which is largely determined by the commodity, currency, share price, interest rate, etc., to which it is linked” (Collins). The given management term can be surrounded by the following expressions: currency, interest rate, to trade, notional amount, share price, etc.

When a word becomes a term it loses its connections with the synonyms and antonyms of general language elements. This process leads to term delineation from the elements of the

language for general purposes, e.g. the term ceiling is used in the fields of Finance and Economics when referring to “an upper limit set on the number or amount of something” (Macmillan):

“concerning NH3 emissions: 19 Member States are already now below the ceilings, and the EU as a whole is also projected to ‘overachieve’ the target” (Commission of the European Communities, 2009, p. 30).

The term ceiling conveying such a meaning is close to such synonymic expressions as threshold, (upper) limit, maximum and the highest point, etc. Similarly the term is opposed to the following expressions: the lowest/starting point, minimum, bottom, etc. The term ceiling is connected to the antonym floor, to the term used in the field of Management conveying the opposite meaning: “a lower limit or base” (Dictionary, Encyclopedia and Thesaurus). Not only was a single concept transferred to the field of Management, but it was also accompanied by its antonym. Both terms are incorporated in the conceptual metaphor FINANCIAL OPERATIONS/COMPANIES AS BUILDINGS. The usage of a term is confined to a particular subject field, which determines its connections with synonyms and antonyms associated with the concept designated by the term.

A term can be borrowed not only from Language for General Purposes (hereafter: LGP), but also from another subject field, forming new synonym/antonym connections. For example, the term flotation is used in Physics:

“principle of flotation: A floating object displaces a weight of fluid equal to its own weight” (Hewitt).

In this case its use is extremely close to LGP and the following synonyms can be attributed to the term: buoyancy, floating, etc. The term used in the field of Physics was derived from the lexical unit to float, the meaning of which is opposite to that of to sink: “to go to the bottom” (Merriam-Webster). The Management term flotation which is used to denote “the raising of a loan or new capital by bond or share issues” (Collins): “some mature companies with a track record and stable earnings may be suitable candidates for floatation on a stock exchange” (Lavelle Coleman Solicitors, 2009, p. 1) is connected to such expressions as bond issue, shares,

to value, etc. The term was derived from the financial term to float: “to offer for sale (stock or bond issues, etc.) on the stock market” (Collins). The business term to sink, conveying the following negative meaning: “to lose (money) in an unwise or unfortunate investment” (Collins), cannot be considered as an antonym of the financial term to float, connected to stock or bond issues and is deprived of any connotation.

Terms can be separated from colloquial language, or on the contrary, they can be extremely close to informal language (Grinev-Grinevich, 2008, pp. 24-25). Term delineation from LGP and informal language can be observed in cases of strictly codified terminologies, e.g. the field of Medicine, where the term forms are thoroughly developed. The use of such terms is confined to LSP (though a few exceptions exist, e.g. the medical term obesity is used in informal language), while some lexical items function both in LSP and LGP, being “attributed to a borderline area” between the two languages: “chemical composition, metamorphic, invasive, recrystallization” (Cabré, 1999, p. 73). A term can be close to colloquial language due to a number of factors, such as its convenient form, the exposure to the public etc. The term kicker used in the field of Sport functions both in informal and special languages, whereas the term kicker attributed to the field of Management is more separate from informal language:

“the top fifth of taxpayers will garner nearly two-thirds of the kicker, averaging $2,002, or six times what the typical taxpayer will receive” (Oregon Center for Public Policy, 2007, p. 1).

Different usage patterns of homonymous terms can be explained by the different nature of the subject fields where the terms function.

2.