The How And The What Of Terminological Implantation Adam Renwick - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
the how and the what of terminological implantation
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

The How And The What Of Terminological Implantation Adam Renwick - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Nov 16, 2022 148 likes •434 views

The How And The What Of Terminological Implantation Adam Renwick PRISMES, Universit Sorbonne Nouvelle Paris 3/ CRTT, Universit de Lyon adam.renwick@sorbonne-nouvelle.fr French Government And Language Ministerial Terminology

slide-1
SLIDE 1

The How And The What Of Terminological Implantation

Adam Renwick PRISMES, Université Sorbonne Nouvelle Paris 3/ CRTT, Université de Lyon adam.renwick@sorbonne-nouvelle.fr

slide-2
SLIDE 2

French Government And Language

  • Ministerial Terminology Commissions (1972-1995)
  • “Establishing, within a given sector, an inventory of lacunae

in French vocabulary” (Prime Ministerial Decree 72-19)

  • “Proposing terms necessary for the designation of new

realities or replacing undesirable borrowings from foreign languages” (Prime Ministerial Decree 72-19)

  • Specialised and General Commissions for Terminology and

Neologisms (1996-2015)

  • Colleges of Experts (2015-present)
slide-3
SLIDE 3
  • Terms have been recommended for nearly 50 years
  • Recommendations focus on terms that the everyman

is susceptible of coming across in daily life

  • Do these recommendations lead to the terms being

used more frequently?

  • Uncertain, due to lack of research

French Government And Language

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Early Implantation Studies

  • Domains of genetic engineering, aerospatial remote

sensing, health and medicine, advertising and audiovisual, aquaculture, education, legal terminology, automobile terminology, computing…

  • Limited scope of languages and countries
slide-5
SLIDE 5

What Factors Influence Implantation?

  • Terminological factors
  • Brevity, proximity to English term, motivation, euphony,

derivability, monosemy, neological process…

  • Socioterminological factors
  • Connotation, business culture, type of discourse, response to

real need, linguistic insecurity, resistance to change…

  • Procedural factors
  • Involvement of experts, normative remarks accompanying terms,

novelty of the concept, circulation of recommendations…

Based on Quirion 2000 (32-36), Quirion and Lanthier 2006 (112-116), Montané 2012 (85-110), Renwick 2018 (144-326)

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Example: Fugger 1979

  • Fugger, B. (1979). “Les français et les arrêtés ministériels -

étude d'impact de la loi linguistique en France” in La Banque des mots. 18:159-170.

  • Are interviewees’ attitudes towards terminology planning the

same as those of the language/terminology planners?

  • Can non-specialists understand the terms and definitions?
  • Do people see the recommended terms and their competing

terms as the same concept?

  • Do interviewees intend to use terms?
slide-7
SLIDE 7

What Do These Studies Measure?

  • Declared usage of terms or real usage?
  • Do they bring any statistical appreciation?
  • Is usage of competing designations compared?
  • Reproducible?
  • Are their corpora created objectively?
slide-8
SLIDE 8

Quirion (2000, 2003a,b)

  • Without rigid guidelines Quirion sets out, implantation

studies won’t be repeatable or objective

  • For Quirion, any other researcher should be able to

follow the same rules to create the same corpus and

  • btain the same results
slide-9
SLIDE 9

Modern Implantation Studies

  • Quirion’s model has been adopted, to some extent, in

some 20 studies from 2000 to 2018

  • Languages: Basque, Catalan, French (FR), French

(QC), Italian, Turkish

  • Domains: computing, urban development, winter

sports, space science and technology

  • But implantation remains unstudied in many

domains

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Modern Implantation Studies

  • Quirion’s model has been adopted, to some extent, in

some 20 studies from 2000 to 2018

  • Languages: Basque, Catalan, French (FR), French

(QC), Italian, Turkish

  • Domains: computing, urban development, winter

sports, space science and technology

  • But implantation remains unstudied in many

domains

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Measuring Implantation

  • Is implantation merely the use of a term?
  • How embedded in usage does a term have to be to be

implanted?

slide-12
SLIDE 12

After x Occurrences?

Occurrences 30 60 90 120 Term 1 Term 2 Term 3 Term 4

96 53 26 17

slide-13
SLIDE 13

After x% Of Denominations?

Percent of usage 0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 % Concept 1 Concept 2 Concept 3 Concept 4

8 % 18 % 56 % 57 % 92 % 82 % 44 % 43 %

Term 1 Term 2

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Measuring Implantation

  • The Implantation Coefficient (IC), (Quirion 2000 :

129-30) is a calculation of relative use and compares the extent to which competing denominations are actually used in discourse

  • IC > 0.75 = High; successful implantation
  • 0.25 > IC ≥ 0.75 = Medium; middling implantation
  • IC ≤ 0.25 = Low; unsuccessful implantation
slide-15
SLIDE 15
  • How to take account of use at the level texts and

authors?

  • If a term is used 100 times in 1 text and another term

denoting another concept is used 50 times in each

  • f 2 texts, which term is more implanted?
  • Is a term used 100 times in 10 texts more implanted

than a term used 50 times in 15 texts?

Problems with the IC

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Problems with the IC

  • Reliability of data
  • Suppose the term streaming is used twice in a

corpus, and en flux is used once

  • Suppose télécharger is used 400 times in a corpus

and downloader is used 200 times

  • Streaming and télécharger both have IC of 0.67
  • Yet the data retailing to streaming/en flux are much

more subject to chance

slide-17
SLIDE 17
  • Institutional texts, per Quirion (2000: 99) as this is the

usage that terminological planning seeks to change and “when the intent is to modify the linguistic situation or to influence its development, the linguistic behaviour of institutions must be controlled” (Quirion 2003a: 30)

  • Texts where use of terms is a legal requirement?

What Type Of Text?

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Renwick (2018a)

  • Examining the implantation of recommended terms in

Space Science and Technology

  • Terms recommended between 2007 and 2015 as

designations for 181 concepts

  • 181 recommended terms + 691 competing

designations = 872 terms, of which 235 attested in corpus

slide-19
SLIDE 19

What Type Of Text?

Statistics from Renwick (2018 : 248-256)

Occ. Relative frequency (Occ.) Concepts evoked Relative frequency (Concepts) IC General Press 417 12/M 20 0,57/M 0.28 Institutional Reports 437 219/M 37 18.5/M 0.49 Popular Science 2,113 222/M 71 7.47/M 0.39

slide-20
SLIDE 20
  • Consultation of texts where use is optional can still

show whether terminological development succeeds

  • But this doesn’t allow for the scope that we can get

when examining individual productions

  • Also, when beyond English, texts are harder to come

by in specialised domains

What Type Of Text?

slide-21
SLIDE 21

What Type Of Text?

Statistics from Renwick (2018 : 248-256)

Occ. Relative frequency (Occ.) Concepts evoked Relative frequency (Concepts) IC General Press 417 12/M 20 0,57/M 0.28 Institutional Reports 437 219/M 37 18.5/M 0.49 Popular Science 2,113 222/M 71 7.47/M 0.39 Theses 6,076 304/M 71 3.55/M 0.30

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Objectivity vs Subjectivity

  • Martin (1998: 54) “It it clear we have attempted to

select terms we believe will be frequently used” (our translation)

  • Chansou (1997: 138) “This group of [241] terms

appears to us to be too vast and too heterogenous to allow for its use in our study” (our translation)

  • Terminological corpus must also be compiled
  • bjectively, otherwise the study won’t be repeatable

(Renwick 2018: 89-91)

slide-23
SLIDE 23
  • Quirion (2000: 100-1) maintains that general

dictionaries shouldn’t be part of an implantation study, due to:

  • Lexicographical biases
  • Editorial constraints
  • General dictionaries reflection of general language

rather than specialised language

Where Else To Look?

slide-24
SLIDE 24
  • Bias in favour of (or against) recommended terms?
  • Are recommended terms present? As headwords?
  • Do the dictionaries indicate their recommended status?
  • What normative remarks are present?
  • Do editorial constraints apply to electronic dictionaries?
  • Necessity for decoding/encoding
  • Determinologisation

What Dictionaries Can Show

slide-25
SLIDE 25

A Gordian Knot?

  • IC is useful but:
  • Doesn’t take account of number of texts, authors,

reliability and comparability of data

  • How to numerically factor in presence in dictionaries?
  • We need a way to combine these disparate but

informative datapoints to generate a scale ranking of the implantation of a term

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Thank you! Merci de votre attention ! Eskerrik asko! ¡ Muchas gracias !

slide-27
SLIDE 27

References (1)

  • Fugger, Bernd. 1979. “Les français et les arrêtés ministériels - étude d'impact de la loi

linguistique en France” in La Banque des mots. 18:159-170.

  • Prime Minister. “Décret n° 96-602 du 3 juillet 1996 relatif à l’enrichissement de la langue

française”. In Journal officiel de la République française. 5 July 1996. No. 155. p. 10169-70. NOR: MCCB9600333D. [Online] URL <https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/ jo_pdf.do?id=JORFTEXT000000378502> Consulted 09/08/2017.

  • Prime Minister. “Décret 72-19 du 7 janvier 1972 relatif à l’enrichissement de la langue

française”. In Journal Officiel de la République française. 9 January 1972. No. 7. p. 388. [Online] URL <https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jo_pdf.do?id=JORFTEXT000000879206> Accessed 06/09/2017.

  • Montané March. M. Amor. 2012. Terminologia et implantació : anàlisi d’alguns factors

que influencien l’ús dels termes normalitzats de la informàtica i les TIC en llengua

  • catalana. PhD Dissertation in Applied Linguistics. Universitat Pompeu Fabra. [En ligne].

URL <http://www.tdx.cat/bitstream/handle/10803/97295/tamm.pdf> Consulté le 16/06/2017.

  • Montané March. M. Amor. 2016. “Factors d’implantació de la terminologia catalana : els

manlleus”. In Terminalia. 13. 7-16.

slide-28
SLIDE 28

References (2)

  • Montané March. M. Amor. et Cabré, M. Teresa. 2013. “La implantación de la terminología oficial

según el ámbito de uso de los textos”. IXe journée scientifique REALITER: La terminologie panlatine dans les politiques linguistiques. Paris, 16-17 October. [Online]. URL <http:// www.realiter.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/MontanéCabre.pdf> Accessed 01/09/2017.

  • Quirion, Jean. 2000. Aspects évaluatifs de l'implantation terminologique. PhD dissertation in

Linguistics and Translation. University of Montréal.

  • Quirion, Jean. 2003a. La mesure de l’implantation terminologique : proposition d’un protocole.

Étude terminométrique du domaine des transports au Québec. Québec: Office québécois de la langue française. (Coll. Langues et sociétés. 40). 225 p.

  • Quirion, Jean. 2003b. “Methodology for the design of a standard research protocol for measuring

terminology usage”. In Terminology. 9 (1). 29-49.

  • Quirion, Jean and Lanthier, Jacynthe 2006. “Intrinsic qualities favouring term implantation: verifying

the axioms”. In Bowker, Lynne (ed.). Lexicography, Terminology, and Translation. Text-based Studies in honour of Ingrid Meyer. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press. 107-118.

  • Renwick, Adam. 2018. Recommandations et implantation : Le cas des termes des sciences et

techniques spatiales. PhD Dissertation, in Lexicology, Multilingual Terminology and Translation. University Lumière Lyon II.