A Best‐Practice Model for Term Planning
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
A BEST‐PRACTICE MODEL FOR TERM PLANNING Úna Bhreathnach, B.A., M.A. Fiontar, Dublin City University This thesis is submitted to Dublin City University for the award of PhD in the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences. Supervisors: Dr Caoilfhionn Nic Pháidín, Fiontar, DCU Dr Rute Costa, Universidade Nova de Lisboa January 2011 Volume 3 of 4 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................4 1.1 Introductory notes on the Swedish case ................................................................................4 1.2 Notes on the sociolinguistic background..............................................................................11 2 Questions ......................................................................................................................................17 2.1 Policy and planning: Swedish networks................................................................................17 2.2 Policy and planning: international networks ........................................................................26 2.3 Policy and planning: Resource planning ...............................................................................31 2.4 Research: theoretical approaches ........................................................................................40 2.5 Research: Methods ...............................................................................................................52 2.6 Standardisation.....................................................................................................................65 2.7 Dissemination: Awareness‐raising........................................................................................75 2.8 Dissemination: Publication ...................................................................................................83 2.9 Implantation..........................................................................................................................92 2.10 Evaluation: User feedback ....................................................................................................95 2.11 Evaluation: Implantation.......................................................................................................96 2.12 Evaluation: Methods and products.......................................................................................97 2.13 Evaluation: Organisational and general..............................................................................100 2.14 Modernisation/maintenance..............................................................................................102 2.15 Training ...............................................................................................................................106 3 Evaluation: general reflections ...................................................................................................117 3.1 What are TNC’s main strengths? ........................................................................................117 3.2 What are TNC’s weaknesses? .............................................................................................121 3.3 What are the opportunities? ..............................................................................................129 3.4 What are the threats?.........................................................................................................133 Vol. III, 2 4 Field Procedures .........................................................................................................................135 4.1 Data collection ....................................................................................................................135 4.2 Interview methodology.......................................................................................................135 4.3 Processing of material – coding and analysis......................................................................135 5 Schedule of data collection activities..........................................................................................136 6 Interviewees................................................................................................................................138 7 Organisational chart....................................................................................................................141 8 References and sources ..............................................................................................................142 Vol. III, 3 1 Introduction This document summarises the findings of a research trip to Stockholm on 24‐30 August 2009, in which the staff of Terminologicentrum TNC, or TNC as it is generally referred to (and will be in this report), and external experts were interviewed. The aim of the interviews was to find out about TNC’s work as an organisation and its work in particular areas, such as research and training; the aim was also to reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of the particular approach taken. Extracts from the interviews (and from other, written, sources) have been used to illustrate the answers to the questions in this document. For a list of the interviewees and their roles, see page 138. 1.1 Introductory notes on the Swedish case Background TNC was established in 1941, and has a long history rooted in the engineering and scientific tradition. The Swedish national centre for terminology, TNC, is the hub of Swedish terminology work, and also one of the oldest terminology centres in the world. The Swedish Centre for Technical Terminology (Tekniska nomenklaturcentralen, TNC) was founded as early as in 1941 on the initiative of the Academy of Engineering Sciences (IVA) and other interested parties, such as engineers and inventors. In 2001 the “old” TNC became the Terminologicentrum TNC (The Swedish Centre for Terminology). (Nilsson 2010, 64) The first steps were taken in 1936, when a committee for nomenclature within the Academy of Engineering Sciences was established. Engineers, especially inventors and standardisers, took the initiative “to meet the growing need of an adequate terminology”. Five years later, in 1941, a permanent centre for technical terminology was established on the basis of the committee and with statutes laid down by the government. Its name became Tekniska nomenklaturcentralen (the Swedish Centre for Technical Terminology) and its acronym was TNC. In 2000, the TNC was reconstructed and the name was changed into Terminologicentrum TNC (The Swedish Centre for Terminology). The name was deliberately made more general in order to reflect the widening of the centre’s activities. However, the acronym TNC was kept in order to emphasize the continuity of its activities. (Bucher 2007, 39, emphasis original) TNC’s work has not remained limited to the field of engineering. During the last 60 years, more and more subject fields have been covered by TNC’s activities. TNC’s competence and experience have increased, the use of new technology has made work more efficient and far‐reaching, and the distribution of results, in the form of glossaries for example, has improved. (Nilsson 2004 [with correction by AL Bucher]) The overall aim of Terminologicentrum TNC is to meet all kinds of terminological needs of users of languages for special purposes. TNC achieves this through Vol. III, 4 terminological services and support to authorities, organizations, enterprises that pursue terminological work of their own within various subject fields, and also to individuals the development of terminological products such as terminological glossaries and databases, compilation of manuals for technical writing, etc. the formulation of rules and guidelines for the writing of technical texts collection, processing and dissemination of terminology of specialised subject fields terminological reviews of standards and other documents containing terminology lectures and courses on the principles and methods of terminology work and technical writing co‐operation with other language institutions on a national level and with terminological institutions on an international level. (Nilsson 2004) The terminology work is, however, not as closely linked to LGP work as that of smaller languages might be (although the view that TNC is restricted to traditional standardisation is contested). In my experience, TNC mostly works within the borders of traditional standardization: they help companies and organizations to create terminologies, and get paid for it. When it comes to terminology used by the media, we're mainly talking terminology on the border of general language, i.e. terminology exposed to the general public in TV, newspapers, etc. Terms of that kind are seldom generated within traditional standardization, and thus not taken care of by terminology bodies like TNC. (Karlsson email) This is Ola Karlssons view of TNC seen from a distance and from an LGP point of view. It can not be used as a description of TNC, nor of terminology in relation to LGP. TNC rarely works within traditional standardization nowadays. Our customers are to largest extent public agencies (we would very much like to have more companies though). Terminology exposed to the general public can be of any kind, originate from any subject field, and if it is real terminology, TNC can very well be involved (or has been involved before it was exposed) in the elaboration of that terminology. Sometimes special measures have to