Content uploaded by Marcel Thelen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Marcel Thelen on Dec 31, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
trans-kom ISSN 1867-4844 http://www.trans-kom.eu
trans-kom
ist eine wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift für Translation und Fachkommunikation.
trans-kom 8 [2] (2015): 347-381
Seite 347
http://www.trans-kom.eu/bd08nr02/trans-kom_08_02_03_Thelen_Terminology.20151211.pdf
Marcel Thelen
The Interaction between Terminology and Translation
Or Where Terminology and Translation Meet
Abstract
In this article Terminology and Translation are compared to one another on a number of points of
comparison. On the basis of the results, the cooperation/interaction between Terminology and
Translation are discussed. The contribution of Terminology to Translation is obvious, but that of
Translation to Terminology is less evident, yet it does exist. This article is based on a paper that
I gave at the 2013 EST congress.1
1 Introduction
Initially, Terminology claimed to be an independent discipline (cf. Traditional Terminology:
Felber 1984: 31). This claim was later disputed by e.g. Sager (1990: 1), Temmerman
(2000: 2). In fact, Terminology has gradually become rather an interdisciplinary and
transdisciplinary discipline. It has been linked to a range of (sub)disciplines, from
Lexicology, Semantics, Cognitive Linguistics, Sociolinguistics, Communication, to Philo-
sophy and Language Planning. The basis for the above claims is the comparison of
Terminology with the various disciplines in search for similarities supporting and/or
dissimilarities rejecting the claim of Terminology that it is an independent discipline. In
this article, I will compare Terminology with Translation, not in order to draw any
conclusions about the status of Terminology, viz. whether it is a discipline and whether
it is an independent discipline, but in order to find where and how Terminology and
Translation cooperate and interact in the actual practice of a professional translator. In
other words, my starting point and perspective is the actual practice of a professional
translator.
These interaction patterns between Terminology and Translation emerge from a
comparison of the two. The criteria of comparison will be: (1) objectives, (2) working area,
(3) actors, (4) type of work, (5) working methods and (6) clients and TSPs (Translation
1 7th EST Congress on “Translation Studies: Centres and Peripheries”. Johannes Gutenberg University
Mainz, 29 August – 1 September 2013: European Society for Translation Studies.
Marcel Thelen trans-kom 8 [2] (2015): 347-381
The Interaction between Terminology and Translation Seite 348
Service Providers). However, first a few basic issues have to be cleared. Both
Terminology and Translation are rather general terms and may be subdivided into a
number of types.
1.1 Terminology
Sager (1990: 3) gives three definitions of Terminology:
(1) the set of practices and methods used for the collection, description and presentation
of terms;
(2) a theory, i.e. the set of premises, arguments and conclusions required for explaining
the relationships between concepts and terms which are fundamental for a coherent
activity under (1);
(3) a vocabulary of a special subject field.
“Presentation” of terms (definition (1)) refers to visually representing terms in structures
expressing terminological relations (equivalence, generic hierarchy, part-whole hierarchy
and complex or associative relational structures).
Definition (2) – i.e. theory – is the basis for definitions (1) and (3), where the third
definition – i.e. the vocabulary – is the result of definition (1) – i.e. the set of practices
and methods. Clearly, definition (2) is not appropriate for a professional translator: theory
and theory-building would simply take up too much time, although he may use its
principles as “(heuristic) discovery procedures” (Thelen 2002b: 194, 2012: 130),2 i.e. as
a guidance in the direction of translation solutions. Definition (3), the vocabulary, is the
resource that the translator consults when translating, or that he may supplement, or
perhaps, correct, on the basis of issues that he has to resolve while translating. The
translator is not concerned with a systematic and complete mapping of a special
vocabulary. Definition (1), the set of practices and methods, fits best in the actual practice
of a professional translator, but recourse to Terminology in definition (2) (theory) can be
of great help for the solution of terminology-related translation issues.
Types of Terminology
Generally, the following two types of Terminology may be distinguished.
(1) Theory-oriented Terminology
The term Theory-oriented Terminology is, as far as I know, not an existing term. In Thelen
(2012: 132), I suggested it as the natural counterpart of the term Translation-oriented
Terminology (see below). By Theory-oriented Terminology I understand “[…] the type of
terminology work done by terminologists who are essentially concerned with the relation
2 Heuristic discovery procedures (Thelen 2002b: 194), or simply “discovery procedures” (Thelen 2012:
130) are defined as “procedures or structures to help […] discover the meaning of the source text”
(Thelen 2012: 130), but may be generalised as the application of theoretical principles, procedures or
structures to help solve a problem.
Marcel Thelen trans-kom 8 [2] (2015): 347-381
The Interaction between Terminology and Translation Seite 349
between terms and concepts, concept formation, term formation and standardisation”
(Thelen 2012: 132, see also Thelen 2008). This pertains to all three definitions of
Terminology, but in particular to definition (2). For definition (1) the terminologist applies a
well-defined set of practices and methods so as to contribute to the special vocabulary of
a given domain (Terminology definition (3)). Another term for Theory-oriented Terminology
is Systematic Terminology. Theory-oriented Terminology is specifically for and by
terminologists; their objective is in the first place to contribute to Terminology (all
definitions).
(2) Translation-oriented Terminology
The term Translation-oriented Terminology is used in various sources (e.g. Muráth 2010:
49 – “translation-oriented terminology work”; Korkas/Rogers 2010: 127 – “translation-
oriented terminologist”). It refers to the type of Terminology carried out by translators for
use in translations. By Translation-oriented Terminology I understand
[…] the kind of terminology work done by translators, either monolingually (in order to analyse
the meaning of a term in the source language and/or the meaning of an equivalent term in
the target language) or bilingually or multilingually (in order to compare the results of the
monolingual analyses to see if there is equivalence between them), but always with a view
to translation, where effectiveness and efficiency of the translation process and speed are
most important. (Thelen 2012: 132)
Another term for this type of Terminology is Ad-hoc Terminology. Translation-oriented
Terminology involves, wherever needed and appropriate to solve translation issues, the
application of principles of Theory-oriented Terminology (definition (2)) as “discovery
procedures” (Thelen 2002b: 194), as well as the application of those practices and
methods of Theory-oriented Terminology (definition (1)) to describe, define and register
terms that are deemed useful to the process of translating and in a way that is convenient
and commensurate to the time given to deliver the translation. In terms of definition (1)
of Terminology (the set of practices and methods used for the collection, description and
presentation of terms) this means that the translator’s objective of applying these
practices and methods is to produce and deliver an appropriate translation and to record
terms with their definition and context for later use.3 The translator is not concerned with
Terminology in definition (2), theory, although he may make use of its principles for the
solution of translation problems related to Terminology.
The distinction between these types of Terminology is important, because the points
of comparison with translation may yield different results for both types of Terminology.
1.2 Translation
By Translation I understand the actual practical translation work done by a translator who
transfers a source text into a target text. It is not to be confused with Translation Studies,
which is the theory. Translation Studies is
3 This does not apply when the translator is given a dedicated term base by his commissioner.
Marcel Thelen trans-kom 8 [2] (2015): 347-381
The Interaction between Terminology and Translation Seite 350
[…] the academic discipline concerned with the study of translation at large, including literary
and non-literary translation, various forms of oral interpreting, as well as dubbing and
subtitling. […] “Translation Studies” is also understood to cover the whole spectrum of
research and pedagogical activities, from developing theoretical frameworks to conducting
individual case studies to engaging in practical matters such as training translators and
developing criteria for translation assessment. (Baker 1998: 277)
It appears, by the way, that Translation Studies is seen as a discipline for theory and
research only and that practical translation work is not considered a part of it. Neither
Holmes (1988) nor Toury (1995) include practical translation in their maps of Translation
Studies. The Applied branch (Holmes) and the Applied Extensions (Toury) deal with such
topics as Translator training, Translation aids and Translation criticism.
In this article I reserve the term Translation for the actual practice of translating, and
Translation Studies for the theory of and research in Translation. This article does not
deal with Translation Studies.
Types of Translation
For Translation a number of subdivisions4 into types may be established depending on
a number of categorising criteria.
Human Translation
(1) types of translation by translation method (cf. Larson 1984/1998: 17-20):
(a) very literal translation/interlinear translation;
(b) literal translation;
(c) modified literal translation;
(d) inconsistent mixture;
(e) near idiomatic translation;
(f) idiomatic translation;
(g) unduly free translation.
(2) types of translation by portion of SLT (Source Language Text) that is translated:
(a) everything:
• cover-to-cover translation/absolute translation;5
4 The terms used in this list are by no means exhaustive. There are many more terms for translation
types (see e.g. Newmark 1988; House 1997; Shuttleworth/Cowie 1997; etc.).
5 Shuttleworth and Cowie (1997): “In absolute translation the whole of ST [the Source Text (MT)] is
transferred into TL [the Target Language (MT)], with no alteration to the content or the form of the
original document. Clearly, there are constraints on this type of translation, […] there can be no
technical or linguistic variation from the original text, and all terminology must be exactly as in ST” (cf.
Gouadec 1989: 28).
Marcel Thelen trans-kom 8 [2] (2015): 347-381
The Interaction between Terminology and Translation Seite 351
(b) parts:
• summary translation/abstract translation;
• keyword translation.6
(3) types of translation by format/layout of TLT (Target Language Text) (cf. Shutlleworth/
Cowie 1997; Gouadec 2001):
• diagrammatic translation (= representing the content of SLT in a schematic
diagram or form as a basis for transfer into TLT).7
(4) types of translation by person who translates the text:
• autotranslation/self-translation (translation by the original author)
• authorized or certified translation (translation by a sworn translator).
(5) types of translation by technical tools used (cf. Freigang 1998; Somers 1998a,b,c):
• machine-aided/-assisted translation (MAT);
• computer-aided/-assisted translation (CAT);
• machine-aided/-assisted human translation (MAHT) (= translation by a
human translator with the help of computer programs, such as translation
memories, term management systems).
Machine Translation (cf. Freigang 1998; Somers 1998a,b,c)
• automatic translation/fully automatic translation/high quality machine
translation (FAHQMT).
The various types of human translation will obviously have an impact on the way in which
Translation-oriented Terminology is carried out, e.g. whether context-based determi-
nation if a term is used in its standard use is relevant or not: in keyword translation, for
example, this is not relevant, in cover-to-cover translation it is. If a term appears not to
be used in its standard use, the translator may be forced to apply a translation procedure
(or technique or method, see e.g. Newmark 1988) in his translation to account for this
deviation. In the case of human translation with or without the help of technical tools, the
various types of Translation, although having different objectives and possibly requiring
different procedures, will not involve different people (in all cases it will – generally – be
a translator carrying out the job). It will also be obvious that Translation-oriented
6 Shuttleworth and Cowie (1997): “This particular type involves keywords in ST [the Source text (MT)]
being translated into TL [Target Language (MT)] to determine whether or not the information contained
in ST requires fuller translation and, if so, how it should be translated. The keywords indicate the basic
concepts of ST, and by placing them in decreasing order of frequency in ST the translator can indicate
which concepts are the most important. The result is a TL index of the SL document which enables the
TL reader to identify the Sections of the text which will be of most use to him or her” (cf. Gouadec 1989:
23).
7 Gouadec (2001: 194 ff): traduction signalétique. The content of SLT can be represented by means of
at least two forms: a generic form (with information about author, title, topic by paragraphs, etc.) and a
specific form (with detailed information per paragraph about its overall topic, and its primary and
secondary topics).
Marcel Thelen trans-kom 8 [2] (2015): 347-381
The Interaction between Terminology and Translation Seite 352
Terminology in the case of machine translation will probably differ from that in human
translation. However, these issues would require detailed research and are beyond the
scope of this article. Consequently, in this article, no further distinction will be made
between types of Translation. I will, moreover, not go into such modes of translating as
subtitling and dubbing, but restrict myself to “traditional” translation. Finally, this article
will not deal with interpreting
1.3 The interaction between Terminology and Translation
A number of interactions are possible between Terminology and Translation, as shown
in Figure 1, viz. (1) between Theory-oriented Terminology and Translation, (2) between
Theory-oriented Terminology and Translation-oriented Terminology, and (3) between
Translation-oriented Terminology and Translation.
Fig. 1: The interaction between Theory-oriented Terminology, Translation-oriented Terminology
and Translation.
The dotted line around Translation-oriented Terminology and Translation indicates that
these have more in common with one another than with Theory-oriented Terminology.
Both deal in the first place with translation. The reason for representing them as two
separate but related areas is (1) that both deal with translation, viz. Translation-oriented
Terminology with the translation of domain-specific language, and Translation with the
translation of domain-specific and general language, (2) that the professional specialist
(non-literary) translator has less translation freedom when encountering a term than
when dealing with a general language word. In the former case, he is more or less
obliged to give a standard equivalent term in his translation (if the commissioner’s brief
does not say otherwise); in the case of a word with more shades of synonymous
meanings, he may choose a meaning to his liking in his translation, provided it fits in the
context. In other words, in the case of terms there is less translation freedom than in the
case of general language words. On the other hand, Translation-oriented Terminology
is represented as separate from Theory-oriented Terminology because it is not as
systematic as Theory-oriented Terminology and because its objective is translation and
not terminology per se; moreover, in the literature a distinction is made between
systematic Terminology (Theory-oriented Terminology in this article) and ad hoc
Terminology (Translation-oriented Terminology in this article). Actually, Translation-
Marcel Thelen trans-kom 8 [2] (2015): 347-381
The Interaction between Terminology and Translation Seite 353
oriented Terminology is much closer to Translation than to Theory-oriented Terminology.
Consequently, Translation-oriented Terminology is placed between Theory-oriented
Terminology and Translation in Figure 1, and may be viewed as “mediator” between the
two.
1.4 Structure of this Article
In Section 2 I will discuss the various criteria of comparison between Terminology and
Translation. This will be followed in Section 3 by the cooperation between Translation-
oriented Terminology and Translation. In Section 4 I will then elaborate on the cooper-
ation between Theory-oriented Terminology, on the one hand, and Translation-oriented
Terminology and Translation, on the other. The article will be concluded by an epilogue
in Section 5.
2 Comparing Terminology and Translation
As mentioned before, the criteria for the comparison between Terminology and
Translation that I will use are: (1) objectives, (2) working area, (3) actors, (4) type of work,
(5) working methods and (6) clients and TSPs (Translation Service Providers). These
will be applied to the following pairs, respectively: (1) Translation-oriented Terminology
vs. Translation, and (2) Theory-oriented Terminology vs. Translation-oriented Terminol-
ogy and Translation. On the basis of the results of these comparisons I will then try to
formulate cooperation/interaction patterns.
2.1 Translation-oriented Terminology vs. Translation
The comparison between Translation-oriented Terminology and Translation yields a
number of results that will be discussed in the next sections.
2.1.1 Objectives
The translator’s objective is to produce a Target Text (TT) on the basis of a Source Text
(ST) that conveys as precisely as possible the meaning of ST, taking into account the
requirements and conventions of the Target Language (TL) and the domain-specific
language of TL, as well as the specifications of the commissioner. With requirements
and conventions of TL I mean the linguistic rules and structures of TL, and domain-
specific language of TL to use of terms, phraseology, text type, text form, text function,
and layout. Meaning refers to three types of meaning as formulated by Larson (1984/
1998: 41-47): (1) referential meaning (i.e. denotation), (2) organisational meaning (i.e.
the way the message of the text is “packaged” in linguistic and textual structures and
layout), and (3) situational meaning (i.e. the way in which the communication situation in
which the message is produced affects the message, e.g. professor to. student). The
degree of precision of retaining the ST meaning may vary depending on the specifica-
tions of the commissioner. These objectives relate to general language as well as to
specific language.
Marcel Thelen trans-kom 8 [2] (2015): 347-381
The Interaction between Terminology and Translation Seite 354
The objectives of Translation-oriented Terminology correspond roughly to those for
Translation, but, of course, with the difference that the former operates on domain-
specific language only. However, there are two characteristic additional objectives for
Translation-oriented Terminology, viz. translating terms by standard TL equivalent terms
(unless specified otherwise by the commissioner),8 and term registration for future use
and reference.
In more general terms, the objectives for both Translation-oriented Terminology and
Translation can be summarised as follows:
Translation-oriented Terminology Translation
Decode the meaning of a Source Language
(SL), retain the meaning as much as possible
and encode it in a Target Language (TL)
Decode the meaning of a Source Language
(SL), retain the meaning as much as
possible and encode it in a Target
Language (TL)
Improve and disambiguate communication:
(mainly) bilingually/interlingually
(sometimes) monolingually (intralingually)
Improve and disambiguate communication:
(mainly) bilingually/interlingually
(sometimes) monolingually (intralingually)
Improve and disambiguate communication by
applying appropriate terminological principles
Improve and disambiguate communication
by applying appropriate translation
types/methods/procedures
Translate terms by standard TL equivalent
terms (unless specified otherwise by the
commissioner)
Term registration for future use and reference
Tab. 1: Objectives of Translation-oriented Terminology and Translation compared.
2.1.2 Working Area
The working areas of Translation-oriented Terminology and Translation are the same,
both deal with the actual practice of translating. It is for this reason that Translation-
oriented Terminology and Translation form one area surrounded by a dotted line in
Figure 1 above. The difference is, however, that Translation-oriented Terminology deals
with domain-specific language only and is restricted to non-literary Translation only,
whereas Translation deals both with domain-specific language and with general
language, and operates in literary as well as non-literary Translation. Terminology
definition (1) fits well with what Translation-oriented Terminology does: applying the set
of practices and methods of Theory-oriented Terminology for term registration.
2.1.3 Actors
In both Translation-oriented Terminology and Translation, the actor is the translator,
which is not surprising since the objectives and working areas are quite identical. Usually,
it is one and the same translator who does and is responsible for Translation-oriented
Terminology and Translation. This may be one of the reasons why Translation-oriented
8 This refers to the situation where the commissioner has his own term preferences or where he gives
the instruction that, for example, the audience should not be professionals but interested laymen (in the
case of informing the public on scientific discoveries).
Marcel Thelen trans-kom 8 [2] (2015): 347-381
The Interaction between Terminology and Translation Seite 355
Terminology is non-systematic and ad-hoc: the translator is bound by the deadline he
has been given to complete the translation, and can, therefore, not afford to spend too
much time on Terminology which would be required for systematic Terminology.
Since the actor in both cases is the same, i.e. the translator, the set of qualifications
for Translation-oriented Terminology and Translation are also identical. According to EN
15038 (2006: 7), one of the following qualifications is required
• formal higher education in translation (recognised degree);
• equivalent qualification in any other subject plus a minimum of two years of
documented experience in translating;
• at least five years of documented professional experience in translating.9
The same holds for the competences involved and required (see Table 7 below).
2.1.4 Type of Work
The type of work done in Translation-oriented Terminology and Translation is largely
identical:
Translation-oriented Terminology Translation
core: translating Source Text (ST) terms by
standard Target language (TL): equivalent
terms
core: preparing/pre-editing documents for
translation, translating10 and post-editing
documents (of any type and domain)
core: creating terms as a translation solution if
no standard equivalents are available
core: creating terms as a translation solution if
no standard equivalents are available
core: registering terms for future use and
reference
Tab. 2: Type of work of Translation-oriented Terminology and Translation compared.
In fact, Translation-oriented Terminology supplements Translation, or formulated more
precisely, is part of non-literary Translation.
2.1.5 Working Methods
The working methods of Translation-oriented Terminology and Translation can be
summarised as shown in Table 3:
9 Direct information as a member of the Dutch shadow committee for ISO 17100, the successor of EN
15038: as far as content is concerned, the required qualifications have kept unchanged in ISO 17100.
10 Translation may come in various forms: translation proper, i.e. the translation of written/digital texts,
audiovisual translation (e.g. subtitling), localisation, web-translation, etc.
Marcel Thelen trans-kom 8 [2] (2015): 347-381
The Interaction between Terminology and Translation Seite 356
Translation-oriented Terminology Translation
For decoding Source Language Text (SLT)
meaning
on the basis of the linguistic context and the
cognitive context of the SLT term (if needed,
supplemented by SLT-external linguistic and
cognitive context in dictionary definitions,
corpora, etc.)
For decoding Source Language Text (SLT)
meaning
on the basis of the linguistic context and the
cognitive context of the SLT item (if needed,
supplemented by SLT-external linguistic and
cognitive context in dictionary definitions,
corpora, etc.)
For encoding SLT meaning in Target Language
Text (TLT) form
on the basis of the cognitive context of SLT
term (possibly supplemented by the SLT-
external linguistic and cognitive context in
dictionary definitions, corpora, etc.) with a
check of the chosen TLT term on equivalence
with the SLT term and
appropriateness/suitability within TLT linguistic
and cognitive context
For encoding SLT meaning in Target Language
Text (TLT) form
on the basis of the cognitive context of SLT
item (possibly supplemented by the SLT-
external linguistic and cognitive context in
dictionary definitions, corpora, etc.) with a
check of the chosen TLT item on equivalence
with the SLT and appropriateness/suitability
within TLT linguistic and cognitive context
For encoding and decoding meaning, but also
for term registration
applying appropriate terminological principles
from Theory-oriented Terminology
For encoding and decoding meaning
applying appropriate translation types/
methods/procedures/techniques
Tab. 3: Working methods of Translation-oriented Terminology and Translation compared.
As can be seen, also the working methods have much in common, both for decoding
and encoding meaning. The difference is that Translation-oriented Terminology deals
with terms and applies appropriate terminological principles from Theory-oriented
Terminology (and this not solely for decoding and encoding meaning, but also for term
registration), whereas Translation applies appropriate translation methods/procedures.11
The identity between Translation-oriented Terminology and Translation as regards
decoding and encoding meaning can be explained in terms of Cognitive Linguistics, more
precisely in terms of the encyclopaedic view of linguistic meaning. The encyclopaedic
view of meaning
[…] views lexical items as access points to encyclopaedic knowledge. According to this view,
words are not containers that present neatly pre-packed bundles of information. Instead, they
provide access to a vast network of encyclopaedic knowledge. (Evans/Green 2006: 217)
On the basis of this view, one could represent the relation between Translation-oriented
Terminology and Translation as follows:
11 For translation types see 1.2 Translation Types above. Translation methods or strategies “[…] relate to
whole texts” (Newmark 1988: 1), whereas translation procedures or techniques “[…] are used for
sentences and the similar units of language” (Newmark 1988: 1). Translation methods/strategies refer
to such phenomena as, for example, meaning-based translation (cf. Larson 1984/1998), author-
oriented translation (Clyne 1987), Skopos Theory (see e.g. Nord 1997); they are also used to describe
whether translation is “tackled” from a linguistic angle (see e.g. Baker 1992), or a cognitive angle (see
e.g. Dancette 1992 or Turewicz 1992). Translation procedures or techniques cover such phenomena
as transference, cultural equivalent, through-translation, and reduction (see Newmark 1988).
For a description of the application of terminological principles from Theory-oriented Terminology to
translating and term registration (which is typical for Translation-oriented Terminology), see Section 4
below.
Marcel Thelen trans-kom 8 [2] (2015): 347-381
The Interaction between Terminology and Translation Seite 357
Fig. 2: Encyclopaedic view of meaning – Translation-oriented Terminology and Translation
compared.
As Figure 2 shows, both Translation-oriented Terminology and Translation use the
linguistic and cognitive context as a basis for further processing for decoding as well as
for encoding. The use of the linguistic context and the cognitive context for decoding is
obvious: the SLT item is analysed in order to grasp its meaning on the basis of its
linguistic and cognitive context in the SLT; the linguistic and cognitive context may be
the context within the Source Text, but also the context outside the Source Text, e.g. the
context of the dictionary definition looked up for the item in question, or corpora. Having
determined the meaning of the SLT item, the translator then encodes this into a TLT form
and checks if it is equivalent to the SLT item, if the TLT linguistic and cognitive context
are equivalent to those in the SLT, and if the chosen TLT equivalent fits in the linguistic
and cognitive context of the TLT. What unites Translation-oriented Terminology and
Translation is that the linguistic context serves as access point to the cognitive context,
viz. encyclopaedic knowledge. This pertains to all types of linguistic items, including
terms.
What the working methods of Translation-oriented Terminology and Translation also
have in common is the type of sources of information: (1) experts and specialist authors,
(2) libraries and documentation, (3) translations, (4) authoritative sources, (5) termi-
nological research, (6) ad hoc research, (7) text-related research, and (6) subject-related
research (cf. COTSOES 2002: 42-47). These are also “shared” by Theory-oriented
Terminology (see Figure 4).
2.1.6 Clients and Translation Service Providers (TSPs)
In most cases the client for Translation-oriented terminology and Translation is one and
the same, simply because in most cases both are done as part of one and the same job.
There may be exceptions, however. Translation-oriented Terminology work may also be
issued as a separate job, as in the case of the national Swedish term bank: individual
private clients may turn to them to ask for help for individual terminology problems (see
Rikstermbanken s.a.). For both Translation-oriented Terminology and Translation clients
may be individual persons, but also companies, and even translation bureaus.
For both Translation-oriented Terminology and Translation holds that a TSP need
not be the same person as the actor carrying out the job. In the case of a middle or large
Marcel Thelen trans-kom 8 [2] (2015): 347-381
The Interaction between Terminology and Translation Seite 358
translation bureau,12 for example, the bureau is the service provider, and the employee
charged with the terminology or translation job is the actor. Clearly, the service provider
is an institution, and the actor an individual person. Client contact will generally be
between the bureau and the client, not between the actor and the client. In the case of a
one-person translation bureau the two terms apply to one and the same person, viz. the
translator. Very often, the translator in a one-person translation bureau is also a freelance
translator.
As for the TSPs, there are no differences between Translation-oriented Terminology
and Translation. For both service providers may be freelancers, one-person translation
bureaus, middle/larger translation bureaus, and in-house translation departments.
2.2 Theory-oriented Terminology vs. Translation-oriented Terminology and
Translation
In what follows, the results will be discussed of the comparison between Theory-oriented
Terminology and Translation-oriented Terminology/Translation.
2.2.1 Objectives
The objectives of Theory-oriented Terminology, on the one hand, and Translation-
oriented Terminology & Translation, on the other, can be represented as shown in Table
4 below:
Theory-oriented Terminology Translation-oriented Terminology & Translation
Establish relations between concepts,
between concepts and terms, and
between terms
Decode the meaning of a Source Language
(SL), retain the meaning as much as possible
and encode it in a Target Language (TL)
Improve and disambiguate
communication:
bilingually/interlingually
monolingually/intralingually
Improve and disambiguate communication:
(mainly) bilingually/interlingually
(sometimes) monolingually (intralingually)
Improve and disambiguate
communication by applying appropriate
terminological principles
Translation: Improve and disambiguate
communication by applying appropriate
translation types/methods/procedures
Translation-oriented Terminology: Improve
and disambiguate communication by
applying appropriate terminological
principles
Tab. 4: Objectives of Theory-oriented Terminology and Translation-oriented Terminology/
Translation compared.
12 I will use the term bureau as a cover term to include bureaus, companies and agencies. Although there
are differences between these terms, certainly between bureau and agency, I will not distinguish
between them because this is beyond the scope of this article.
Marcel Thelen trans-kom 8 [2] (2015): 347-381
The Interaction between Terminology and Translation Seite 359
There are, furthermore, small differences as regards factors to be taken into account, as
shown in Table 5:
Theory-oriented Terminology Translation-oriented Terminology & Translation
Aspects of language planning & policy Translation brief (specific requirements of the
commissioner of the translation)
When more languages are involved in
one and the same area: options for
correspondence on the points of
domain-specific register
(communication level, audience,
[cognitive] linguistic & cultural specifics)
and style
Options for correspondence between domain-
specific register (communication level, audience,
[cognitive] linguistic & cultural specifics) and
style of Source language Text (SLT) and Target
Language Text (TLT)
Tab. 5: Aspects to be taken into account by Theory-oriented Terminology and Translation-
oriented Terminology and Translation.
As can be seen from these tables, there are differences in objectives and aspects to be
taken into account, but these are not huge.
When language planning & policy deals with two or more languages in one and the
same area (e.g. the Republic of South-Africa with English, Afrikaans and a number of
indigenous languages), consideration should be given to how correspondence can be
established between the various languages on the points of domain-specific register and
style. As for Translation-oriented Terminology and Translation, the correspondence
between SLT and TLT is always an issue to be taken into account. This is even more
important when the translation brief stipulates, for example, that the audience of the TLT
should be different from that of the SLT.
2.2.2 Working Area
The working areas of Theory-oriented Terminology, on the one hand, and Translation-
oriented Terminology & Translation (i.e. non-literary domain-specific Translation), on the
other, coincide partly: they all deal with domain-specific language, be it with different
objectives. However, as indicated in the previous Section, Translation deals with general
language as well.
2.2.3 Actors
What a theory-oriented terminologist and a translator do seems obvious: a terminologist
deals with Theory-oriented Terminology and a translator translates and in doing this
deals with Translation-oriented Terminology. There is, however, more to it. If it were as
straightforward as this, both the theory-oriented terminologists and the translator would
have different qualifications and competences. The “Professional Profile for Terminol-
ogists” of the Rat für Deutschsprachige Terminologie RaDT (2004), and EN 15038
(2006)/ISO 17100 (2015) give a different picture.
Marcel Thelen trans-kom 8 [2] (2015): 347-381
The Interaction between Terminology and Translation Seite 360
Qualifications
Table 6 shows the various required qualifications for a terminologist and a translator:
Theory-oriented Terminologist Translator
Degree of an institute for translation,
interpreting or technical writing
Formal higher education in translation
(recognised degree) OR
Equivalent qualification in any other
subject plus a minimum of two years of
documented experience in translating OR
At least five years of documented
professional experience in translating
Tab. 6: Training and qualifications for terminologists and translators.
As can be seen, there are no specific training institutes for terminologists. RaDT adds:
Today, the teaching of terminology and practical terminology work are a constituent
component of virtually every course of studies in the translation, interpreting or technical
writing sectors. This content is rarely to be found in other arts and social sciences courses.
Some institutes of higher learning are offering independent courses of training and continuing
education courses for terminologists. (RaDT 2004: 4)
From this one might conclude that the requirements for translators are stricter than for
theory-oriented terminologists, and that Theory-oriented Terminology – in most cases –
is not treated as an independent discipline, but as part of Translation. That Theory-
oriented Terminology is offered in training courses for Translation is not surprising and
underlines that one cannot do without the other.
Competences
When one compares the competences listed for Theory-oriented Terminology on the
website of RaDT (2004) and for Translation in EN 15038 (2006) and ISO 17100 (2015),13
the following picture emerges (Table 7):
Theory-oriented Terminology
(RaDT 2004)
Translation (and ~- oriented
Terminology) (EN 15038/ISO 17100)
1) General requirements (18 in total):
a. good all-round knowledge
b. fundamental competence in the
specialised sectors in question
c. ability to find their way into other
specialised sectors quickly
d. systematic method of working
e. planning and organisational
competence
f. project management competence
g. Interdisciplinary thinking and
comparative working methods
h. inter- and intracultural thinking (also in
the working cultures)
1) Translating competence:
a. the ability to translate texts to
the required level […]
b. the ability to assess the
problems of text
comprehension and text
production
c. the ability to render the target
text in accordance with the
client-TSP (Translation Service
Provider) agreement and to
justify the results
13 As mentioned in footnote (8), the text and description of the competences in EN 15038 (2006) will be
taken over literally in ISO 17100 (2015).
Marcel Thelen trans-kom 8 [2] (2015): 347-381
The Interaction between Terminology and Translation Seite 361
i. ability to recognise cultural differences
j. ability to think in abstract terms
k. ability to conceptualise
l. creativity
m. “flair to detect and follow up clues”
n. negotiation skills
o. power of persuasion
p. ability to present reasoned and
convincing arguments
q. communicative competence
r. social competences ability to resolve
problems
2) Specialised requirements (4 in total)
a. good knowledge of the principles of
terminology
b. mastery of terminological working
methods (normative and descriptive
terminology work)
c. mastery of the electronic tools for
terminology management and their
interfaces with other applications
d. basic knowledge of information
technology and documentation
2) Linguistic and textual competence:
a. the ability to understand the
source language and mastery
of the target language.
b. knowledge of text type
conventions for as wide a range
of standard-language and
specialised texts as possible,
c. the ability to apply this
knowledge when producing
texts
3) Language competence:
a. high degree of mother tongue
competence
b. well-developed feel for the language
and a high degree of linguistic
creativity
c. where multilingual terminology is
involved, a high degree of competence
in at least one, however, where
possible, in several languages
3) Research competence, information
acquisition and processing:
a. the ability to efficiently acquire
the additional linguistic and
specialised knowledge
necessary to understand the
source text and to produce the
target text, experience in the
use of research tools,
b. the ability to develop suitable
strategies for the efficient use of
the information sources
available.
4) Research and teaching competences
a. basic competence in the theory of
science
b. research competence in the
terminology sector as a subset of
specialised communication
c. didactic competencies relating to
terminology above and beyond basic
competencies
4) Cultural competence:
a. the ability to make use of
information on the locale,
behavioural standards and
value systems that characterise
the source and target cultures
5) Technical competence:
a. the abilities and skills required
for the professional preparation
and production of translations,
b. the ability to operate technical
resources […].
Tab. 7: Survey of competences for Theory-oriented Terminology (RaDT 2004: 22-23), and
Translation (and ~-oriented Terminology) (EN 15038: 9)/ISO 17100: 6).
Marcel Thelen trans-kom 8 [2] (2015): 347-381
The Interaction between Terminology and Translation Seite 362
Because RaDT uses general requirements and specialised requirements whereas EN
15038 and ISO17100 do not, and because the types and formulation of the various
competences in RaDT differ from those in EN 15038 and ISO 17100, it is rather
impossible to align the various competences between RaDT and EN 15038/ISO 17100.
It appears that the number of competences and subcompetences plus requirements in
RaDT (2004) amounts to 28, whereas in EN 15038 the total number of competences,
subcompetences and requirements is 11, in other words, a difference of 17. However, a
closer look reveals that some of the RaDT (sub)competences and requirements that are
singled out as separate (sub)competences/requirements are classified in different places
in EN 15038/ISO 17100, but are almost identical. Furthermore, RaDT contains a few
(sub)competences/requirements that are not specific for the work done by a Theory-
oriented terminologist: good all-round knowledge, systematic method of working, ability
to think in abstract terms, ability to conceptualise, creativity, and “flair to detect and follow
up clues” RaDT 2004: 3). RaDT’s “didactic competencies relating to terminology above
and beyond basic competencies” (RaDT 2004: 3) are an odd man out and seem very
strange as competences for Theory-oriented Terminology.
Overall, however, the RaDT (2004) (sub)competences/requirements are more or
less identical to those in EN 15038/ISO 17100, which means that the competences
required for Theory-oriented Terminology and Translation/Translation-oriented Termi-
nology are considerably similar. This is more or less confirmed by Pavel and Nolet (2001)
who list the requirements for a (Theory-oriented) terminologist as follows:
Terminology work requires a number of abilities, such as:
the ability to identify the terms that designate the concepts that belong to a subject
field
the ability to confirm the usage of the terms in pertinent reference documents
the ability to describe concepts concisely
the ability to distinguish correct usage from improper usage
the ability to recommend or to discourage certain usages with a view to facilitating
unambiguous communication (Pavel/Nolet 2001: xviii).
Other important questions in this respect are “who is what?”, or “what is a terminologist?”
and “what is a translator?”
Marcel Thelen trans-kom 8 [2] (2015): 347-381
The Interaction between Terminology and Translation Seite 363
What is a terminologist/what is a translator?
Answers to these and similar questions can be presented schematically as follows
(Table 8):
Is a (Theory-oriented) terminologist a
translator?
No, not necessarily. A (Theory-oriented)
terminologist may well be a domain specialist, a
medical doctor, for example, who stopped
working as a medical doctor and who trained
himself as a (Theory-oriented) terminologist in
the medical domain. A (Theory-oriented)
terminologist may, however, also be translator.
Is a translator a (Theory-oriented)
terminologist?
No, not initially. A translator is a Translation-
oriented terminologist who engages in
Terminology in function of translating. However,
a translator may well become a Theory-oriented
terminologist.
Is a (Theory-oriented) terminologist one
person?
It is commonly believed that a (Theory-oriented)
terminologist is one person. This is challenged
by Martin (2006) who claims that a terminologist
is a team of people.
Tab. 8: What is a terminologist and what is a translator?
As indicated in Table 8, Martin (2006) believes that a terminologist is a team of people:
The [bold by author (MT)] (ideal) terminologist as an individual does not exist. The (ideal)
terminologist is a team. In that team, actors such as domain experts, IT-developers,
translators etc. play an important role. However the most important role is that of the
Sublanguage Expert who co-ordinates the several team members and acts as a catalyst
being able to understand needs, to anticipate them and to see to it that they can be solved.
(Martin 2006: 92)
This implies that, in his view, a terminologist is not a translator, but a team of which the
translator is only one of the cooperating members. Moreover, the Sublanguage Expert
that he mentions is not a translator either he is the coordinator of the team. The question
is what this Sublanguage Expert is. Martin (2006) gives three requirements for someone
to become a Sublanguage Expert. He must
(1) […] know how to acquire knowledge;
(2) […] know how to represent knowledge,
(3) […] know how to build a multifunctional term bank (Martin 2006: 88)
These requirements are rather general and not all too specific for Terminology.
Elsewhere, however, he complements these requirements with a number of training
requirements. To become a Sublanguage Expert, one:
[…] must have a sound training in the treatment (description, analysis, translation, (re)writing
etc.) of sublanguages both from a theoretical and from a practical point of view.
(Martin 2006: 93)
The term actor as discussed in this Section should not be confused with the term service
provider as used in Section (2.2.6) below. With actor I mean the type of person actually
carrying out the Translation or terminology job at hand, whereas the term service
Marcel Thelen trans-kom 8 [2] (2015): 347-381
The Interaction between Terminology and Translation Seite 364
provider refers to the person or body delivering the service in a professional or
commercial setting. The service provider need not be the same person as the actor
carrying out the job (see Section 2.2.6).
2.2.4 Type of Work
The type of work done by a translator and by a Theory-oriented terminologist can be
summarised as follows (Table 9):
Theory-oriented Terminology Translation and Translation-oriented
Terminology
core: creating, describing and updating
concepts and terms
core of Translation: preparing/pre-editing
documents for translation, translating14 and
post-editing documents (of any type and
domain); creating terms as a translation
solution if no standard equivalents are
available
core of Translation-oriented Terminology:
translating Source Text (ST) terms by
standard Target language (TL): equivalent
terms; creating terms as a translation
solution if no standard equivalents are
available; registering terms for future use and
reference
also: identifying the terms designating the
concepts of a subject field (cf. Pavel/Nolet
2001: xviii)
also: ad-hoc terminology work in function of
translating
also: confirming, recommending,
discouraging usage of terms (cf. Pavel/Nolet
2001: xviii)
also: contributing to bilingual terminological
standardisation
Tab. 9: Type of work done by (Theory-oriented) terminologist and by a translator.
See also COTSOES (2002: 12) for a similar enumeration of work done by a (Theory-
oriented) terminologist.
As becomes clear from Table 9, Translation in general can be helpful to Theory-
oriented Terminology – as part of its core activity – in the coining/creation of new terms:
if/when there is no standard equivalent for an SLT term or if/when there is not yet a
coined SLT equivalent term, the translator has to come up with a plausible and
appropriate TLT equivalent. This can be seen as (the beginning) of coining/creating
terms.
In essence, the core type of work done by both a translator and a (Theory-oriented)
terminologist may be represented as follows (Figure 3):
14 Translation may come in various forms: translation proper, i.e. the translation of written/digital texts,
audiovisual translation (e.g. subtitling), localisation, web-translation, etc.
Marcel Thelen trans-kom 8 [2] (2015): 347-381
The Interaction between Terminology and Translation Seite 365
Fig. 3: Prototypical essence of work done by a (Theory-oriented) terminologist and a translator.
2.2.5 Working Methods
The working methods of Theory-oriented Terminology vs. Translation-oriented
Terminology/Translation can be summarised as follows in Table 10:
Theory-oriented Terminology Translation-oriented Terminology & Translation
For term identification/description
on the basis of the linguistic context and the
cognitive context of a term (e.g. in the case of
corpora))
For decoding Source Language Text (SLT)
meaning
on the basis of the linguistic context and the
cognitive context of the SLT item (if needed,
supplemented by SLT-external linguistic and
cognitive context in dictionary definitions,
corpora, etc.)
For term creation/concept description
on the basis of the cognitive context of the
term/concept
For encoding SLT meaning in Target Language
Text (TLT) form
on the basis of the cognitive context of SLT item
(possibly supplemented by the SLT-external
linguistic and cognitive context in dictionary
definitions, corpora, etc.) with a check of the
chosen TLT item on equivalence with the SLT
and appropriateness/suitability within TLT
linguistic and cognitive context
applying appropriate terminological principles For Translation-oriented Terminology: applying
appropriate terminological principles from
Theory-oriented Terminology
For Translation: applying appropriate translation
types/methods/procedures
Tab. 10: Working methods of Theory-oriented Terminology vs. Translation-oriented Terminology/
Translation.
Marcel Thelen trans-kom 8 [2] (2015): 347-381
The Interaction between Terminology and Translation Seite 366
The working methods of Translation-oriented Terminology and Translation have already
been dealt with in Section 2.1.5. There it was noticed that for both these are identical,
with the only difference that Translation-oriented Terminology deals with terms and
applies terminological principles from Theory-oriented Terminology (for decoding and
encoding as well as for term registration), whereas Translation deals with words and
applies translation types/methods/procedures. Theory-oriented Terminology, like
Translation-oriented Terminology, also deals with terms, be it not with the objective of
translating them, but describing and creating them. It develops and applies terminological
principles. Theory-oriented Terminology, like Translation-oriented Terminology and
Translation, makes use of both the linguistic context and the cognitive context.
Theory-oriented Terminology and Translation-oriented Terminology & Translation
have a common basis in another respect, viz. in terms of the encyclopaedic view of
linguistic meaning (cf. Table 3 and Fig. 2 in Section 2.1.5). Figure 2 applies to Theory-
oriented terminology as well.
What the working methods of Theory-oriented Terminology and Translation-oriented
oriented Terminology/Translation have also in common is illustrated by Figure 4:
Fig. 4: Sources of information used by Translation/Translation-oriented Terminology and Theory-
oriented Terminology
For the sources of information see COTSOES 2002: 42-47.
Marcel Thelen trans-kom 8 [2] (2015): 347-381
The Interaction between Terminology and Translation Seite 367
2.2.6 Clients and Translation Service providers (TSPs)
As regards clients, there are no big differences between Theory-oriented Terminology
and Translation-oriented Terminology/Translation. Their clients may be of any type,
except perhaps individual private clients for Theory-oriented Terminology. However,
when one thinks of the national Swedish term bank, for example, this is not exceptional:
there individual private clients may ask for help for individual terminology problems both
in the area of Theory-oriented Terminology and Translation-oriented Terminology (see
Rikstermbanken s.a.).
As for the service providers, there are small differences. Translation-oriented
Terminology is mainly the domain of one-person translation bureaus, middle/larger
translation bureaus, in-house translation departments and national terminology service
centres, whereas Theory-oriented Terminology is mainly done in middle/larger trans-
lation bureaus (if this fits in their business profile), in-house terminology departments,
and national terminology service centres. In other words, it seems to be a matter of size
and business profile.
3 Cooperation/interaction between Translation-oriented
Terminology and Translation
In the cooperation/interaction between Translation-oriented Terminology and Translation
two perspectives may be distinguished: (1) the benefits of Translation-oriented
Terminology for Translation, and (2) the benefits of Translation for Translation-oriented
Terminology. I will start with the first.
3.1 Benefits of Translation-oriented Terminology for Translation
As indicated in Section 2.1 above, Translation-oriented Terminology and Translation are
so closely related to one another that there are more similarities than dissimilarities.
Translation, i.e. domain-specialist Translation needs Translation-oriented Terminology.
The latter brings in the terminological principles from Theory-oriented Terminology that
may, as appropriate, be applied to solve translation problems. These principles may be
used as “(heuristic) discovery procedures” (Thelen 2002b: 194, 2012: 130). They will be
discussed in Section 4.1 below. Bringing in these terminological principles from Theory-
oriented Terminology is the greatest benefit of Translation-oriented Terminology. A
concomitant indirect benefit is that, by applying these principles, the translator learns
how to work in a structured way in the translation process, i.e. the steps to be taken in
process from SLT to TLT. This may not be limited to the translation of domain-specific
language, but may be transferred to the translation of general language as well. This is
all the more likely since the actors of Translation-oriented Terminology and Translation
are, in most cases, the same persons. Translation may also benefit, even more indirectly,
from the terminological principles from Theory-oriented Terminology that Translation-
oriented Terminology brings in, in that the principles governing term registration may
Marcel Thelen trans-kom 8 [2] (2015): 347-381
The Interaction between Terminology and Translation Seite 368
influence in a positive way the registration of translations in general for future use, and
perhaps, also the translator’s attitude towards and handling of translation memories.
3.2 Benefits of Translation for Translation-oriented Terminology
Translation-oriented Terminology may also benefit from Translation. Because of the
competences that the professional translator has acquired either though training or
experience or through both, he is well equipped for the job of translating and is able to
decode the message of the SLT and encode it in the appropriate TLT form. I am here
referring in particular to the 5 competences mentioned in EN 15038 (2006): translating
competence, linguistic and textual competence, research competence, information
acquisition and processing, cultural competence, and technical competence. These
competences may yield results that are interesting for and contribute to Translation-
oriented Terminology, and that may also contribute to Theory-oriented Terminology.
These benefits are also rather indirect.
The mutual indirect benefits between Translation-oriented Terminology and
Translation discussed in (3.1) and (3.2) are a confirmation for viewing Translation-
oriented Terminology as a mediator between Theory-oriented Terminology and
Translation.
4 Cooperation/interaction between Theory-oriented Terminology
and Translation-oriented Terminology/Translation
As may have become clear from the preceding, Translation-oriented Terminology and
Translation are closely linked to one another. This is why I will treat them here as one
area in the comparison with Theory-oriented Terminology.
The obvious direction of benefit in the interaction between Theory-oriented
Terminology, on the one hand, and Translation-oriented Terminology & Translation, on
the other, is from Theory-oriented Terminology to Translation-oriented Terminology &
Translation. Translation-oriented Terminology helps translators with the process of
translating and with term definition and registration. Translation-oriented Terminology
builds, as it were, a bridge between Theory-oriented Terminology and Translation, and
is the translator’s application of Theory-oriented Terminology to Translation insofar as
this is needed and appropriate.
4.1 Benefits of Theory-oriented Terminology for Translation-oriented
Terminology/Translation
These benefits relate specifically to translating and term registration.
Marcel Thelen trans-kom 8 [2] (2015): 347-381
The Interaction between Terminology and Translation Seite 369
4.1.1 Translating
As for Translation, Theory-oriented Terminology provides translators with a set of
principles15 that may be used as “heuristic discovery procedures”16 to determine possible
equivalence between terms in the source language text (SLT) and the target language
text (TLT), which, in turn, may serve as the basis for the application of appropriate
translation procedures or techniques. The translator’s objective with Translation-oriented
Terminology is to find solutions for translation problems related to terminology and
recording the results for future reference and use.
Take the example of the English term Parliament. The most obvious translation into
Dutch which comes to mind is Parlement. This is not correct, however, as becomes clear
from a terminological representation of both terms. The terminological principle applying
here is that of a part-whole of partitive relation between Parliament and related terms in
English, on the one hand, and Parlement and related terms in Dutch, on the other.
Represented in such structures, both terms reveal the following:
Fig. 5: Parliament (EN) vs. Parlement (NL).
As can be seen, the English term Parliament occupies hypernym position in the partitive
structure, whereas the Dutch term Parlement occupies co-hyponym position and is an
equivalent for Tweede Kamer [lit.: Second Chamber]. The direct Dutch counterpart (i.e.
the equivalent term at the same hypernym level) of the English term Parliament is Staten-
Generaal [lit.: ‘States General’]. In other words, the terminological principles of partitive
relations may guide the translator – as a discovery procedure – in the right direction,
provided that he knows the basic principles of Terminology and places the terms in
question in the appropriate schematic representations. Although these are purely
terminological considerations, they are, however, very relevant for the translator.
15 “[…] we accept that terminology is a field with its own theoretical principles (terminological theory) and
its own applied purposes (the writing of vocabularies, glossaries and dictionaries, and the
standardization of designations). The concepts constituting the theory are not original, but, as in other
interdisciplinary subjects, borrowed from the neighbouring disciplines, in this case linguistics, logic,
ontology, and information sciences” (Cabré 1998: 32).
See also Weissenhofer (1995) on concepts vs. word and the relation between terms and concepts.
16 For this term see e.g. Thelen (2002b: 194).
Marcel Thelen trans-kom 8 [2] (2015): 347-381
The Interaction between Terminology and Translation Seite 370
Suppose that the SLT is a text on the organisation of the English government system,
and that the commissioner’s brief states that the purpose of the translation is to facilitate
a comparison with the Dutch system. This means that the audience should be given a
detailed insight into the English system using corresponding examples of the Dutch
system (in other words, that the translation method to be applied should be
“domestication” – translation through cultural equivalents). In such a situation, the termi-
nological considerations may direct the translator to “Tweede Kamer” as appropriate
equivalent. In the reverse case, from Dutch to English, “Tweede Kamer” should (in the
same situation) not be translated by “Parliament”, but by “House of Commons”. The
commissioner’s brief plays, in other words, a crucial role here.
4.1.2 Term Registration
Another obvious area where Theory-oriented Terminology can be helpful (to Translation-
oriented Terminology and Translation) is term registration. Theory-oriented Terminology
offers a range of useful principles that may be used by translators in Translation-oriented
Terminology as guidelines/formats for: (1) formulating definitions of terms, and (2)
registering contexts, additional information, related terms, etc.
The principles for the formulation of definitions include a survey and description of
the characteristics of known types of definitions. The number of definition types varies.
COTSOES (2002: 27-28), for example, gives two types only, i.e. the intensional
definition, and the extensional definition. The intensional definition is “[…] based on the
next higher concept (generic concept) and gives the characteristics that permit the
concept to be defined and that delimit it from the neighbouring concepts (e.g. co-ordinate
concepts […]) […]” (COTSOES 2002: 27). The extensional definition “[…] describes a
concept by its specific concepts or an object by its parts”17 (COTSOES 2002: 28).
Sager (1990) lists 7 types of definition and 3 mixed forms, viz. (1) definition by
analysis (= COTSOES intensional definition), (2) definition by synonyms, (3) definition
by paraphrase, (4) definition by synthesis (by identifying relations, by description), (5)
definition by implication, (6) definition by denotation, (7) definition by demonstration. He
gives the following 3 mixed forms: (1) definition by analysis + description, (2) definition
by synonym + description, and (3) definition by synonym + analysis (Sager 1990: 42-44).
For more documentation on the subject, see also e.g. Sager and L’Homme (1994), and
Schmitz, Budin and Galinski (1994).
17 Note, by the way, that COTSOES’ definition of the term extensional definition is somewhat unusual,
since it resembles more the intensional definition. This becomes clear from the examples given:
Example (1): reactor = “Reactors are classified according to their fuel, moderator and coolant. […] They
are based on the following alternatives:
- fuel: uranium-235, plutonium-230 […];
- moderator: heavy water, graphite […];
- coolant: gas, light water […]” (COTSOES 2002: 28)
Example (2): wheel (of a bicycle) = “The wheel consists of hub, spokes, rim and tyre” ( COTSOES 2002:
28).
These examples represent intensional rather than extensional definitions.
Marcel Thelen trans-kom 8 [2] (2015): 347-381
The Interaction between Terminology and Translation Seite 371
Cabré (1998: 104-105) distinguishes three main types of definition, viz. (1) linguistic
definitions, (2) ontological definitions, and (3) terminological definitions. Linguistic
definitions
[…] do not usually include all the characteristics of a concept but rather those that are most
important for differentiating it from another concept in the language. The main goal of
linguistic definitions is to clearly distinguish different concepts. (Cabré 1998: 105)
Ontological definitions
[…] include all the particular intrinsic, extrinsic, essential, and complementary aspects of a
concept, regardless of whether they are relevant to defining it as a class or not. We often find
encyclopedia-like features in definitions. (Cabré 1998: 105)
Terminological definitions
[…] (are more descriptive than contrastive; they describe concepts in exclusive reference to
a special subject field and not to a linguistic system. (Cabré 1998: 105)
For translators, i.e. specialist (non-literary) translators, terminological definitions are to
be preferred because of the direct link to special subject fields. Commonly, preference
is, furthermore, given to intensional or analytic definitions (cf. ISO 704 1987; ISO 1087
1990).
There are separate rules or recommendations for form and content of definitions.
Cabré (1998: 106-107) gives a useful and detailed list of such rules and
recommendations.
Rules/recommendations for content
Definitions:
(1) […] must describe the concept (i.e. they must be true).
(2) […] allow differentiation of the defined concept from similar concepts in the same or in
different special fields.
(3) […] bring together the dimensions pertinent to each special field.
(4) […] be located in the perspective of the conceptual field a concept belongs to.
(5) […] be appropriate for the aims of the project in which they are presented.
Rules/recommendations for form
Definitions
(6) […] must be written so that the initial descriptors are of the same grammatical category
as the head term and are in an inclusive relationship semantically with the head term.
(7) […] must use known words; if more specific words are used, they must be terms defined
in the same glossary or dictionary.
(8) […] should not be circular.
(9) […] should not be defined by negating something else.
(10) […] should not include unnecessary paraphrases that only provide information that could
be derived from the term itself (e.g. “Huntingdon’s disease: disease identified by George
Huntingdon, American physician”).
(11) […] should avoid metalinguistic formulae (e.g. “circulate: verb designating the action of
moving or passing through […]”). (Cabré 1998: 106-107)
Marcel Thelen trans-kom 8 [2] (2015): 347-381
The Interaction between Terminology and Translation Seite 372
Although in the actual practice of Translation-oriented Terminology these rules and
recommendations are not always complied with, they are, nevertheless, very useful for
term registration. If these rules and recommendations are adhered to, the results will be
more useful for future translations (in particular when term registration is done with the
help of a terminology management system), which is, after all, one of the main objectives
for a translator when registering terms.
Likewise, there are rules and recommendations for contexts. These, too, are very
useful for translators when registering terms. Term registration usually includes – apart
from the registration of a definition – also the registration of a typical context in which the
term is found to occur. Dubuc and Lauriston (1997: 82-83) distinguish three types of
context: (1) associative contexts, (2) explicative contexts, and (3) defining contexts. An
associative context “[…] provides no information about the concept covered by the term,
but it does show that the term is used in some specialized language” (Dubuc/Lauriston
1997: 82) (e.g. as used in a collocation). An explicative context “[…] creates an
approximative image of the concept covered by the term” (Dubuc/Lauriston 1997: 83)
(e.g. by adding information on the concept’s function). A defining context “[…] contains
descriptors in sufficient quantity and quality to cover a very clear image of the concept
covered by the term, from which a true definition could be readily inferred (Dubuc/
Lauriston 1997: 83) (it complements, as it were, a definition).18
Such rules and recommendations can be very helpful for the translator. Apart from
this obvious benefit of Theory-oriented Terminology to Translation and Translation-
oriented Terminology, there are other more general benefits such as:
(1) consistency in the translation of terms and domain-specific language in general: this
may eventually also lead to consistency in the translation of general language;
(2) systematisation of searching strategies and techniques: especially when the
following sequence of steps is applied: (1) start from definitions, (2) compare
definitions, (3) compare definitions with context of term, etc. (cf. Thelen 2012: 136-
144);
(3) boost of term recognition and increase in awareness of difference between general
language and domain-specific language: the more the translator works by
terminological principles and uses these as discovery procedures, the more
“Fingerspitzengefühl” he may get for subtleties of meaning whether in domain-
specific language or in general language, and the better he may recognise terms
from words;
(4) systematisation of term registration: practice makes perfect.
18 “A defining context must not be confused with a definition. The latter is a metalinguistic form, an artificial
statement that is neither integrated into any discourse nor related to any instance of communication.
The use of a definition in terminological research is only possible if the concept formulated meta-
linguistically matches that expressed in the context of an actual communication” (Dubuc/Lauriston
1997: 85).
Marcel Thelen trans-kom 8 [2] (2015): 347-381
The Interaction between Terminology and Translation Seite 373
4.2 Benefits of Translation-oriented Terminology/Translation for Theory-
oriented Terminology
As may have become clear from 4.1 above, Translation-oriented Terminology and
Translation need Theory-oriented Terminology (and thus terminological principles).
However, the reverse is true as well, viz. Theory-oriented Terminology needs
Translation-oriented Terminology and Translation. There are a number of benefits of
Translation-oriented Terminology/Translation for Theory-oriented Terminology.
4.2.1 Discussion Partner for Domain Specialists and Terminologists
The experienced domain-specific translator who specialised in a particular domain, has
become an expert in the language of that domain. He may have become an even greater
expert in the language of that domain than the domain specialists and the terminologists
working on that domain. In this capacity he may act as discussion partner of both the
domain specialist and the domain terminologist (cf. Thelen 2001a: 22).
4.2.2 Useful Competences
It is a fact that translators (are assumed) to have (1) translation competence, (2) textual
and linguistic competence and (3) cultural competence (as described in the European
standard for translation services EN 15038 (2006) and its successor the international
standard on translation services ISO 17100 (2015). This means that – in the area of
Translation-oriented Terminology, which is part of their job – translators are capable of
identifying and disambiguating terms in context (similar to what they are used to do in
the case of general language because of these competences), and establishing
equivalence between SLT and TLT terms. Because of this, they may help theory-oriented
terminologists with the identification, delimitation and definition of concepts. In order for
translators to be able to this, however, they also need terminology competence.
According to Montero Martínez and Faber Benitez (2009), terminological competence
(which they regard a subcompetence of translation competence) comprises:
(1) […] the identification and acquisition of specialized concepts activated in discourse;
(2) the evaluation, consultation, and elaboration of information resources;
(3) the recognition of interlinguistic correspondences based on concepts in the specialized
knowledge field;
(4) the management of the information and knowledge acquired and its re-use in future
translations. (Montero Martínez/Faber Benitez 2009: 92)
This terminology competence is not to be confused with subject competence. Subject
competence (Neubert 2000: 8) entails “[…] familiarity with what constitutes the body of
knowledge of the area a translation is about”, in other words the subject matter of the
translation. This familiarity is a rather graded concept, and there are no upper limits to it,
though there is a certain but vague lower limit. For translators it suffices that they know
the language of a subject field, and that they know to find their way in the field; they need
not be specialists. As Neubert (2000) states:
Marcel Thelen trans-kom 8 [2] (2015): 347-381
The Interaction between Terminology and Translation Seite 374
Subject knowledge, i.e. encyclopaedic as well as highly specialist knowledge, is, of course,
not necessarily active knowledge for them [i.e. translators (MT)], and available all the time,
but they must know the ways and means of how to access this when they need it. Translators
don’t know everything and they need not know everything but they must know where to look
for it and where to find it. (Neubert 2000: 9)
It is the domain specialist that should have active subject knowledge. In this respect, the
translator and the terminologist are in a comparable situation: also the terminologist need
not have active subject knowledge. Of course, the greater his subject knowledge, the
better will he be able to perform his task as a terminologist. The same holds for the
translator.
In Thelen (2007: 136-137) translating terms was comparted with translating general
language and the question was raised if terminological competence should not be
considered a separate competence from translating competence. There, terminological
competence (in Translation-oriented Terminology, to indicate that it pertains to trans-
lators and not to terminologists) was defined as:
(1) term recognition competence (see also Thelen 2002a: 23-29): the competence
(a) to identify – on the basis of textual context in the SLT and in comparable texts
and translated texts – if an SLT item is a term or a word, and
(b) to determine – with the help of the matching competence – if the SLT term (if so
identified) is used in its standard meaning and context;
(2) matching competence: the competence
(a) to match the definition of an SLT term with the definition of a candidate equivalent
term,
(b) to match the linguistic context of the SLT term and the linguistic contexts of a
candidate equivalent term,
(c) to match the level of communication19 of the SLT term with the level of
communication of a candidate equivalent term;
(3) recording competence: the competence
(a) to record definitions in line with terminological principles for definitions,
(b) to record contexts in line with terminological principles for contexts,
(c) to provide both definitions and contexts with indications of level of
communication.
This definition is geared more precisely towards what the domain-specialist translator
does when translating. When he comes across a term in SLT, he should – depending on
the specifications of the commissioner, e.g. to translate for a different audience – provide
the standard equivalent term in TLT, provided there is one. If there is no standard
19 For the term level of communication see e.g. Thelen (2001a: 20, 2001b: 151), and for the related
concept of levels of LSP see a table by Lothar Hoffmann in von Hahn (1983: 75). See also Hoffmann
(1985).
Marcel Thelen trans-kom 8 [2] (2015): 347-381
The Interaction between Terminology and Translation Seite 375
equivalent term, he has to apply a translation procedure. This means that in the case of
terms the domain-specialist (non-literary) translator has less translation freedom when
terms are involved. In the case of words, i.e. general language items, the translator has
more translation freedom and may often choose from among a number of synonyms. If
a translator comes across an item in SLT that he regards a word and translates it as
such, whereas it appears to be a term, the translator gives an inappropriate translation.
This is why term recognition is so important (Thelen 2002a: 23-29). It is all the more
important because a domain-specific text does not only contain domain-specific
language, but also general language. (see also ten Hacken 2006: 156). It is in this
respect, i.e. term recognition, that terminological competence differs from translating
competence. The question raised was left unanswered. I will not dwell on this any longer.
Only when the translator also has terminology competence, may he be of help to the
theory-oriented terminologist: only then will the translator be able to identify and
disambiguate terms in context and establish equivalence between SLT and TLT terms.
As indicated above, part of terminology competence, in particular of term recognition
competence, is that the translator is able to determine if an SLT term (if so identified) is
used in its standard meaning and context. This may provide the theory-oriented
terminologist with useful information that he may use in the description of the term in
question.
Common working area
Theory-oriented Terminology may benefit from Translation-oriented Terminology and
Translation also in another respect. The fact is that the working areas of Translation-
oriented Terminology and Translation (i.e. non-literary domain-specific Translation), on
the one hand, and Theory-oriented Terminology, on the other, coincide partly: they all
deal with domain-specific language, be it with different objectives. However, as indicated
in the previous section, Translation-oriented Terminology and Translation deal with
general language as well. In other words, domain-specific language is the area where
they all meet and may interact.
However, even in the area of general language Translation-oriented Terminology
and Translation may be beneficial to Theory-oriented Terminology. It is a fact that terms
may come to behave like words and vice versa. The former is called determinologisation,
and the latter terminologisation. Both are common phenomena. The translator’s work
may provide the theory-oriented terminologist with valuable information for the
identification and delimitation of terms and their development over time.
Training
When one compares the qualifications and competences of Theory-oriented
Terminology with those of Translation-oriented Terminology and Translation, what
becomes immediately clear is that there is considerable overlap. What is, furthermore,
striking is that the training of all three is still very often done in one and the same place:
at an established institution of higher education with a translator training programme
Marcel Thelen trans-kom 8 [2] (2015): 347-381
The Interaction between Terminology and Translation Seite 376
either at BA level or at MA level, or both. There the focus of the training is, in most cases,
on Translation, and Terminology is treated as subservient to Translation, which implies
that students first learn the basics of Translation, and only later those of Terminology.
This, in its turn, could imply either that Translation is treated as the basis for Terminology,
or that Terminology is deemed less important. It would then be rather natural that
Translation-oriented Terminology and Translation are beneficial to Theory-oriented
Translation. However, more and more specialist online MA training programmes in
Terminology are offered.20 In other words, Theory-oriented Terminology is “catching up”,
in line with its growing importance.21 Whatever the situation, it will be the competences
of Translation-oriented Terminology and Translation that will be beneficial to Theory-
oriented Terminology (see above).
Coining/creation of new terms
Another area where Translation-oriented terminology and Translation may be of benefit
for Theory-oriented Terminology is, as part of its core activity (see Table 9 in Section
2.2.4 above), the coining/creation of new terms: if/when there is no standard equivalent
for an SLT term or if/when there is not yet a coined SLT equivalent term, the translator
has to come up with a plausible and appropriate TLT equivalent. This can be seen as
(the beginning) of coining/creating terms.
Researching, data mining
Also in the area of clients and service providers, there may be interaction between
Translation/Translation-oriented Terminology and Theory-oriented Terminology. A
translator as actor may, for example, do Translation-oriented Terminology work for an
in-house terminology department, which means that he collects the materials found and
processed through translating and provides these to the terminology department that, in
its turn, may use them for further processing and standardisation. Likewise, an in-house
terminology department and a translation bureau may have one and the same
commissioner, for example a government ministry, that is interested in standardisation
of the terminology of a particular subject domain. It seems quite natural that in both cases
Translation and Terminology cooperate.
As Theory-oriented Terminology and Translation-oriented Terminology and
Translation use the same types of sources (see Figure 4 in Section 2.2.5), cooperation
may be expected there as well. This holds in particular for libraries and documentation
and translations, the areas in which the translator is “like a fish in water”. This is where
his competences (in particular linguistic and textual competence and research
competence, information acquisition and processing; and, if the material is bilingual also
20 For example at Universitat Pompeu Frabra in Barcelona (s.a.).
21 Recall that Theory-oriented Terminology is another term for Systematic Terminology. This includes not
only “theorising” on terms, concepts, and their relation, but also building terminology databases and
terminology management. The building of terminology databases is done in a systematic way, different
from the ad hoc work that is done in Translation-oriented Terminology.
Marcel Thelen trans-kom 8 [2] (2015): 347-381
The Interaction between Terminology and Translation Seite 377
translating competence) may come in very useful and where he may help the Theory-
oriented Terminologist in decoding texts and mining information. Many more forms of
interaction are conceivable. I will not go into these any further.
5 Epilogue
Terminology and Translation are related very closely and intrinsically linked. Translation
is explicitly and only understood as the actual practical translation work done by a
translator, and in particular non-literary translation work, i.e. domain-specific translation
work. In this article, two types of Terminology are distinguished: Translation-oriented (or
ad hoc) Terminology and Theory-oriented (or systematic) Terminology. Translation-
oriented Terminology links, as it were, Theory-oriented Terminology to Translation.
Translation-oriented Terminology differs from, but has many aspects in common with
Theory-oriented Terminology; the same holds for Translation-oriented Terminology
vis-à-vis Translation. The relation between the three areas was shown in Figure 1. A
perhaps better representation would be:
Fig. 6: The interaction between Theory-oriented Terminology, Translation-oriented Terminology
and Translation.
The three were compared to one another on a number of points, viz. (1) objectives, (2)
working area, (3) actors, (4) type of work, (5) working methods and (6) clients and service
providers, i.e. Translation-oriented Terminology and Translation in Section 2.1, and all
three in Section 2.2. Not all six points of comparison turned out to be good indicators for
a possible cooperation/interaction between Theory-oriented Terminology, Translation-
oriented Terminology and Translation, although they were relevant for the comparison.
This is why not all of them appeared in the discussion of the cooperation/interaction
between the three areas in Sections 3 and 4.
As regards the various types of relation indicated in 1.3, I hope to have been able to
show that on most of these points of comparison Theory-oriented Terminology, on the
one hand, and Translation-oriented Terminology and Translation, on the other, share
aspects and benefit from one another in close interaction. Close cooperation between
them may shed more light on such issues as “termhood” (is there a difference, and if so,
what is the difference between terms and words, and between domain-specific language
Marcel Thelen trans-kom 8 [2] (2015): 347-381
The Interaction between Terminology and Translation Seite 378
and general language), and term recognition (how to distinguish terms from words, and
domain-specific language from general language). But also such issues as the
development of procedures/tools for translators for term recognition may then get more
attention, as well as the standardisation of a definition format for translators. Another
interesting issue is what to do with the translation of colours, pictures, sounds, melodies,
songs, etc. All in all, all parties involved would benefit from a very close cooperation and
unity between Theory-oriented Terminology and Translation-oriented Terminology/
Translation.
References
Baker, Mona (1992): In Other Words. A Coursebook on Translation. London/New York: Routledge
Baker, Mona (1998): “Translation Studies.” Mona Baker (ed.): Routledge Encyclopedia of
Translation Studies. London: Routledge, 277-280
Cabré, M. Teresa (1998): Terminology. Theory, Methods and Applications. Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: Benjamins
Clyne, Michael (1987): “Cultural Differences in the Organization of Academic Texts: English and
German.” Journal of Pragmatics 11 [2]: 211-247
COTSOES (Conference of Translation Services of European States) (2002): Recommendations
for Terminology Work. Berne: MediaCenter of the Confederation
Dancette, Jeanne (1992): “Measurements of Comprehension of the Source text: Theory and
Practice.” Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, Marcel Thelen (eds.): Translation and
Meaning. Part 2: Proceedings of the Łódź Session of the 1990 Maastricht–Łódź Duo
Colloquium on “Translation and Meaning”, Held in Łódź, Poland, 20-22 September 1990.
Maastricht: Rijkshogeschool Maastricht, Faculty of Translation and Interpreting, 379-386
Dubuc, Robert; Andy Lauriston (1997): “Terms and Contexts.” Sue Ellen Wright, Gerhard Budin
(eds.): Handbook of Terminology. Vol. 1: Basic Aspects of Terminology Management.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins , 80-87
EN 15038 (2006): Translation Services – Service Requirements. Brussels: CEN
Evans, Vyvyan; Melanie Green (2006): Cognitive Linguistics. An introduction. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press
Felber, Helmut (1984): Terminology Manual. Paris: International Information Centre for
Terminology (Infoterm)
Freigang, Karl-Heinz (1998): “Machine-aided Translation.” Mona Baker (ed.): Routledge
Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London/New York: Routledge, 134-136
Gouadec, Daniel (1989): Le traducteur, la traduction et l’enterprise. Paris: AFNOR gestion
Gouadec, Daniel (2001): Formation des Traducteurs. Rennes: La Maison du Dictionnaire
Hacken, Pius ten (2006): “From Term Database to Term Recognition in Running Text.” Pius ten
Hacken (ed.): Terminology, Computing and Translation. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, 151-
169
Hahn, Walther von (1983): Fachkommunikation: Entwicklung – Linguistische Konzepte – Betrieb-
liche Beispiele. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter
Hoffmann, Lothar (1985): Kommunikationsmittel Fachsprache. Eine Einführung. Reprint.
Tübingen: Narr
Holmes, James Stratton (1988): “The Name and Nature of Translation Studies.” James Stratton
Holmes: Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies. (Approaches to
Translation Studies 7.) Amsterdam: Rodopi, 67-80
Marcel Thelen trans-kom 8 [2] (2015): 347-381
The Interaction between Terminology and Translation Seite 379
House, Juliane (1997): Translation Quality Assessment. A Model Revisited. Tübingen: Narr
ISO 704 (1987): Principles and Methods of Terminology. Geneva: International Organisation for
Standardisation
ISO 1087 (1990): Terminology – Vocabulary. Geneva: International Organisation for
Standardisation [withdrawn standard]
ISO 17100 (2015): Translation Services – Service Requirements.
Korkas, Vassilis; Margaret Rogers (2010): “How Much Terminological Theory Do We Need for
Practice? An Old Pedagogical Dilemma in a New Field.” Marcel Thelen, Frieda Steurs (eds):
Terminology in Everyday Life. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 123-136
Larson, Mildred (1984): Meaning-based Translation: A Guide to Cross-language Equivalence.
2nd ed. 1998. Lanham/New York/London: University Press of America
Martin, Willy (2006): “In Quest of a Profile: Portrait of a Terminologist as a Young Sublanguage
Expert.” Pius ten Hacken (ed.): Terminology, Computing and Translation. Tübingen: Narr ,
73-94
Montero Martínez, Silvia; Pamela Faber Benitez (2009): “Terminological Competence in
Translation.” Terminology 15 [1]: 88-104
Muráth, Judith (2010): “Translation-oriented Terminology Work in Hungary.” Marcel Thelen,
Frieda Steurs (eds): Terminology in Everyday Life. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins , 47-
59
Neubert, Albrecht (2000): “Competence in Language, in Languages, and in Translation.” Christina
Schäffner, Beverly Adab (eds): Developing Translation Competence. Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: Benjamins, 3-18
Newmark, Peter (1988): A Textbook of Translation. New York et al.: Prentice Hall
Nord, Christiane (1997): Translating as a Purposeful Activity. Functionalist Approaches
Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome
Pavel, Silvia; Diane Nolet (2001): Handbook of Terminology. Adapted into English by Christine
Leonhardt. Hull (Québec, Canada): Minister of Public Works and Government Services
Canada, Translation Bureau
trans-kom ISSN 1867-4844
trans-kom ist eine wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift für Translation und Fachkommunikation.
trans-kom veröffentlicht Forschungsergebnisse und wissenschaftliche Diskussionsbeiträge zu Themen
des Übersetzens und Dolmetschens, der Fachkommunikation, der Technikkommunikation, der Fach-
sprachen, der Terminologie und verwandter Gebiete.
Beiträge können in deutscher, englischer, französischer oder spanischer Sprache eingereicht werden.
Sie müssen nach den Publikationsrichtlinien der Zeitschrift gestaltet sein. Diese Richtlinien können von
der trans-kom-Website heruntergeladen werden. Alle Beiträge werden vor der Veröffentlichung anonym
begutachtet.
trans-kom wird ausschließlich im Internet publiziert: http://www.trans-kom.eu
Redaktion
Leona Van Vaerenbergh Klaus Schubert
University of Antwerp Universität Hildesheim
Arts and Philosophy Institut für Übersetzungswissenschaft
Applied Linguistics / Translation and Interpreting und Fachkommunikation
Schilderstraat 41 Universitätsplatz 1
B-2000 Antwerpen D-31141 Hildesheim
Belgien Deutschland
Leona.VanVaerenbergh@uantwerpen.be klaus.schubert@uni-hildesheim.de
Marcel Thelen trans-kom 8 [2] (2015): 347-381
The Interaction between Terminology and Translation Seite 380
RaDT (Rat für Deutschsprachige Terminologie – Council for German-Language Terminology)
(2004): “Professional Profile for Terminologists.” –
http://www.iim.fh-koeln.de/radt/Dokumente/RaDT_Berufsprofil_englisch.pdf (27.04.2014)
Rikstermbanken (s.a.): “Sweden’s National Term Bank. Information.” –
http://www.rikstermbanken.se/images/Rikstermbanken_info_en.pdf (01.05.2014)
Sager, Juan (1990): A Practical Course in Terminology Processing. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
Benjamins
Sager, Juan; Marie-Claude L’Homme (1994): “A Model for the Definition of Concepts: Rules for
Analytical Definitions in Terminological Databases.” Terminology 1 [2]: 351-374
Schmitz, Klaus-Dirk; Gerhard Budin, Christian Galinski (1994): Empfehlung für Planung und
Aufbau von Terminologiedatenbanken. Saarbrücken: Gesellschaft für Terminologie und
Wissenstransfer.
Shuttleworth, Mark; Moira Cowie (1997): Dictionary of Translation Studies. Manchester: St.
Jerome
Somers, Harold L. (1998a): “Machine Translation Applications.” Mona Baker (ed.): Routledge
Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London/New York: Routledge, 136-139
Somers, Harold L. (1998b): “Machine Translation History.” Mona Baker (ed.): Routledge
Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London/New York: Routledge, 140-143
Somers, Harold L. (1998c): “Machine Translation Methodology.” Mona Baker (ed.): Routledge
Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London/New York: Routledge, 143-149
Temmerman, Rita (2000): Towards New Ways of Terminology Description. The Sociocognitive
Approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins
Thelen, Marcel (2001a): “Present Issues in Teaching Specialised Translation: a Practice-oriented
MA Programme.” Lucile Desblache (ed.): Aspects of Specialised Translation. (Langues des
Métiers, Métiers des Langues.) Paris: La Maison du Dictionnaire, 15-25
Thelen, Marcel (2001b): “Subject-Field-Specific Language Studies (SSL Studies): towards a New
Discipline.” Marcel Thelen, Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (eds): Translation and
Meaning. Part 5: Proceedings of the Maastricht Session of the 3rd International Maastricht–
Łódź Duo Colloquium on “Translation and Meaning”, Held in Maastricht, The Netherlands,
26-29 April 2000. Maastricht: Hogeschool Zuyd, Maastricht School of Translation and
Interpreting, 147-160
Thelen, Marcel (2002a): “Translation Studies in the Year 2000: the State of the Art. Terminology
in Theory and Practice.” Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, Marcel Thelen (eds):
Translation and Meaning. Part 6: Proceedings of the Łódź Session of the 3rd International
Maastricht–Łódź Duo Colloquium on “Translation and Meaning”, Held in Łódź, Poland, 22-
24 September 2000. Maastricht: Hogeschool Zuyd, Maastricht School of Translation and
Interpreting, 21-39 – also published in Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, Marcel Thelen
(eds) (2010): Meaning in Translation. Frankfurt a. M. et al.: Lang, 31-62
Thelen, Marcel (2002b): “Relations between Terms: a Cognitive Approach. The Interaction
between Terminology, Lexicology, Translation Studies and Translation Practice.” Linguistica
Antverpiensia, New Series: 2002 [1]: Antwerp: HIVT, 193-209
Thelen, Marcel (2007): “Is There Such a Thing as Terminology Competence?” Marcel Thelen,
Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (eds.): Translation and Meaning. Part 7: Proceedings of
the 4th International Maastricht–Łódź Duo Colloquium on “Translation and Meaning”, Held in
Maastricht, The Netherlands, 18-21 May 2005. Maastricht: Zuyd University of Applied
Sciences, Maastricht School of International Communication, Department of Translation and
Interpreting, 129-139
Thelen, Marcel (2008): “Terminologie, vaktaal en onderwijs.” Marcel Thelen, Hennie van der Vliet
(eds): Perspectieven voor de Nederlandstalige Terminologie. Amsterdam: VU University
Press, 93-106
Marcel Thelen trans-kom 8 [2] (2015): 347-381
The Interaction between Terminology and Translation Seite 381
Thelen, Marcel (2012): The Structure of the Lexicon. Incorporating a Cognitive Approach in the
TCM Lexicon, with Applications to Lexicography, Terminology and Translation. Ghent:
Academia Press
Turewicz, Kamila (1992): "Translation and the Invariance Hypothesis." Barbara Lewandowska-
Tomaszczyk, Marcel Thelen (eds): Translation and Meaning. Part 2: Proceedings of the Łódź
Session of the 1990 Maastricht–Łódź Duo Colloquium on “Translation and Meaning”, Held in
Łódź, Poland, 20-22 September 1990. Maastricht: Rijkshogeschool Maastricht, Faculty of
Translation and Interpreting, 129-138
Toury, Gideon (1995): Descriptive Translation Studies and beyond. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
Benjamins
Universitat Pompeu Frabra, Barcelona (s.a.): “Master Online in Terminology.” –
http://eventum.upf.edu/event_detail/1401/sections/853/master-online-in-terminology.html
(20.12.2014)
Weissenhofer, Peter (1995): Conceptology in Terminology Theory, Semantics and Word-
formation. Vienna: TermNet. International network for Terminology
Author
Marcel Thelen is senior lecturer in Terminology and Translation at the Maastricht School of
Translation and Interpreting of Zuyd University of Applied Sciences. He was Head of Department
from 2007 to 2012. After an MA in English Language and Literature (Historical Linguistics &
Translation) from Utrecht University, he received his PhD from Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on
his dissertation The Structure of the Lexicon. Incorporating a cognitive approach in the TCM
lexicon, with applications to lexicography, terminology and translation. His research interests
include the relation between theory and practice, translation didactics, curriculum building,
translation quality assessment, terminology, lexicology, the structure of the lexicon, Translation
Studies, and the translation of figurative language.
email: marcel.thelen-mtr@outlook.com
website: http://www.vacmaastricht.nl
Neu bei Frank & Timme
Frank & Timme
Verlag für wissenschaftliche Literatur
TransÜD. Arbeiten zur
Theorie und Praxis des
Übersetzens und Dolmetschens
Herausgegeben von
Prof. Dr. Klaus-Dieter Baumann,
Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Hartwig Kalverkämper,
Prof. Dr. Klaus Schubert
Susanne Hagemann: Einführung in das trans-
lationswissenschaftliche Arbeiten. Ein Lehr-
und Übungsbuch. ISBN 978-3-7329-0125-8.
Xenia Wenzel: Die Übersetzbarkeit philoso-
phischer Diskurse. Eine Übersetzungskritik an
den beiden englischen Übersetzungen von Hei-
deggers Sein und Zeit. ISBN 978-3-7329-0199-9.
Ralph Krüger: The Interface between Scientific
and Technical Translation Studies and Cogni-
tive Linguistics. ISBN 978-3-7329-0136-4.
FFF: Forum für
Fachsprachen-Forschung
Herausgegeben von
Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Hartwig Kalverkämper
Raimund Drommel: Sprachprofiling – Grund-
lagen und Fallanalysen zur Forensischen
Linguistik. ISBN 978-3-7329-0158-6.
Peter Kastberg: Technik der Kondensation
und der Expansion in der Technik.
ISBN 978-3-7329-0221-7
Ost-West-Express.
Kultur und Übersetzung
Herausgegeben von
Prof. Dr. Jekatherina Lebedewa und
Prof. Dr. Gabriela Lehmann-Carli
Jekatherina Lebedewa (Hg.), unter Mitarbeit
von Anja Holderbaum: Tabu und Übersetzung.
ISBN 978-3-7329-0034-3
TTT: Transkulturalität –
Translation – Transfer
Herausgegeben von
Prof. Dr. Dörte Andres, Dr. Martina Behr,
Prof. Dr. Larisa Schippel,
Dr. Cornelia Zwischenberger
Cornelia Zwischenberger / Martina Behr (eds.):
Interpreting Quality: A Look Around and
Ahead. ISBN 978-3-7329-0191-3.
Vorankündigung:
Mehmet Tahir Öncü: Basiswissen für Dol-
metscher – Deutschland und die Türkei.
978-3-7329-0154-8.
Wittelsbacherstraße 27a, D-10707 Berlin
Telefon (030) 88 66 79 11, Fax (030) 88 39 87 31
info@frank-timme.de, www.frank-timme.de
