3 Lessons to Learn from the History of Terminology

术语学教会了我们什么?

2020-04-21 20:10 terminosophy

本文共665个字,阅读需7分钟

阅读模式 切换至中文

Any word, spoken or written, serves a communicative function or has a communicative feature. In terminology, communication and its implications have also been the most important part of the studies and the theories. “Terminology emerges from the need of technicians and scientists to unify the concepts and terms of their subject fields in order to facilitate professional communication and the transfer of knowledge”. The scientific contents and technical information need to be transmitted through a common system of symbols, signs, and codes (i.e. terms). This common system and the need to achieve a mutual understanding among specialists was a strong motivation for Eugen Wüster to start working on a standard scientific language and the theoretical foundations of terminology as a scientific discipline. However, the search for a universal language and communicative uniformity gave rise to critical voices during the last decades. Wüster forged the international principles of terminology standardization and contributed significantly to the foundations of the modern information society. The influence of Wüster’s terminology ideas has been enormous especially in the medical field, where it has also given rise to a critical reaction. Inspired by Wüster’s approach towards language standardization, and following his principles, institutions and practices have been designed in the expectation that terminology science could help overcome the ambiguity of technical communications by formulating a general methodology. Notwithstanding, the diversity of terminological outcomes and impacts suggests that it is not possible to construct a single, universal, shared picture of all terminological activities. Approaches to terminology have changed considerably since Wüster and the most recent manifestations shed light on the complexity and plurality. The position of concept in General Theory of Terminology (GTT), i.e. its primacy and the subsequent conceptual organization, is challenged by the modern terminologists- what fosters the plurality and variability of terms and contexts. “The tendency in the General Theory of Terminology (Wüster, 1979) was initially to disregard context and contextual variables as well as the terminological variation that they produce, it soon became apparent that terms are lexical items that are used in communicative contexts (Sager, 1990; Cabré, 1999), and that these contexts can affect their potential meaning. In fact, specialized knowledge units or terms acquire their meaning in context”. Another vulnerable spot of GTT is the static nature of terms assumed in Wüster’s fundamental postulates. Achieving a universal language and communicative uniformity is not possible unless with ignoring the dynamicity of terms. That is exactly what inclined the GTT towards some principles that hardly can fit the reality. Nearly all principles of GTT are questioned and challenged in one way or another. Terminology today is more complex and wider than what has been proposed by Wüster. For Cabré “reductionism” and “excessive standardization” are two main characteristics of GTT that brought about critical debates. Modern terminology tends to approach the real nature of terms; i.e. dynamic, social and pragmatic aspects. Moreover, The interdisciplinary nature of the domain and the interconnections among scientific fields prompted a big shift from being a mere standardization tool to a broader conception and application of terminology. Nevertheless, Wüster is recognized as the “father of terminology” and all terminology chapters start with a brief presentation of his contributions to the new portrait of terminology. What we can learn from this evolution, or better to say my personal impression and reflections which guide me through my professional path, are: 1. For being effective, terminologists need to focus on locally established guidelines rather than following or copying the models and patterns from the other experiences. 2. Wüsterian principles are still followed by and employed in ISO documents and some other terminological centers. This reveals the fact that being right or wrong is a relative notion. An idea or a methodology can be applicable and useful in one context, while the contrary would happen in another context. 3. Recognizing the diversity and respecting differences are essential elements for establishing the most appropriate and convenient terminological methodologies and guideline.
任何言语,无论是口头的还是书面的,都具有交际功能或包含交际特征。在术语学上,“交际”及其含义也一直是研究和理论中最重要的部分。 “术语学的产生源于技术人员和科学家统一其学科领域中概念和名称的需要,目的是为了方便专业交流和知识交换。” 科学内容和技术信息需要通过一个符号、标记、代码(术语)统一的体系来传递。构建这一体系和实现专家相互理解的需求,促使Eugen Wüster开始研究标准的科学语言,以及术语学作为一门学科的理论基础。然而,在过去几十年中,对通用语言和交流一致性的研究引发了外界的批评。 Wüster制定术语标准化的国际准则,并为现代信息社会作出了重大贡献。他的术语思想在医学等领域反响巨大,但人们对此也褒贬不一。 受Wüster语言标准化方法的启发,遵循他的原则,人们设立了一些机构和实践项目,希望借助术语学制定的通用原则,帮助避免技术交流中歧异的产生。尽管如此,术语的产出及其影响的多元化表明,不可能对所有术语建立单一、普适性、共通的原则。从Wüster时期至今,人们对术语的研究方法发生了巨大变化。最新的研究表明,术语是复杂的、多样的。普通术语学(GTT)中关于术语的重要性和对此的概念阐释,受到现代术语学家的挑战。他们正在研究什么造成了术语、语境的多样性和多变性。 “普通术语学(Wüster,1979)最初的倾向是忽视语境、语境变化及其造成的术语变异。但很快人们就意识到,术语是在交际语境中使用的词项(Sager,1990;Cabré,1999),语境可以影响术语的潜在意义。事实上,特定知识单元或术语是在上下文中被赋予含义。” 普通术语学的另一个不足之处是,Wüster假设术语是静态的。只有忽略术语的动态性,才能实现语言的一致性和交际的统一性。然而,这使得普通术语学中的某些原则与实际不符。 几乎所有普通术语学的原则都以这样或那样的方式受到质疑和挑战。现代术语学比Wüster提出的更复杂、更广义。 在Cabré看来,“简化论”和“过度标准化”是普通术语学的两大主要特征,这两大特征引起了批评性的争论。现代术语学倾向于接近术语的真实本质,即术语的动态性、社会性和实用性。 此外,该领域的跨学科性质和科学领域间关联造成了一个重大转变,即术语从仅仅是标准化的工具转变为更广义的概念和应用。然而,Wüster依旧被公认为“术语学之父”,所有的术语学著作都要从他对现代术语学的贡献开始介绍。 我们可以从这一转变中学到什么呢?或者更好地说,我个人对此的思考如下: 1.适用性需要术语学家关注当地建立的指导方针,而不是盲目遵循或复制其他经验中的模式。 2.Wüster的理论仍然被ISO及其他术语研究中心遵循和使用。这说明:正确或错误是一个相对的概念。一种观念或方法在一种情况下可能是适用的,而在另一种情况下则不然。 3.承认多样性、尊重差异性是建立最适当和实用术语准则的基础。

以上中文文本为机器翻译,存在不同程度偏差和错误,请理解并参考英文原文阅读。

阅读原文