|
Deriviability, Consistency, Appropriateness, Monosemanticity; and Excluding Synonyms Term Formation Requirements.
When a term is being coined, attention is given, above all, to the functions of the concept it designates. When the terms with equivalents in the target language are being translated, the choice of a term form is influenced both by the native language standards and the source language prescriptions (see chapter 10 “Harmonization”).
In LGP, when a non-equivalent word is being translated, translators focus on the best way of revealing its content. In LSP attention is given not only to the content of a term, but also to its practical, innovative, and concrete form. The level of rigidity in term form calculation depends on its field, e.g. in Medicine a concrete form is a priority. In the field of Medicine the international and universal term creation patterns are used (see chapter 10 “Harmonization”).
The most important standards for term forms are the consistency and derivability requirements. A term should correlate with other terms in its field and interconnected spheres,
i.e. it should be consistent. And in addition to this, the term form should be productive, i.e. generate other term forms using derivability.
Regarding DT and Corporate Governance Terminology, the consistency and derivability requirements often correlate with each other. For example, the term listed company, standing for a “firm whose shares are listed (quoted) on a stock exchange for public trading. Also called
quoted company” (Business Dictionary), is consistent in Business terminology in English: listed shares, listed company (Corporate Governance), listed security, listed option (Finance), etc. It is also relatively productive regarding derivability: listing, i.e. “something that is listed” (Merriam- Webster).
In Russian, the terms employing the term component “listed” represent a peculiar case, as they use its derivative “listing” incorporated into the descriptive form:
listed company: компания, включённая в листинг фондовой биржи (Ruscorpora) (kompanija, vkljuchjonnaja v listing fondovoj birzhi; L.t.: a company, included in the listing of a stock exchange).
listed (shares): включённые в листинг (vkljuchjonnye v listing; L.t.: included in the listing) (IFC).
Accordingly, the sphere of Corporate Management in Russian strives to be consistent by using the same term components to denote closely related concepts: листинг (listing). Accordingly, DT follows the requirement for consistency in this case. Nevertheless, these term forms prove to be consistent only to a limited extent, as the terms vary in codified resources:
компания, акции которой котируются на фондовой бирже (UNTERM) (kompanija, akcii kotoroj kotirujutsja na fondovoj birzhe; L.t.: a company whose shares are rated on a stock exchange) (Academic);
компания, чьи акции торгуются на (фондовой) бирже/рынке (Ruscorpora) (kompanija, ch'i akcii torgujutsja na (fondovoj) birzhe/rynke; L.t.: a company whose shares are being traded on a stock exchange/market), etc. (see table 8).
This means that term form consistency should be provided by codified resources, which is difficult to reach within DT.
The trend to substitute one English form with its derivative can be explained. The English term listed cannot be retrieved by means of transcription in Russian, because voiced consonants (d=д) become voiceless in Russian at the end of a word, which can result in the repetition of a t- sound (т). In addition to this, the ending “ed” cannot be shaped in its original phonetic from in Russian (the similar sounds are “э” or “ы”, which risk inconvenient and doubtful pronunciation).
Transliteration is also not possible, because it will result in an unwieldy morphological and phonetic form (for the reasons mentioned above). The ending”–isinngo”t perceived by native speakers as a natural part of their language; however, English has exerted a considerable influence on Russian, and many words with this ending have been borrowed: leasing: лизинг; branding: брендинг (Lingvo), etc.
In the case analyzed above, DT meets the requirement for consistency. At first, it can be suggested that the DT method in this particular situation reduces the derivability of the term. In extreme cases, DT violates the term formation requirement for derivability, because the descriptive elements are too unwieldy to generate derivatives. However, the descriptive term with a participle: “включённый в листинг” (vkljuchjonnyj v listing; L.t.: included in the listing), can be used to form another term. Participles in Russian can have a short passive form (краткое страдательное причастие (kratkoje stradatel’noje prichastije)). A short form of a participle acts as a predicate and agrees with a noun. Accordingly, participial construction in Russian is highly productive. In addition to this, the use of the “листинг” component (listing) opens up a wide range of possible term forms.
The term “to go public” is semantically dense and not transparent in Russian, which triggered the use of descriptive forms:
войти в листинг фондовой биржи (IFC) (vojti v listing fondovoj birzhi; L.t.: to enter in the listing of a stock exchange);
(быть) включённым в листинг фондовой биржи (Ruscorpora) ((byt') vkljuchjonnym v listing fondovoj birzhi; L.t.: to be included into the listing of a stock exchange) (see table 5).
The term listing has the following meaning: “acceptance of a qualifying security for trading over a stock exchange” (Business Dictionary). To go public in its turn stands for “<…> becoming a publicly traded and owned entity” (Investopedia). The process of translation uses the correlation of causes and consequences for the phenomenon. It triggers the use of one form for several English terms (listed (shares, company); to go public). The translation methods proved not to be correct, because to go public “refers to a private company's initial public offering
(IPO)” (Investopedia). After IPO the company does indeed become public and the securities are listed; however, IPO is not equal to listing (Chto takoe IPO (n.d.)): IPO “is the first time that the stock of a private company is offered to the public” (Investopedia).
Accordingly, DT is a very contradictory method in terms of its derivability and consistency. DT balances between term content transparency and a productive and consistent term form. It limits its own possibilities of term form creation.
The appropriateness requirement is also closely connected to the term form standards (derivability and consistency). It excludes any stylistic deviations of terms: in Business terminology they should be formal. This guideline also dismisses slang forms, ambiguous meanings and vulgar components within Management terminology. For example, the term to go public, mentioned above, can be found in the glossary in the following form: cтать публичной (о компании) (IFC) (stat’ publichnoy (o kompanii); L.t.: to become public (about a company). This term form is undesirable for Russian and it contradicts the appropriateness requirement, because the term component “публичный” has different semantic undertones, such as “common”, “overt”, “available” or even “indecent”. Consequently, this descriptive form is not preferable for Russian. In addition to this, the term can be confused with LGP elements.
Accordingly, descriptive forms of one term extracted from various codified resources can meet the appropriateness requirement and can also break it.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
