4. Schools and working methods in terminology

As stated above, systematic interest in terminology arose simultaneously in several European countries (Austria, the former Soviet Union, and the former Czechoslovakia). It is from these three centres that terminological practice first\expanded to the West (France, Canada, Quebec) and North (Belgium and Scandinavia) then in a second, more recent period to the South (Northern Africa, sub-Saharan Africa, Central and South America, Portugal, Spain) and, even more recently, to the East (China and Japan). Developments in each one of these regions are characterized by the context in which terminology is studied and by the purpose it aims to accomplish.

According to Auger, we can establish three major orientations in terminology processing defined by their main objectives: terminology adapted to the linguistic system (the linguistic approach), terminology for translation (the translation approach), and terminology for planning (the aménagiste approach, as it is known in Canadian French).

a. Terminology adapted to the linguistic system

This orientation is represented by the three schools of Vienna, Prague and Moscow. The Vienna school of terminology, which is the best known, is based on the work of E. Wüster and adopts his principles formulated in his `general theory of terminology'. This school's importance stems from the fact that it has developed a systematic corpus of principles and methods that constitute the basis of much theoretical work and modern practice. Its most salient feature is that it focuses on concepts, and steers terminological work towards the standardization of terms and concepts. The Vienna school arose from the needs of technicians and scientists to standardize the terminology of their fields in order to ensure efficient communication and transfer of knowledge among specialists. The principles of this school are reflected in standardized documents on the vocabulary of terminological work, and terminology as a discipline, on the field's methodology and data transfer, and on the presentation of finished terminological products. Most of the countries in central and northern Europe (Austria, Germany, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark) work within this framework, in which the subject specialists themselves are responsible for specialized terminologies.

The Czech school of terminology, of which L. Drodz was one of the major proponents, arose as a result of the functionalist linguistic approach of the Prague school of linguistics. It is almost exclusively concerned with the structural and functional description of special languages, in which terminology plays an important role.

Special languages are considered a “professional style”, which exists alongside other styles such as the literary, journalistic, or conversational styles. This school conceives of terms as units that make up the functional professional style. It arose as a result of the multilingual nature of its geographical area. It was very interested in the standardization of languages and terminologies, and its terminological work was linked to the Czech Language Institute (a part of the Academy of Sciences).

The Russian school of terminology, was based on the work of Caplygin, Lotte, and their co-workers; it was also aware of Wüster's work from the time it first appeared. Consequently, it was mainly interested in the standardization of concepts and terms in the light of the problems connected with the multilingualism in the former Soviet Union (now the Commonwealth of Independent States).

These three schools of terminology, which all share a linguistically based perspective (they all consider terminology a medium of expression and communication) have given shape to the theoretical basis of terminology and the methodological principles governing its application. In addition, they are one of the main forces behind language planning and terminology as subsequently developed in Quebec and by the federal government of Canada.

b. Translation-oriented terminology

This second orientation in terminology, which supports translation, is highly developed in institutionally bilingual or multilingual provinces or countries, e.g. Quebec, the Walloon part of Belgium, and forms the basis for the terminological activities carried out by multilingual international bodies (e.g. UN, UNESCO, EU, FAO). It also represents the most important motivation for the creation of terminological databanks (TERMIUM of the Canadian government, EURODICAUTOM of the EU, BTQ of the Quebec provincial government, and others). This orientation establishes terminological equivalents in the various languages which are used as points of reference by translators and which contribute to the quality of a translated text.

c. Terminology oriented towards language planning

Language planning as an institutional activity was started in the 1960s and was initially intended to introduce policies supportive of the use of minority languages inside larger sociolinguistic areas. For example, in Quebec policies were implemented to secure a ``normal'' status for French and its full development in all spheres of usage. Similar plans are currently being implemented in many countries with language situations similar to those of Quebec. The underlying belief of this type of language planning is that the use of an unstable language can change with systematic, strategic intervention carried out by official bodies, with the right legislation and appropriate measures aimed at implementing the change. To attain the desired change, the language in question must have up-to-date, coherent terminology to ensure professional communication in all fields. The objective is to replace terminology imported from languages spoken in technologically dominant countries, thus fostering word-formation in the native language.

Lecture 14.

Terminological unit

1. Definition

2. Types of terms

3. Term formation