View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Siberian Federal University Digital Repository Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences 2 (2014 7) 210-221 ~ ~ ~ УДК 81’373.46 What Translators Do to Terminology: Prescriptions vs. Performance Andrei V. Achkasov* St. Petersburg State University 7/9 Universistetskaya nab., St. Petersburg, 199034, Russia Received 02.11.2013, received in revised form 10.11.2013, accepted 18.12.2013 The article brings into focus variability of designation in bilingual terminology transfer. Onomasiological view of terminology equivalence presumes decontextualized coordination of concepts and linguistic labels and thus infers “one-to-one” inter-language terminology relation. This guiding principle is rarely applied in actual LSP translation process resulting in term forms variation. The gap between prescriptions and performance is traditionally accounted for as the arbitrary treatment of terminology by translators. Patterns of term variation in the reality of LSP translation depend on systemic, semantic and formal characteristics of terminology and, as a result, bear on terminology translation as a problematic concept. Keywords: terminology, equivalence, LSP translation, terminology translation, variability of terms, transfer prescriptions, performance. When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less. Humpty Dumpty Terminology affects translation. The issue multilingual terminology transfer should be has been more or less explicitly considered based on prescriptive rules: the only proper way to in research on both LSP translation and ‘translate terminology’ is to ‘identify equivalent terminology work. One of the key points often concepts’, i.e. to relate concepts as system-bound. brought to attention is that particular LSP Performative aspects of LSP translation contradict texts cover segments of terminology systems, prescriptions, and, in turn, translators in many while specialized concepts, being by nature ways affect terminology. They often seem to be decontextualized entities, retain their systemic unaware and unconcerned about such rules and relations. The ‘terminology stock’ of a particular focus more on labels (‘words’) than concepts, text builds up its ‘information model’ embedded use contextual and multiple designations or in the terminology system of a related field, which descriptive ways of concept representations is presented as a set of superordinate, subordinate within target texts, which confronts the nature on and coordinate concepts. Thus bilingual or terminology. The latter issue has been the point © Siberian Federal University. All rights reserved * Corresponding author E-mail address: [email protected] – 210 – Andrei V. Achkasov. What Translators Do to Terminology: Prescriptions vs. Performance of attention as well, predominantly as a matter- out as a case study of a particular LSP and is of-course though undesirable and non-systemic said to be equally concerned with the so called byproduct of terminology use. ‘practical recommendations’. Theoretical output Prescriptions and performance in LSP of this linguistic-centered research to a great translation relate to the concepts of ‘terminology degree overlaps with onomasiological view on translation’ and ‘translation equivalence’ within terminology equivalence and at the same time the frameworks of translation theory and overviews its practical applications that draw terminology studies. As a starting point I will only on terminology harmonization, multilingual briefly refer to the key competing approaches. information retrieval and automated LSP processing in general, including machine Terminology vs. translation translation. The onomasiological approach draws The study of the problematic practice of on terminology equivalence in non-translation ‘terminology translation’ traditionally operates terms. In ISO 1087-1. 2000, equivalence is under general semasiological assumptions, defined as “relation between designations in bearing on terminology as а subtype of lexical different languages representing the same stock. The greater part of this research sets off concept” (ISO 1087-1. 2000: 9), lexical items with the highlights on performative aspects of or ‘linguistic labels’ being only one kind of translation in terms of inter-lingual and trans- designations. Thus, the concepts are treated as systemic transformational ‘manipulations’ system-bound and language-independent, or, with terminology. The nomenclatures of such in other words, equivalent terms represent ‘the ‘manipulations’ vary due to the underlying same concepts’, though have different ‘linguistic theoretical assumptions concerning concept- labels’. Of course, concepts may overlap partially designation dualism and particular LSPs. or have one-to-many relations, which again may They include equivalent selection, concept be described in non-translation terms, such as, identification, semantic and structural calquing, for example, ‘inter-language synonymy’ or ‘inter- loan translation, decompositional and descriptive language quasi-synonymy, with a difference’. As translation, borrowing, transliteration, quasi- follows, onomasiology is in fact little concerned defining etc. The other set of generalizations in with performative aspects of translation. To give such research regards terminology equivalence it а translation perspective, we might say that both in terms of the ‘degrees of equivalence’ this approach treats terminology as placeables, and terminological equivalence as a subtype providing theoretical and operational basis for of a vaguer and more general concept of achieving pre-translation equivalence. Taking this translation equivalence. Terminological as a theoretical assumption it would be proper to equivalence is defined as semantic, notional, categorize transformational operations discussed systemic, prototypical, conceptual, cognitive in translation studies as either manipulations or decontextualized types of equivalence as with linguistic labels or identifying degrees of opposed to functional, explanatory or contextual inter-language synonymy. This allows to strip equivalence (Adamska-Sałaciak, 2010). down the overall logic of conceptualizing about Such conceptualization is the foremost terminology translation by ‘transformational and, presumably, the desirable outcome of operations’. semasiological insights into terminology Related speculation on ‘translation translation, no matter that it is often carried equivalence’ has been intense and many, if not – 211 – Andrei V. Achkasov. What Translators Do to Terminology: Prescriptions vs. Performance all, reasonable interpretations have been given. In represent decontextualized schemata. Prescriptive his tentative glossary A. Pym sums up the output recommendations of this kind are typical: of this speculation: In specialised-language translation, the Equivalence: A widespread term for translator has to structure terms of a given text a relation that many believe in and no one by reference to a conceptual system. Therefore, can prove beyond the level of terminology. it is highly important to identify the conceptual We should accept that equivalence has no system a term is embedded in, independent ontological foundation, since translation from both the source language and the target problems allow for more than one viable language. (Edelmann, 2012: 2) solution. This means that, in the field of translation problems thus defined, equivalence LSP translators are well aware that practical is always “belief in the translation as equivalent application of this guiding principle is hindered of an ST”. Recommendation: Always make by inconsistences and current developments in it clear that equivalence means equivalence- terminology systems, trans-systemic differences belief, and indicate who is supposed to be (as in law or education terminology), lack of holding that belief. (Pym, 2011: 81) relevant sources, ambiguity of related concepts, time pressure etc. In fact, this principle is Following this definition, the vagueness rarely, if at all, applied in actual translation. of the concept seems not to be the case with Nevertheless, some LSP researchers make even ‘terminology translation’ or ‘terminology more uncompromising claims, that are not equivalence’, because terminology is (or is uncommon either: presumed to be) systemic and monosemic. Thus, we come up with a very plain concept There is one essential requirement for terminology translation, which is, in fact, successfully transmitting a complex body of not translation by nature, but a process of knowledge from one language community substituting concept-coordinated linguistic to another: There must be a target-language labels. Translation and terminology, therefore, terminology that exactly mirrors the source- turn out to be contradictory concepts: language terminology and that is precisely pegged to the source-language terminology Terminology vs. translation: If a so that it can be consistently applied by all distinction must be made, let us propose the translators and universally understood by all following: translation involves the obligation readers (Wiseman, 2002: 1). to select between more than one viable solution to a problem, whereas terminology This is fair. In theory. If terminology seeks situations where there is only one viable translation cannot be carried out as solution. (Pym, 2011: 93) decontextualized coordination of concepts and linguistic labels,