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

Transparency

Term transparency implies an explicit relation to a certain concept. A term is transparent when the concept it is linked to is obvious to some extent. The meaning of a term is visible when “a key characteristic, usually a delimiting characteristic” is used (ISO, 1999, p. 24). For example, “chalk board” is more transparent than “blackboard”, because “the complexity of concept system increased” (ISO, 1999, p. 24). And nowadays the word “board” is used, which also illustrates the case of concept level change. The requirement for transparency is closely connected to the “term motivation” principle, specified by some researchers (Leichik & Shelov, 2003, p. 88).

A completely motivated term is a term which makes the concept it designates absolutely clear. The term share buy-back can be considered both transparent and motivated, as its main components, shares and the process of buyback, can be inferred from the form of the term: “share buyback is when a company makes an offer to buy back some of its own shares” (VentureLine), “a company buys back its own shares” (LSE); it is “the repurchase of a company's own shares: приобретение акций обществом: выкуп обществом собственных акций” (Economicus) (priobretenie akcij obshhestvom: vykup obshhestvom sobstvennyh akcij; L.t.: share acquisition by a company: the process of buying back its own shares). Some terms are not motivated because their etymology and/or LGP usage patterns are not transparent in the language which borrowed the terms in their original forms using transcription or transliteration. The Management term due diligence: “research and analysis of a company or organization done in preparation for a business transaction (as a corporate merger or purchase of securities)” (Merriam-Webster) is associated with the LGP expression due diligence referring to “such diligence as a reasonable person under the same circumstances would use” (Dictionary.com). In Russian the term is used in the same phonetic form: дью дилидженс (IFC), which makes term form absolutely unclear.

A term can lose its motivation during monolingual term formation, if the etymology of the term loses its transparency over time, e.g. the word benchmarking, which functions in the field of Management denoting “a measurement of the quality of an organization's policies, products, programs, strategies, etc., and their comparison with standard measurements, or similar measurements of its peers” (Business Dictionary) was derived from the word benchmark: “any standard or reference by which others can be measured or judged” (Dictionary.com), which originally was used to refer to a “surveyor's point of reference” (Online Etymology Dictionary). A term form can be unclear if the term is motivated in a figurative manner, e.g. anti-dilution, greenmail, etc. The constituents of terms in this case cannot be inferred: anti-dilution “is the increase in earnings per share or decrease in loss per share that results when one assumes the conversion of convertible instruments, the exercise of options and warrants, or the issuance of common shares if specified conditions are satisfied” (Accounting Tools).

The transparency requirement is one of the main reasons for using the DT of terms, thus making their components clear, e.g. the term due diligence in Russian is used not only in the same phonetic form, but also in the following ones making term components explicit: всесторонний анализ достоверности предоставляемой информации (IFC), должная заботливость, осмотрительность, должная проверка, надлежащее обследование (Lingvo) (vsestoronnij analiz dostovernosti predostavljaemoj informacii; L.t.: a comprehensive analysis of the authenticity of the information given; dolzhnaja zabotlivost', osmotritel'nost', dolzhnaja proverka, nadlezhashhee obsledovanie; L.t.: due diligence (Calque), due circumspection, due verification, due investigation).

2.