Rute Costa, Centro de Lingustica da Universidade Nova de Lisboa

Terminology and Specialised Lexicography:

two complementary domains
1 Introduction 4 Two domains serving
2. Terminology: a twofold science Translation
3 Terminology vis--vis Specialised 5 Concluding remarks
Lexicography 6 Bibliography

Abstract: This paper focuses on finding links and dissimilarities between Terminol-
ogy and Specialised Lexicography. This debate is not new though. However, the evo-
lution of Terminology into other spheres of activity besides lexicography and special-
ised communication has strengthened the differences between these two domains.
Translators that need to access structured knowledge in order to transfer it from one
linguistic system into another need both the products that derive from terminological
work and those that originate from lexicographical work. Therefore, we do not start
from the dichotomy Terminology vs. Specialised Lexicography, but from a relation-
ship that builds on the idea of a continuum that allows us to argue that these disci-
plines are connected albeit at different degrees.

1Introduction

The status of Terminology vis--vis Specialised Lexicography has long been debated
among the several communities that, from a theoretical and/or methodological
standpoint, ponder about the status of the term and its role in terminological or lexi-
cographical work. This debate is manifold, since the communities that work with or
in Terminology are numerous and varied, and each of them makes epistemological
assumptions that may be controversial even within the scope of their own disciplines
and/or sciences.
Within a specialised context, Terminology is undoubtedly at the core of knowl-
edge construction and organization, and acts of communication, being instrumental
for designing, building and feeding linguistic, terminological and semantic resources
whether computational or not that ensue from the activities performed by the
several scientific and professional communities. This fact reveals the actual value
of Terminology, whether understood as science or nomenclature. Although rich,
however, such diversity may cause a certain level of dispersal that constitutes none-
theless a disruption of the development of its identity as a scientific discipline since
its theoretical and methodological assumptions tend to merge with those of the disci-
plines or sciences that adopt it.

10.1515/lexi-2013-0004
Bereitgestellt von | Humboldt-Universitt zu Berlin
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 16.03.16 13:09
30 Rute Costa

The need to distinguish Terminology from Specialised Lexicography derives from

the fact that both domains share the same object the term. The result of the anal-
yses performed by both domains gives rise to materials that are reference objects for
the human being and that are used traditionally, and primarily, for specialised com-
munication ends.
We currently resort to Terminology for other ends that do not imply solely provid-
ing solutions for communication issues between human beings. Classifying objects
and organizing knowledge for computer purposes is one of its many applications. The
conviction that Terminology is the nerve centre of many areas within very different
communities justifies the need to define its limits as far as other related sciences and/
or disciplines are concerned.
Thus, these communities include those who:
1. work in theoretical and/or applied research in Terminology;
2. use Terminology the different fields of knowledge (Fachgebiete);
3. design and build tools and resources;
4. translate and localize;
5. organize, structure and classify;
6. harmonize and standardize;
7. work on language planning.

The members of these different communities who work in Terminology, usually have
double skills and are increasingly interconnected in transdisciplinary teams. Their
basic training is very diverse, which thus directly entails very different worldviews
and therefore different conceptualisations of their objects.
In this regard, Roche (2012:1) states:

Nowadays, terminology, as an independent discipline, risks being absorbed into specialised

lexicography or knowledge engineering; the former reducing it to a study of linguistic phenom-
ena and the latter, to an issue of computational knowledge representation. Nevertheless, termi-
nology as a scientific discipline is crucial if we consider that its primary aim is to understand the
world, describe the objects that populate it and find the right words to talk about them.

Working in Terminology implies recognizing the double dimension of Terminology

both linguistic and conceptual. It is in this double dimension that, in spite of their
manifest connections, Terminology inexorably diverges from Specialised Lexicogra-
phy.
Bearing in mind the double dimension of Terminology leads us to question the
assumptions set forth by Bergenholz / Tarp (1995:10), who established an identity
relationship between both disciplines,

Although traditionally LSP lexicography and terminology/terminography differ in terms of

approach, in our opinion they are not autonomous, non-interrelated disciplines, as in several
respects they deal with the same subject matter. We therefore do not agree with those terminolo-
gists who, in their attempt to demarcate terminology vis--vis LSP lexicography, only widen the
gap between the latter and terminology/terminography [].

Bereitgestellt von | Humboldt-Universitt zu Berlin

Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 16.03.16 13:09
quivalents de traduction pour les pragmatmes dans la lexicographie Franais-Espagnol 31

as well as those expressed by Pearson (1998) and Kageura (2002), who consider that
the status of the term is built from its behaviour in a communicative situation (cf.
Myking 2007). Although we do not disagree with this last assumption, we also believe
it to be reductionist, since in Terminology the term may play different roles it may
be a unit of discourse, but also a unit of representation. This duality is crucial for
the task of distinguishing Terminology from Specialised Lexicography so that we can
subsequently connect them.
We are not going to start from the dichotomy Terminology vs. Specialised Lexi-
cography, but from an opposition that builds on the idea of a continuum that allows
us to argue that these disciplines are connected although that connection may show
different degrees.

2Terminology: a twofold science

In Terminology there are several theoretical perspectives some clearly opposed to

others that coexist and represent distinct epistemological and linguistic assump-
tions (Wster 1985) (Sager 1990), (Cabr 1993, 2003), (Temmerman 2000), (LHomme
2004), (Budin 2001), (Laurn / Picht / Myking 1998), (Felber 1984), (Bassey 2007)
(Boisson/ Thoiron 1987). The perspectives are communicative, socio-cognitive, cog-
nitive, and many of them, in our opinion, fail to focus on what characterizes Termi-
nology as an autonomous discipline and enables its distinction from other related
areas.
Terminology maintains interdependence relations with Linguistics, Information
Sciences, Knowledge Engineering, Computer Engineering, with which it shares its
basic concepts, such as term, concept, definition, characteristic, among others.
In these domains, many use the same concepts, albeit with different terms, or even
different terms to designate the same concepts. Those concepts that lie at the inter-
section of many scientific fields cause a symbiotic relationship between those fields.
In view of these interdependence relationships, we will retain the domains that
focus mostly on one of the two dimensions of terminology the linguistic or the con-
ceptual leaving the other in the background. On the one hand, there are the commu-
nities that have the term, i.e., the designation as their core study object; on the other
hand, there are those whose priority is the concept. It is from this double dimension,
and from the study of the relationship between one and the other, that Terminology
acquires its status of autonomous scientific domains. If attached to only one of those
dimensions, it will lose its specificity, its autonomy and consequently its object of
study.
The distinctions made by Wster are subject to debate and give rise to some dis-
sonance in the Terminology community. Wster looks at the question of Terminology
from three distinct points of view, two of which are relevant to our enquiry:

Bereitgestellt von | Humboldt-Universitt zu Berlin

Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 16.03.16 13:09
32 Rute Costa

(1) concepts are the starting point for all terminological work [Ausgehen von den
Begriffen] (Wster 1985 :1);
(2) all terminological work concerns the lexicon [Beschrnkung auf dem Wortschatz]
(Wster 1985 :2).

The first approach stating that the starting point is the concept leads non-linguist
terminologists to fail to take into consideration the designation since it is the point
of entry for the concept, and makes them state, improperly, that the term is a label or
that the descriptors are the terms.
Point of view (2) put forward by Wster is the assumption that leads linguists, and
more broadly, language practitioners, to state that Terminology is a matter of linguis-
tics and a matter of language. Consequently the concept is necessarily relegated to
the background, since for them, quite obviously, the concept is not accessible unless
via the designations and therefore it is the designation that serves as a starting point.
Here is where we will find a perspective that is put forward in several works, including
Cabr (Cabr 2009 : 9) :

The general terminology theory, formerly oriented towards normalization matters, gives place
to a more open approach, one that is more strongly placed at the core of linguistics, more able to
account for the multiplicity of scenarios of the scientific and technical communication. The com-
municative theory of terminology is an approach that considers that terms are simultaneously
units of language, cognition and social functioning.

In Terminology, the value attributed to the concept of concept allows us to distin-

guish non-linguistic approaches from linguistic approaches. The systematic manner
in which the concept is approached and placed at the core of the conceptual systems
to which it belongs is a specificity of the terminological approach.
For Wster, the conceptual dimension is fundamental. Nevertheless, at its foun-
dations the verbal designation plays a somewhat relevant role. Firstly, because desig-
nations are indispensable to designate concepts, and also because they are necessary
elements for non-ambiguous communication.
This non-ambiguous communication combined with the idea of a prescriptive
language is a point of view that prompts negative reactions from most linguists.
Linguists know that non-ambiguity is a utopian ideal and that prescriptiveness
does not prevail in many contexts, except when it comes to industrial standard-
ization.
Language must have regulating instruments, but not necessarily standardization
ones. Standardization has more to do with knowledge than with language or dis-
course and in the language/discourse couple, it has more to do with language. For the
way in which we speak about a concept varies and depends on the communicative
situation in which the expert-speakers find themselves. This communicative situation
influences the choice of term as a discourse unit, but it does not influence the stability
of the concept which we are talking about.

Bereitgestellt von | Humboldt-Universitt zu Berlin

Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 16.03.16 13:09
quivalents de traduction pour les pragmatmes dans la lexicographie Franais-Espagnol 33

Being an engineer, the fact that Wster felt the need to transpose the standard-
ization of concepts and conceptual systems to terms and language is understandable.
But within democratic societies, these standardizing impositions applied to discourse
are hardly acceptable.
Let us get back to the concept: if the starting point is the concept, understood
as a thought element (Denkelement) by Wster, in standard 1087 :1 :2000 (E/F) as a
unit of knowledge created by a unique combination of characteristics or even as a
spcification logique that structure la ralit de manire stable, indpendamment
de la langue (Roche 2008 :12), it is true that the designation is, in discourse, a point
of access to the concept.
That the concept is a central element is not, for us, the question. The question
is knowing whether it is always the starting point in terminological work as Wster
argues or if it can be the point of arrival depending on the circumstances. This is
the question that makes us wonder about the importance of the discussions around
which perspective to adopt: a semasiological or an onomasiological one. Theoreti-
cally speaking, the difference between these two approaches is clear; regarding their
practices and methodologies it is less so.
Besides the theoretical debates on the linguistic, epistemological or logical
perspective of Terminology, the double dimension of Terminology prompts the dis-
cussion on the methodologies that must be followed. In the context of numerous IT
applications including automatic language-processing, knowledge organization
and ontologies the choice of methodology bears incommensurable consequences
for the work that is currently ongoing.

3Terminology vis--vis Specialised Lexicography

Terminology and Specialised Lexicography cannot be confused whether due to their

theories or their methodologies, or even due to the resources that derive from them,
given that they correspond to rather different social needs.
In spite of having the same object to analyse, it is none the less true that what
interests the specialised lexicographer is the lexicographic term as a lemma under-
stood as an autonomous entity that constitutes part of the specialized lexicon. The
focus is placed on matters related to the specialised lexicon treated in the lexicolog-
ical and morphosyntactic sense of the word. Dictionary models that include macro-
structures and microstructures, metalanguage, language description are some of the
concerns of the lexicographer. (cf. Bergenholz / Tarp 1995) These concerns are gener-
ally passed over by concept-oriented terminologists.
Lexicography studies the facts of specialised lexicon. Terminology, on the other
hand, deals with terms verbal designations of concepts that are related to other
concepts within the conceptual systems to which they belong:

Bereitgestellt von | Humboldt-Universitt zu Berlin

Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 16.03.16 13:09
34 Rute Costa

Concepts are not independent phenomena. They are always related to other concepts in one
way or another, and form concept systems which can vary from fairly simple to extremely com-
plicated (Suonuuti 2001:14)

Let us look at two examples that illustrate the difference in the results and the dif-
ferent forms of representation that can be obtained when we deal with terms or with
terms and concepts.
For the first case we chose an example from the dictionary Lconomie et les
affaires. Dizionario Fraseologica FRANCESE ITALIANO, ITALIANO FRANCESE dei
termini dell economia e del Commercio by Zanichelli (1994)

transporter vt trasportare, trasferire, cedere

du fait du juste temps il faut t. plus vite, de
faon plus fiable, des lots plus gros, plus nom-
breux, selon des flux plus alatoires: dato il
just-in-time ocorre trasferire al pi presto, in
Modo pi sicuro, dei lotti pi grandi, pi nume
rosi, secondo dei flussi maggioramente aleatori:
PIB constant, le tonnage transport diminue:
a parit di Pil, il tonnellaggio trasportato dimi-
nusce vp se transporter: trasferirsi, recarsi
se t. sur les lieux: recarsi sul posto, fare un so-
pralluogo.

We believe that here we stand clearly before a different meaning of term than the
one used by terminologists. In Terminology, a term is a term because it designates a
concept, and the concept is clearly identified, described or defined while occupying
a slot in the conceptual system to which it belongs. That is not the case of the verb
transporter here described. In the dictionary presentation, the editor provides the
following explanation regarding the added-value of this model of dictionary:

Lutilisateur en tirera un triple avantage: dun ct le contexte fournit de prcieuses informa-

tions sur lusage grammatical et syntaxique du terme, la phrase peut par ailleurs suggrer la tra-
duction dautres termes, enfin, souvent lexemple dfinit ou prcise le sens du mot recherch.
(Lditeur 1994:3)

This description offered by the editor denotes linguistic concerns since each and every
reference to the concept is omitted. This specialised dictionary is a good example of
the type of descriptive work which is carried out under the scope of Specialised Lex-
icography.
So as to provide an example of a resource based on the principles of Terminology,
we have chosen a proposal for a conceptual system which was built to meet the needs
of a European project in the field of statistics, whose aim was to propose definitions

12009 2011. European Statistical System Centers and Networks of Excellence on SDMX Workpack-

Bereitgestellt von | Humboldt-Universitt zu Berlin

Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 16.03.16 13:09
quivalents de traduction pour les pragmatmes dans la lexicographie Franais-Espagnol 35

of concepts in natural and semiformal (cmaps) languages. Since defining involves

resorting the language in order to fix the boundaries of the concept, it implies distin-
guishing one concept from the next within a concept system. However, at the stage
of the organization of knowledge we resort whenever necessary to the definition that
we call semiformal, which sustains the quality of the definition in natural language.

In terminology work, an analysis of the relations among concepts and an arrangement of them
into concept systems, is the prerequisite for the successful drafting of definitions (Suonuuti
2001:14)

As an example, we present the following definitions that combine the definition in

natural language with the semiformal definition:

Example 1: statistical information

definition: statistical data and statistical metadata obtained within the statistical
activity
source: SDMX (2009) ; ESSNET on SDMX, WP2, 2011
note: updated definition

Diagram 1: statistical information

Example 2: statistical data

definition: data obtained within the statistical activity.
source: SDMX (2009); ESSNET on SDMX, WP2, 2011
note: new term

Diagram 2: statistical data

Source: Morgado / Saraiva / Mendes / Bacelar / Roche / Costa (2011)

age 2 Metadata Common Vocabulary Ontology. European Comission EUROSTAT [60501.2009.001

2009. 317]. Coordination: Instituto Nacional de Estatstica Portugal

Bereitgestellt von | Humboldt-Universitt zu Berlin

Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 16.03.16 13:09
36 Rute Costa

As seen above, these examples were not conceived specifically to overcome commu-
nication difficulties, but to define and delimit concepts within the same conceptual
system. The former clearly aims at solving both monolingual and multilingual spe-
cialised communication issues, providing assistance to translation. This is so because
we are given the term together with the descriptions of its meanings, as well as the
information users need to utilize the terms in their discourse: the passage from the
language system to discourse is thus made easier. It is therefore possible to identify
collocations and the most common phraseologies in a specialised field in order to
build discourse. Hence the presentation of the term in a discursive context.
The content presented on the second example indisputably results from termi-
nological work. However, we would not call the physical object that contains these
examples a dictionary. We would rather call it a terminological resource. Its aim is
to present a systematic organization of concepts and their respective terms, together
with their definitions in natural language.
We have deliberately shown two examples that could not be further apart in
order to illustrate the different approaches to the term and its representation. The
first example provides a description of the specialised lexicon and its discursive con-
textualisation, while the second identifies the concept and includes it in a conceptual
system.
Terms are means to represent knowledge. The difficulty in theorizing about it lies
in the fact that those two realities the world and its discursive representation
create a durable and reciprocal relation.

4Two domains serving Translation

The two examples described in section 3 show two different kinds of representa-
tion. The fact that the former is mostly concentrated on the description of the term
and it use in discourse and the latter is focused on the definition of the concept
implies that each results from the theoretical and methodological assumptions
that underlie its domain. This leads us to argue that the term, regardless of its
aims, must involve a twofold approach both its linguistic and conceptual dimen-
sions have to be taken into account. This view stems from the assumption that the
quality of specialised discourses is proportional to the organization of the knowl-
edge that supports them.
It is exactly in this paradigm shift that we can find the notion of a continuum from
the methodologies used in Terminology (onomasiological approach) to the method-
ologies used in Lexicography (semasiological approach) and vice-versa. This contin-
uum framework allows us to choose the starting point according to the social aims of
the terminological resource or dictionary.
Translators deal with texts/discourses. Their job is to change discourses from
one language to another, accurately and naturally transmitting the knowledge that is

Bereitgestellt von | Humboldt-Universitt zu Berlin

Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 16.03.16 13:09
quivalents de traduction pour les pragmatmes dans la lexicographie Franais-Espagnol 37

being conveyed. Specialised discourse is built resorting to lexical systems that inte-
grate terms and that indicate the existence of a conceptual organization:

Source: Costa, Rute / Roche, Christophe (2012:41)

The terminologists job is to establish a relationship between two systems of a differ-

ent nature.
As a rule, since they are neither experts in linguistics nor experts in any of the
fields they work with, translators need to be able to trust the reference resources they
resort to. Because finding a linguistic equivalent that seems to be adequate for the
context does not necessarily imply a conceptual equivalence. That relationship has
to be assured by LSP products. Multilingual content needs to guarantee the linguistic
and conceptual quality of terminological data and the quality of discourses produced.
Therefore, on this particular point, we agree with Bergehnholz / Tarp (1995:11)
when they say that:

Accordingly, in our opinion LSP lexicography and terminology / terminography have a great
deal in common. LSP lexicographers and terminologists both can and should mutually inspire
and learn from each other. As will appear from this manual, we consider serious terminological
work an absolute prerequisite for high-quality specialized dictionaries. In this respect, special-
ized lexicography may benefit from terminology, and it is in this light that we view terminology,
or at least areas of terminology, as an integral part of specialized lexicography in a wider sense.
Correspondingly, terminography has much to learn from the long lexicographical tradition in
terms of preparing user-friendly quality products.

Specialised Lexicography should come closer to Terminology in order to deal more

incisively with the concept. The systematisation with which the concept is approached
in Terminology will be an added-value for the several communities because it enables

Bereitgestellt von | Humboldt-Universitt zu Berlin

Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 16.03.16 13:09
38 Rute Costa

dictionaries to be fitted with credible information on the concept. This will spare
translators from having to search for information in less trustworthy sources and
enables them to build their own knowledge from unstructured data.
In our opinion, neither lexicographers nor translators need to treat each concept
systematically. However, we believe it is convenient to build conceptual micro-sys-
tems based on established criteria, thus providing translators with specialised infor-
mation that allows them to separate the levels of analysis lexical and conceptual
for those concepts whose designations raise any questions.
Those questions may be varied:
(1) concept-related: it is difficult to distinguish a concept from a very similar one;
(2) text-related: it is difficult to distinguish a designation from another in an ambigu-
ous textual environment;
(3) lexicon-related: the term is polysemic;
(4) lexicon- and concept-related: doubts arise because of the existence of synonymy
or near- synonymy;
Let us look at an actual example that occurred in the Portuguese Parliament under
the scope of the Terminological and Textual Database Assembly of the Portuguese
Republic project (BDTT-AR). We believe that the quality and accuracy of special lan-
guage discourse are directly dependent on the relationship between the lexical and
conceptual organization.
For the lexical organization, we have created lexical fields that are organized
around core-forms that represent relevant legal-parliamentary concepts, such as
<voto> (vote), <rgo> (body), <deputado> (member of Parliament), so that subse-
quently a conceptual organization might be suggested. After analysing the data, we
have seen that a single term may designate two different concepts even when it is not
a case of homonymy, polysemy or variation.
Let us look at the following examples: voto em branco (blank ballot paper) and
voto electrnico (electronic voting). Both terms refer to the <act of voting>. However,
the latter is a <manner of voting>, while the former is a <result of voting>. The iden-
tification of the existence of two distinct forms for the <act of voting> has relevant
implications in terms of data quality:

(i) it shows deep knowledge of the domain;

(ii) it makes the search for equivalents faster; and
(iii) it facilitates and increases the quality of the definitions in natural language.

For this reason, our terminological work was based on analysing and structuring
concepts and the relationships between them, as well as analysing and structuring
their respective terms and relationships that can reflect the former. The purpose of the
concept system is to represent knowledge in a domain via a set of structured concepts
taking into consideration the relationships that link them. Our aim is to represent
some concept systems the concept micro-systems that can help us have a more
structured perception of the legal-parliamentary field as a whole.

Bereitgestellt von | Humboldt-Universitt zu Berlin

Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 16.03.16 13:09
quivalents de traduction pour les pragmatmes dans la lexicographie Franais-Espagnol 39

It was only after the terms were validated by the experts and made available on
the BDTT-AR that we carried out the second stage of data analysis, organizing them in
lexical fields and subsequently performing the conceptual organization. The need for
a conceptual organization has to do with the indispensability of moving away from
linguistic manifestations to better encompass the concepts that exist regardless of the
language.
In order to create conceptual micro-systems we started with terms that were
already available on the BDTT-AR, given that one of the objectives was to write defini-
tions for the concepts designated by these terms.
By searching for the term voto (vote) on BDTT-AR, it is possible to obtain a list of
every term in which voto appears as the nuclear form, like voto de confiana, voto
de congratulao, voto de pesar, among other
Starting with this set of terms and after analysing data in contexts supported by
the knowledge conveyed from the institution we have seen that the term voto is the
manifestation of different concepts of voto (vote).
Before the actual elaboration of the conceptual system, the expert here, and from
the start, plays an important role in clearing doubts that arise when trying to differen-
tiate between concepts. The identification of the characteristics of the concepts and/
or the relationships established between them will be specified by the experts, based
on questions that are methodically prepared by the group of terminologists.
In the example we have shown, we identified two different concepts designated
by the term voto: one that expresses the <act of voting> and the other the <expres-
sion of a desire>, which we have represented differently.
At the core of each of the conceptual micro-systems which we created, we identi-
fied specific actualizations of the generic concept whose specificities are manifest in
the language through terminological units that allow us to account for the specific dif-
ferences between each of the concepts. voto de pesar (vote of condolence) and voto
de saudao (vote of greeting) are two distinct manifestations of two different ways
of <expression of a desire> distinguished from each other by specific characteristics.
Further regarding the case of voto as <act of voting>, the concepts dependent on
the generic concept although on the same conceptual level express distinct forms
of voting which are grouped into three different classes: the <manner>, the <result>
and the <procedure>. To designate the different manners of voting, we found on our
corpus voto electrnico (electronic voting), voto por procurao (proxy vote) and
voto por correspondncia (postal vote). Regarding the result of the act of voting, we
found voto em branco (blank ballot paper) and voto favorvel (affirmative vote).
Included in the concept of <act of voting> we suggested the concept of <proce-
dure> which is expressed in discourse as voto de confiana (confidence motion).
However, at this stage we are unsure whether voto de confiana is a form of <proce-
dure>. In view of such doubt, we need to question the expert given that by analysing
the contexts in which the term occurs it is not possible to draw satisfactory conclu-
sions.

Bereitgestellt von | Humboldt-Universitt zu Berlin

Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 16.03.16 13:09
40 Rute Costa

In fact, it is actually a moo de confiana (confidence motion) that the govern-

ment moves in the Parliament and through which the members of the Parliament can
decide to support the government by approving it. When looking at this specificity
we know that it is a different type of vote. The question has to do with the type of
relationship that we intend to establish between concepts within the same concep-
tual micro-system. This is also an <act of voting> but the distinctive characteristics of
this concept make it different from the other concepts included in this micro-system,
and for that same reason the relationship established between this concept and the
generic one will necessarily be different from the other relationships.
The distinctive characteristics of each concept are therefore extremely import-
ant for the creation of conceptual micro-systems and consequently for writing defi-
nitions. Identifying the characteristics of each concept allows us to differentiate one
concept from another one inside the same conceptual system.
Thus we can ensure coherence when writing definitions, significantly increasing
their quality and accuracy. The quality of the definitions contributes to enhancing the
relevance of the database since terminological definitions are contents much sought
after and appreciated by users of this type of linguistic resource.
Thus, we return to (Suonuuti, Heidi. 2001:14), whom we have already quoted:

In terminology work, an analysis of the relations among concepts and an arrangement of them
into concept systems, is the prerequisite for the successful drafting of definitions.

Definitions are the main concern of terminological and lexicographical work alike
since they allow us to establish the boundaries of a concept designated by a term.
The definition allows for the establishment of a relationship between the concept and
the term that is used to evoke it. Accordingly, definitions are absolutely fundamental
for translators to understand the concept and to select the best equivalent that desig-
nates it and that works best in the discourse being translated.

5Concluding remarks

Specialised communication, whether monolingual or multilingual, is not solely a

matter of language, it is also a matter of knowledge. Knowledge understood as what
is known about a field, but also about the way in which that knowledge is conveyed
by language. The lexical networks correspond to the structuring of the knowledge
conveyed by language without overlap with the conceptual systems which have a dif-
ferent nature.
This article aimed at a discussion of the complementarity rather than the
division between Terminology and Specialized Lexicography. The former con-
sists of a conceptual dimension coupled with a linguistic dimension, thus clearly
distinct from the latter, which is based primarily on a linguistic approach to the

Bereitgestellt von | Humboldt-Universitt zu Berlin

Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 16.03.16 13:09
quivalents de traduction pour les pragmatmes dans la lexicographie Franais-Espagnol 41

detriment of a systematic processing of the conceptual dimension that character-

izes Terminology.
Since each community produces resources directed at different target-audiences,
and also with different social needs related to humans and computers it is possi-
ble to demarcate both domains on the basis of different epistemological, theoretical
and methodological perspectives.
Considering technical translators as mediators between cultures and languages,
enabling the sharing of knowledge often produced in countries culturally and geo-
graphically distant, such figures need to access organized and structured knowledge
so that they can organize it discursively, which is the only way to ensure the quality of
the discourse itself. The more systematized and organized knowledge is, the easier it
is for the translator to put it into words.
In effect, Terminology comes closer to Specialized Lexicography via its linguistic
dimension, thus resulting in an added-value when theyre taken as being comple-
mentary by those producing sets of designations both linguistically and computa-
tionally as well as for those who make use of terminologies.
Because we believe it is possible to employ a mixed methodology semasiolog-
ical and onomasiological to describe the same object, we consider that the results
obtained should ensue from the analysis of the term, the concept and the relationship
between them. In this perspective, we can shift from the concept to the term and from
the term to the concept. The result thus obtained will benefit from the best of what
terminology and specialised lexicography have to offer.
Usually, there is no collaboration between these communities, and most members
are only aware of their own communitys scientific issues. A convergence would be
positive, increasing the quality of the resources, thus also making language more
valuable. And translators would appreciate that.
We firmly believe that a clear positioning within the domain of choice allows for
a healthy collaboration which is more consistent with other connected domains and
does not imply any loss of identity whatsoever.

6Bibliography
Bassey 2007 = Bassey, Edem Antia (ed.): Indeterminacy in Terminology and LSP. Amsterdam
Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Bergenholz 1995 = Bergnholz, Henning / Tarp, Sven: Manuel of Specialised Lexicography.
Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Budin 2001 = Budin, Gerhard: A critical evaluation of the state-of-the-art of Terminology Theory. In:
ITTF. Journal 12. Vienna: Termnet. 723.
Cabr 2009= Cabr, Teresa: La teoria communicative de la Terminologa, una aproximacin
lingustica a los trminos. In: Terminologie: orientations actuelles. Volume XIV 2/Dcembre
2009. Paris: Revue Franaise de Linguistique Applique. 915.
Cabr 2003 = Cabr, Teresa: Theories of Terminology: their descrioption, prescription and
explanation. In: Terminology (9). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Bereitgestellt von | Humboldt-Universitt zu Berlin

Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 16.03.16 13:09
42 Rute Costa

Cabr 1993 = Cabr, Teresa: La terminologi. Teora, metodologa, aplicaciones. Barcelona:

Editorial / Empries.
Costa 2012 = Costa, Rute / Roche, Christophe: Analyse des textes des fins onomasiologiques.
In: Formation TOTh 2012 Terminologie & Ontologie: Thories et applications. quipe
Condillac& CLUNL: Chambry.
Costa 2012 = Costa, Rute / Barros, Srgio / Silva, Manuel: Task 0 Support the structuring of
individual /organizational initial conceptualization. In: Soares /Antnio Lucas (ed.) Final
Report of the Project PTDC/EIAEIA/103779/2008. Cognitive Semanticsin Collaborative
Networks. INESC Porto & CLUNL, pp. 74.
Costa 2012 = Costa, Rute / Silva, Raquel / Soares de Almeida, Zara: Cooperation between
terminologists and experts in the creation of a Terminology and Textual Database: the
context of the Portuguese Parliament. In: Nordterm Symposium 2011: Samarbetet ger
resultat: fran begreppskaos till verenskomna termer, Vasa, Finland. Jyvskyl: Nordterm. 924.
Costa 2006 = Costa, Rute: Plurality of Theoretical Approaches to Terminology. In: Modern
Approaches to Terminological Theories and Applications. Coll. Linguistic Insights. Studies in
Language and Communication. Bern Berlin: Peter Lang.
Felber 1984 = Felber, Helmut: Manuel de Terminologie. Paris. UNESCO / Infoterm.
Gouws 2005 = Gouws, H. Rufus / Prinsloo, D. J.: Principles and Practice in South African
Lexciography. Stellenbosch: SUN PReSS.
ISO 704 = 2009. ISO 2009: Terminology work Principles and methods. International Organization
for Standardization.
ISO 1087-1 = 2000. ISO 2000: Terminology work-Vocabulary-Part 1: Theory and application.
International Organization for Standardization.
Kageura 1995 = Kageura, Kyo: The Dynamics of Terminology. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
Lauren 1998 = Laurn, Christer / Myking, Johan / Picht, Heribert. 1998. Terminologie unter der Lupe.
Vom Grenzbegiet zum Wissenschaftszweig. TermNet: Vienna.
LHomme 2004 = LHomme, Marie Claude: La terminologie: principes et technique. Qubec: Les
Presses Universitaires de Montral.
Morgado 2011 = Morgado, Isabel / Saraiva, Lusa / Mendes, Olga / Bacelar, Srgio/ Roche,
Christophe/ Costa, Rute: MCV Ontology Final Deliverable ESSnet on SDMX WP2. Final
Report.
Myking 2007 = Myking Johan: No fixed boundaries. In: Bassey, Edem Antia (ed.): Indeterminacy in
Terminology and LSP. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Pearson 1998 = Pearson, Jennifer: Terms in Context. John Benjamins Publishing Company:
Amsterdam / Philadelphia.
Roche 2012 = Roche, Christophe: Should Terminology Principles be re-examined? In: Aguado de Cea
et al. (Eds.): Proceedings of the 10th Terminology and Knowledge Engineering Conference (TKE
2012) Madrid, Spain. 1732.
Roche 2008 = Roche, Christophe: Faut-il revisiter les Principes terminologiques ? In: TOTh 2008.
Terminology & Ontology: Theories and applications. Annecy: Institut Porphyre. 5372.
Sager 1990 = Sager, Juan: A Practical Course in Terminology Processing. John Benjamins Publishing
Company: Amsterdam / Philadelphia.
Suonuuti 2001 = Suonuuti, Heidi: Guide to Terminology. Helsinki: TekniikanSanastokeskus.
Boisson 2007 = Boisson, Claude /Thoiron, Philippe: Autour de la dnomination. Lyon: Presses
Universitaires de Lyon.
Temmerman 2000 = Temmerman, Rita: Towards New Ways of Terminological Description. The
Sociocognitive approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Wster 1995 = Wster, Eugen: Einfhrung in die Allegemeine Terminologielehre und Terminologische
Lexicographie. Copenhagen: Infoterm.

Bereitgestellt von | Humboldt-Universitt zu Berlin

Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 16.03.16 13:09