The requirements of monosemanticity and excluding synonyms are also contradictory within the field of Corporate Governance, where polysemy and homonymy are common cases (see 6.1.2. “Homonyms and Synonyms in Business Terminology Translation”). Although many descriptive forms violate the guidelines for monosemanticity and excluding synonyms, the phenomena cannot be disregarded completely.
According to the monosemanticity requirement, a single term form should be matched to a single concept. However, the dynamic nature of terminology not only changes term forms, but it also develops term content. DT helps to make term forms concrete, i.e. the forms it generates are meant to be accurate and unique. For example, the term safe harbor in Russian has the following descriptive forms:
меры, предпринимаемые компанией и позволяющие избежать угрозы поглощения, налогов (IFC) (mery, predprinimaemye kompaniej i pozvoljajushhie izbezhat' ugrozy pogloshhenija, nalogov; L.t.: measures undertaken by a company (and) making it possible to evade the threat of a takeover and debts);
мера по защите от недружественного поглощения (Ruscorpora) (mera po zashhite ot nedruzhestvennogo pogloshhenija; L.t.: a measure for the defense from a hostile takeover), etc.
In the English language the term can refer to:
“a legal provision to reduce or eliminate liability in certain situations as long as certain conditions are met” (Investopedia).
“a shark repellent tactic used by companies who do not want to be taken over, where they purposefully acquire a heavily regulated company to make themselves look less attractive to the entity considering taking them over” (ibidem).
“an accounting method that avoids legal or tax regulations or one that allows for a simpler method of determining a tax consequence than the methods described by the precise language of the tax code” (ibidem).
Accordingly, although DT of terms within the field of Management should meet the monosemanticity requirement, inaccurate term forms, normally retrieved by generalization, can result in homonymy within the field. For example, the terms poison pills and anti-takeover defense have similar forms to the term safe harbor (see the analysis in 6.1.2.):
poison pills: меры по защите от поглощений (Ruscorpora) (mery po zashhite ot pogloshhenij; L.t.: the measures for the defense against takeovers);
anti-takeover defense: меры защиты от поглощений (IFC) (mery zashhity ot pogloshhenij ; L.t.: defense measures against takeover(s)).
As demonstrated, proper descriptive forms should eliminate ambiguity within the field, whereas generalized or limited forms can result in the violations of the monosemanticity and excluding synonyms requirements for term creation.
Occasional or contextual term forms appear in Management texts to exclude repetition or to explain a term (for this reason, DT is often used) (see 6.1.1). The problem stems from the fact that such unstable term forms are often introduced into the codified resources. This creates an excess of “justified” synonyms, which cannot have the same status within Business terminology. For example, the term debt-to-equity ratio has the following descriptive equivalents in the Russian language:
cоотношение между собственными и заемными средствами (IFC; Academic) (sootnoshenie mezhdu sobstvennymi i zaemnymi sredstvami; L.t.: ratio between own and borrowed means);
отношение задолженности к собственному капиталу (Lingvo; Academic) (otnoshenie zadolzhennosti k sobstvennomu kapitalu; L.t.: ratio (relation) between liabilities and one´s own capital)
cоотношение заемных и собственных средств or соотношение собственных и заемных средств (Academic) (sootnoshenie zaemnyh i sobstvennyh sredstv or sootnoshenie sobstvennyh i zaemnyh sredstv; L.t.: ratio of own and borrowed (borrowed and owned) means), etc. (see table 18).
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |