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

Harmonization of Terminology

The harmonization of terms is urgently needed within fields for special purposes, as global communication imposes the patterns of language use. The quality of translation depends on codified resources: bilingual dictionaries, glossaries and corpora. In practice there are huge discrepancies between effective communication within LSP and the requirement for standardization. The harmonization of terminology should be distinguished from its standardization. The latter aims to prove and prescribe “term-concept univocity”, while harmonization focuses on “organizing and eliminating possible ambiguity and misunderstandings in specialized domains” (Isabel Duran-Muñoz, 2014, p. 79). Accordingly, harmonization can be interpreted as a recommendation, rather than a prescription.

The problem stems from the fact that different languages frame their own scientific and technical fields, which develop at different speeds. National terminologies are formed under different historical, social and cultural conditions, which results in the great variability of term translation. Moreover, strict barriers between LSP units and general language units do not exist. In addition to this, different languages have their own patterns of conceptualizing the world, while the language and thinking are inseparable. It is quite common for a source term to have several equivalents in the target language (see 6.1.2. “Homonyms and Synonyms in Business Terminology Translation”). In theory, “terms should be unambiguous and have one meaning and only one designation corresponding to one form <…>. In practice, however, even within a single subject, we note that a single form can be related to more than one meaning” (Cabré, 1999, p. 40).

Harmonization is controlled not only on a national level, but also a supranational one. For example, strict terminologies in Europe, e.g. legal ones, should conform to EU legislation (Whittaker, 2014, p. 62). Management Terminology is mostly controlled by UN rules and the norms of English-speaking countries. However, since terminologies are controlled by strict national and international rules sometimes national prescriptions do not conform to international ones. If certain norms prevail in a country, they will dictate the choice of a term form. It is also important to establish “whether the same concepts are present in the different national

transpositions” and “to identify the type of cultural factors that come into play”, if certain discrepancies are indicated (ibidem).

Scientific and technical language tends to develop steadily, requiring “a representation of the systematic part of the knowledge of the domain” (Kageura, 2002, p. 15). Terminology represents knowledge within a system of concepts (Antia, 2000, p. 100) and is based on the two contradictory requirements of “systematicity and flexibility” (Kageura, 2002, p. 19). The standardization of terminology, which “requires unified translinguistic guidelines” (Felber as cited in Kageura, 2002, p. 17) is also of great importance. Nevertheless, Kageura highlights the irrelevance and harmfulness of standardization combined with “the claim of systematicity in term creation” (Kageura, 2002, p. 19). The term creation process is seen as the main distinguishing feature of terminology, along with dictionary and glossary codification (Cabré, 1999, p. 33). The cornerstones of terminology, which are concept precedence over names, the exclusively synchronic nature of terminology, standardization and preference for a written form (ibidem, pp. 33 -34), are as controversial as the nature of terminology itself (Kageura, 2002, pp. 17-21).

Disharmonization and asymmetry appear when links are being established between concepts and term forms. New notions receive provisional forms, or lexical units with unstable content and temporary forms. As a rule, they do not meet the requirements for term creation, i.e. their forms are unstable, very long or overly descriptive (Kudashev, 2007, p. 106).

The systematicity of terminology can be ruined by the occasional use of terms in certain contexts. This can be attributed to the development of the discipline, author inaccuracy or stylistic aims (Grinev-Grinevich, 2008, p. 118). The occasional use of new, unstandardized terms is not a rare or serious phenomenon. However, grave mistakes result from the inclusion of occasional term forms in the dictionaries and glossaries.

Not only should term forms be standardized, but also the concepts. Pavel and Nolet (2001) define the concept harmonization as “an activity whose purpose is to eliminate minor differences between two concepts which are closely related” (p. 120), and refer to the term harmonization as “an activity leading to the designation of one concept, often in different languages, by terms

which reflect the same or similar characteristics or have the same or a slightly different form” (p. 133).

Some notions are barely shaped or defined when they are integrated into a certain special field. In most cases, terms are used to denote an emergent concept, and often this object or phenomenon receives a new connotation or sphere of use and as a result – a new form.

The term creation process often employs DT. Such term forms are usual when terminology is formed in one language and then borrowed into another one; the development stage of terminology in the source language is initial and unstable. For example, the term branding and all its terminological system were borrowed from English into Russian: “brand awareness – уровень информированности потребителей о бренде; brand share – удельный вес товара данной торговой марки; brand extension – расширение продаж товаров с одним фирменным названием; brand image – репутация товара определенной марки; brand ambassador – менеджер по продвижению бренда” (Chistova, 2013, p. 114). Chistova quotes Kretov (2010) to explain diachronic asymmetry in terminology harmonization (as cited in Chistova, 2013, pp. 113-114). The appearance of descriptive forms or synonyms, according to Chistova (2013, p. 114), can be a sign of the lack of order within a certain terminological system.

Term forms are being constantly adapted to different conditions. This results in adaptive asymmetry in terminology (ibidem). Kretov (2010) refers to this kind of asymmetry as the “adaptive” one in linguistics, when the number of forms prevails over the number of functions (p. 10). When the functions surpass the forms, such asymmetry is called “compressive” (ibidem). According to Chistova (2013), the phenomenon of abbreviations replacing the full forms of terms can be attributed to compressive asymmetry: “B2B Brand (Business to Business Brand. Example: Caterpillar, Intel, Bosch); B2C Brand (Business to Consumer Brand. Example: Dell, Sunsilk, Amazon)” (p. 114).

Accordingly, the disharmonization of terminology from a diachronic perspective is connected to the asymmetry of term forms and functions in the course of LSP development. Synonyms, abbreviations and descriptive forms appear in different contexts or at the initial stages of term coinage or borrowing. Such term forms can be fixed by glossaries or dictionaries without

essential listings or comments, which represents a hindrance for the harmonization of terminology.

According to Chistova (2013), “homologous symmetry”, i.e. “the comparison of terminological systems in different languages” (p. 114) reveals that the branding term system in Russian is striving to be independent. The branding terminological system is mostly translated from English into Russian. Nevertheless, the term forms need to have derivability, which results in asymmetry (ibidem). For example, the direct translation equivalent of the term brand: торговая марка is not productive when considering its derivability. For this reason the transcription form is used as its synonym for the creation of derivatives: “бренд: брендовый (качественный, представительный, фирменный), брендинговый (относящийся к бренду), брендированный (расширяющий функциональность)” (ibidem).

The most relevant kind of symmetry for the harmonization of terminology is a synchronic one. It reveals term creation patterns and functions of term components at a certain stage of language development. Each language is striving for harmony; however, this may result in asymmetry on an interlingual level. English exerts a considerable influence over terminology in other languages, which leads to “denotative symmetry”, but triggers “graphic asymmetry” (ibidem). The lack of harmonization of the graphic forms of terms retrieved by transcription or transliteration is especially evident in languages with structures which are different from English, like Russian. For example, the term stakeholder can be found in two transcription forms in Russian: cтейкхоулдер (IFC) (steikhoulder) and стейкхолдер (Ruscorpora) (steikholder). The confusion stems from the fact that the English letter “o” can have a diphthong, which is not typical in the Russian phonetic system.

“Semantic symmetry” (ibidem) can be achieved using Calque for the borrowing of terms:

•