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

Monosemanticity

According to the monosemanticity requirement, in theory every term should designate a single concept, i.e. a particular term form should refer to a single meaning. The issue of monosemanticity is one of the most controversial ones in terminological science. It is closely connected to the interpretation of term-concept relationships as well as the nature of concepts. Not only should a term be accurate, concise, transparent, etc., but it should also be concrete. Multiple meanings are considered undesirable in terminology. Reformatskij (2005, p. 61) is sure

that terms “are striving to be monosemantic”, because their main function is to designate a single, concrete meaning. In practice, though, it turns out that terms do not conform to this requirement. Terminology development implies a number of changes, including meaning variation. Changes are inevitable when new concepts appear. According to Lemov (2000, pp. 46- 47), it is characteristic of language signs to be “asymmetric”. Temmerman (2000, p. 7) is sure that many concepts are “not clear-cut”, which triggers term instability. According to Márquez Linares (2002, pp. 225-226), specialized language cannot be separated from general language. Metaphorical and metonymical shifts as well as conceptual metaphors are frequent phenomena in specialized languages (which highlights Lakoff and Johnson’s idea of metaphor objectiveness (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980, pp. 187-188; Márquez Linares, 2002, p. 226). Consequently, the monosemanticity requirement cannot be regarded as restrictive. In this respect, the principle of “fixed content” appears to be relevant to terminology (Vinogradov & Platonova, 1999), that is to say, variability within a single context should be eliminated. In practice, multiple meanings are frequent in texts for special purposes.

Polysemy is a result of the extension of a meaning by means of metaphor or metonymy (Márquez Linares, 2002). Accordingly, polysemy functions on a conceptual level. Polysemy can be regarded as a product of using an existing term form to designate a new emergent concept, i.e. the result of the process of interdisciplinary borrowing or terminologization. In this case a polysemantic term represents a source for a new term, e.g. the term influx functioning in the special field of Physics acts like a source domain for the Management term, created using metaphor: “the countries which allowed participation of foreign capital in the privatization process, are the countries with the highest rates of influx of FDI per capita” (Stanisic, 2008, p. 32).

The phenomenon of referential ambiguity employs categorization (Márquez Linares, 2002, p.

218) in contrast to polysemy, which functions with the help of meaning extension. In other words, terms are created independently from each other, referring to a single superordinate meaning (Márquez Linares, 2002, p. 217). The expression booster functions in the fields of Technology and Management fields conveying the following meanings: an amplifier (Vocabulary.com) and stimulus, respectively:

1. 
   “when you finish using your booster, slide its power switch in the opposite direction. Then turn off the audio source’s power before disconnecting the headphones and the audio source” (RadioShack Corporation, 2001);
   
2. 
   “the 2004 financial year is expected to see further change in relative sector performance, as falling interest rates become the main booster of economic activity” (FirstRand).
   

Both terms are based on the LGP unit: “a person or thing that supports, assists, or increases power or effectiveness” (Collins); however, they were created independently. Both terms were created with the help of metaphorical shift from the meaning of a word boost, referring to the assistance, improvement or help (Lingvo).

9.