Rita Temmerman * Questioning the univocity ideal . The difference between socio - cognitive Terminology and traditional Terminology

In this article we are questioning the univocity ideal of traditional Terminology. We show how traditional Terminology in line with Saussurian structuralism ignores part of the interplay between the elements of the semantic triangle. Cognitive semantics and functional linguistics have offered an alternative for the Saussurian structuralist approach. Several of their findings can be of use for the development of socio-cognitive Terminology. In the LSP of the life sciences, the structure of concepts reflects their epistemological function. This could have consequences for the principles and methods of terminological description. While some concepts (like intron ) are clear-cut and can therefore be submitted to the principle of univocity, others (like blotting and biotechnology) have prototype structure. For prototypically structured categories univocity can not be the aim as polysemy, synonymy and figurative language are part of their naming history. The semantic triangle which was introduced by Gomperz (1908) (Felber, 1984:100) has been referred to by Wüster in 19561 (Dreiteiliges Wortmodell (Wüster, 1991:165; in English translation: Felber, 1984:100)), the founder of the Vienna school of Terminology. What is basically explored in this triangular model is the relationship between some kind of reality (the world), a means to communicate about and to create this reality (language), and the centre of reasoning about and of understanding both the world and language (the human mind). (figure 1) 51 Hermes, Journal of Linguistics no. 18 1997 * Rita Temmerman Erasmushogeschool B-Brussels. 1 Other authors who made reference to the semantic triangle are Ogden (1923), Ullmann (1952), Knobloch (1956), Baldinger (1959)). Figure 1: The semantic triangle Wüster’s interpretation of the elements at the three vertices are: “Gegenstand (Sachverhalt)”, “Lautkörper” and “Wortinhalt” translated by Felber into individual object, symbol and concept. (figure 2) Figure 2: Wüster’s Dreiteiliges Wortmodell In what follows we shall try and compare the filling in of these three elements in traditional Terminology and in a new theory of Terminology2 we should like to propose here which opts for a different theoretical framework being strongly inspired by the insights of cognitive semantics and functional linguistics. This new socio-cognitive theory of Terminology reacts against the theoretical framework which underpins the procedures and methods of Terminology as traditionally defined, perceived and established by Wüster and his successors by means of a set of guiding principles as from 1959 (Laurén & Picht, 1993). The same theoretical framework was largely shared by the allegedly different schools of Terminology (the Soviet school, the Prague school, the Canadian centre, etc.) This is 52 language the world the mind 2 We distinguish between Terminology and terminology. Terminology (capitalised) refers to the theory underlying and resulting from the study of terminology, the vocabulary of LSP (Language for Specific Purposes). symbol/ Lautkörper individual object/ Gegenstand concept/ Wortinhalt understandable as on the one hand all the Terminology schools underwent the influence of the leading trend in linguistics at the time of their heydays: Saussurian structuralism; and on the other hand the underlying motivation for each of the Terminology schools seems to be language planning. In more detail this involves that: one, Saussurian structuralist semantics believed that (words have) meanings (that) can be clearly delineated. The European (as opposed to the Canadian) terminology model starts from the belief that a concept, that will be given the status of the ‘meaning’ of the term that will be assigned to it, can and should be clearly delineated. Two, Saussurian structuralist semantics believes that the best way to describe meaning is to describe the mutual delimitation of concepts (semantic relations). Traditional Terminology believes that the best way to describe concepts is to determine their position in a concept system which visualises logical and ontological relationships. On the basis of the position in the concept system a definition will be formulated. Three, Saussurian structuralist semantics believes that the best way to describe meaning is to concentrate on denotational meaning (as opposed to connotational meaning) and on the literal meaning (and not the figurative meaning) of words. Traditional Terminology believes that the concept system is to be seen as independent from the term system, and that consequently, unlike words, terms are context independent: the meaning of the term is the concept. Four, Saussurian structuralist semantics believes that meaning is to be described synchronically. For traditional Terminology language development and language evolution need not be studied as the main emphasis is on the concept system. Therefore terminology is synchronic. Five, it is significant that the underlying motivation for each of the Terminology schools seems to be language planning. For the Prague, the Soviet and the Vienna schools there is a strong orientation towards standardisation. The Vienna school has the conviction that it is possible to influence the naming activities in LSP, and the Canadian centre has the specific aim to secure the survival of the French language in Canada. One can imagine how difficult it is to question the principles and methods of terminological meaning description if the underlying motivation for the claimed scientific schools is language planning, which implies sponsoring by governmental bodies with language political objectives. The outcome is that the scientific study of Terminology 53