Cover not available
Article published In:
Lexical semantic approaches to terminology
Edited by Pamela Faber and Marie-Claude L'Homme
[Terminology 20:2] 2014
► pp. 171–197

Semantic characterization of terms as a trace of terminological dependency

Over the past decades, English has become the predominant language for the transfer of specialized knowledge, which conditions the creation of new lexical units in other codes. This conditioning can result in terminological dependency, a linguistic phenomenon arising from a unidirectional transfer of specialized denominations between two languages. Terminological neology in potentially dependent codes such as Spanish reflects the way the importation of units from English involves a set of linguistic asymmetries that affects the conceptual configuration of specialized domains by the importing community of scientists. In this article, we propose a three-step analysis in order to detect and measure the terminological dependency of Spanish on English in the domain of Alzheimer’s Disease, based on the semantic characterization of a set of specialized neologisms related to this domain. After analysing the semantic features of these units in English, we found a significant, though not exact, correlation between the uniformity of certain semantic aspects and the degree of terminological dependency observed in their equivalents in Spanish.
Keywords: terminology, semantics, terminological dependency, neology
Published online: 31 October 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/term.20.2.03san
References (33)
Adelstein, Andreína, and Inés Kuguel. 1999. “La reducción de los sintagmas terminológicos”. In Actas del I Seminario Terminología y Mercosur “Recursos léxicos para la terminología”, 42–56. Buenos Aires: Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento – Reunión Especializada de Ciencia y Tecnología, RECYT – Mercosur.Google Scholar
Algardy, Françoise, et al. (eds). 1987. “La fertilisation terminologique dans les langues romanes. Actes du colloque d’octobre 1986.” Meta 32 (3): 217–370. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Béjoint, Henri, and Philippe Thoiron (eds). 2000. Le sens en terminologie. Lyon: Presses Universitaires de Lyon.Google Scholar
Cabré, Teresa. 1999. La terminología. Representación y comunicación. Una teoría de base comunicativa y otros artículos. Monografies 3. Barcelona: Institut Universitari de Lingüística Aplicada, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
Dahlberg, Ingetraut. 1978. “A Referent-Oriented. Analytical Concept Theory for Interconcept.” International Classification 51: 142–151.Google Scholar
Faber, Pamela, Carlos Márquez Linares, and Miguel Vega Expósito. 2005. “Framing Terminology: A Process-Oriented Approach.” Meta 50 (4): CD-Rom.Google Scholar
Faber, Pamela, Pilar León Araúz, and Juan Antonio Prieto Velasco. 2009. “Semantic Relations, Dynamicity, and Terminological Knowledge Bases.” Current Issues in Language Studies 11: 1–23.Google Scholar
Faber, Pamela (ed.). 2012. A Cognitive Linguistics View of Terminology and Specialized Language. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernández Silva, Sabela. 2011. Variación terminológica y cognición. Factores cognitivos en la denominación del concepto especializado. Doctoral thesis. Barcelona: Institut Universitari de Lingüística Aplicada, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
Gaudin, François. 1993. Pour une socioterminologie: des problemes sémantiques aux pratiques institutionnelles. Rouen: Université de Rouen.Google Scholar
Graddol, David. 2006. English Next. London: British Council.Google Scholar
Guilbert, Louis. 1975. La créativité lexicale. Paris: Larousse.Google Scholar
Hagège, Claude. 2013. Contre la pensée unique. Paris: Odile Jacob.Google Scholar
Humbley, John, and Joaquín García Palacios. 2012. “Neology and Terminological Dependency.” Terminology 18 (1): 59–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuguel, Inés. 2010. La semántica del texto especializado: los términos en textos de ecología. Doctoral thesis. Barcelona: Institut Universitari de Lingüística Aplicada, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
León Araúz, Pilar, Arianne Reimerink, and Pamela Faber. 2013. “Multidimensional and Multimodallnformation in EcoLexicon”. In Computational Linguistics, ed. by A. Przepiórkowski, M. Piasecki, K. Jassem, and P. Fuglewicz, 143–161. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loubier, Christiane. 2008. Langues au pouvoir: politique et symbolique. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James. 1991. “The Generative Lexicon”. Computational Linguistics 17 (4): 409–441.Google Scholar
. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1998. “The Semantics of Lexical Underspecification.” Folia Linguistica 32 (3-4): 323–348. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pustejovsky, James, et al. 2006. “Towards a Generative Lexical Resource: The Brandeis Semantic Ontology.” In Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, LREC 2006. [URL]. Accessed 03-2014.
Rey, Alain. 1976. “Néologisme, un pseudo concept?” Cahiers de Lexicologie 281: 3–17.Google Scholar
Rondeau, Guy. 1981 [1984]. Introduction à la terminologie. Chicoutimi: Gaëtan Morin éditeur.Google Scholar
Sager, Juan C., et al. 1980. English Special Languages. Principles and Practice in Science and Technology. Wiesbaden: Brandstetter Verlag.Google Scholar
Sager, Juan C. 1990. A Practical Course in Terminology Processing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sager, Juan C., and Kyo Kageura. 1995. “Concept Classes and Conceptual Structures. Their Role and Necessity in Terminology.” In Symposium on French Language and Linguistics , ALFA, 191–216.
Sánchez Ibáñez, Miguel. 2013. Neología y traducción especializada: claves para calibrar la dependencia terminológica español-inglés en el ámbito de la Enfermedad de Alzheimer. Doctoral thesis. Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John McHardy. 1987. Looking Up: An Account of the COBUILD Project in Lexical Computing. London: Collins.Google Scholar
. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
De Swaan, Abram. 2001. Words of the World. The Global Language System. Cambridge: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Temmerman, Rita. 2000. Towards New Ways of Terminology Description: The Sociocognitive Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Temmerman, Rita, and Marc Van Campenhoudt. 2011. “The Dynamics of Terms in Specialized Communication: An Interdisciplinary Perspective.” Terminology 17 (1): 1–8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Moreno, Albert Morales
2023. Adherence to WHO’s terminology?. Terminology. International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Issues in Specialized Communication 29:2 ► pp. 306 ff. DOI logo
Wermuth, Maria-Cornelia & Paul Sambre
2023. The terminological impact of pandemics. Terminology. International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Issues in Specialized Communication 29:2 ► pp. 169 ff. DOI logo
Polshina, Yu. & E. Bondareva
2022. INTERGRATION OF LANGUAGE TESTING AND ASSESSMENT TERMS FROM ENGLISH INTO RUSSIAN. Focus on Language Education and Research 1:1 ► pp. 9 ff. DOI logo
López Hernández, Francisca & Socorro Bernardos Galindo
2018. A relational adjective and a noun semantic binding in the specialized language of Information and Communication Technology. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics 31:1 ► pp. 197 ff. DOI logo
Ibáñez, Miguel Sánchez
2015. Textual Corpora for the Analysis of Terminological Dependency: Challenges and Premises. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 198 ► pp. 426 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.