Terminology lesson 15

Views on language for special purposes

LSP as an artificial language

• LSPs are often considered to be somewhat artificial or man-made.

• It is possible to compare them with actual artificial languages– similarities– differences

Characterisitics of artificial languages

• They are invented languages

– Examples : • the Beaufort scale

– created in 1805 by Sir Francis Beaufort

• Chemical nomenclature– Guyton de Morveau ; Méthode de nomenclature

chimique,1787

Characteristic 2

• Artificial languages are based onand/or refer to natural languages

• the Beaufort scale can be transformed into words3 gentle breeze4 moderate breeze5 fresh breeze6 strong breeze

• chemical symbols refer to LatinNaCl – natrium + chloride

Characteristic 3

• Artificial languages are preconceived as a system

– The Beaufort scale is based on the concept of a gradation in wind strengths

– Chemical nomenclature is based on a system of elements, their combinations and their molecular weight

Characteristic 4

• New elements cannot be added– Beaufort scale : 1 – 12 – Chemical nomenclature : possible, but within

rules

Characteristic 5

• No ambiguity– No synonymy– No polysemy

• Beaufort : need for unambiguous communication between seafarers

• Chemical nomenclature : need for correctly motivated terminology

Characteristic 6

• Severely reduced syntax– Beaufort : no combination– Chemical nomenclature : combinations limited

• Strictly limited number of signs/symbols– Beaufort : 1 - 12

• Fixed in writing– Primarily written (or semaphored) symbols

Characteristic 7

• Internationally used– Beaufort scale

• Primarily consists of numbers– Translated unambiguously into all languages

4 /moderate breeze/jolie brise/mäßige Brise

– Chemical nomenclature• NaCl : sodium chloride/chlorure de

sodium/Natriumchlorid …

ForceTermes Vitesse (kt) Vitesse (km/h) Etat de la mer

0 Calme < 1 < 1 Miroir

1Très légère

brise1 à 3 1 à 5 Quelques rides

2 Légère brise 4 à 6 6 à 11Vaguelettes ne déferlant pas

3 Petite brise 7 à 10 12 à 19Les moutons apparaissent

4 Jolie brise 11 à 16 20 à 28Petites vagues, de nombreux moutons

5 Bonne brise 17 à 21 29 à 38

Vagues modérées, moutons, embruns

6 Vent frais 22 à 27 39 à 49

Lames, crêtes d'écumes blanches, embruns

7 Grand frais 28 à 33 50 à 61

Lames déferlantes, trainées d'écumes

8 Coup de vent 34 à 40 50 à 61

Tourbillons d'écumes à la crête des lames, trainées d'écumes

9Fort coup de

vent41 à 47 75 à 88

Lames déferlantes grosses à énormes, visibilité réduite par les embruns

10 Tempête 48 à 55 89 à 102  

11Violente tempête

56 à 63 103 à 117  

12 Ouragan > 64 > 118  

Characteristic 8

• Artificial languages have no emotive or poetic functions

Jakobson’s functions of language

• Referential – focusing on context

• Emotive – focusing on addresser

• Conotive – focusing on addressee

• Phatic – focusing on the contact

• Metalingual – focusing on the code

• Poetic – focusing on the message

And what of LSPs?

• invented ?– The English or French used for scientific texts

is contained within general English/French

– Only partly invented for some terms • created consciously

Based on natural language?

– Rather part of natural language

Preconceived as a system?– Only for highly ordered series

• nomenclatures and taxonomies

• Impossible to add new elements– not impossible, but regulated

• Unambiguous– An aim, a tendency of LSP, though not always

observed

restrictions

• Severely reduced syntax

• Strictly limited number of signs/symbols

• Fixed in writing

international scope

Terms tend to be international, or have agreed-on equivalents

Written styles tends to be similar between languages

A French physicist, who is unable to speak English well, may be able to read articles on his subject without any trouble.

Example : the weather forecast as an LSP text

• What features enable us to classify a weather forecast as an LSP text ?– How many codes ?– How are the codes related ?– What role does convention play ?

LSP – language or discourse?

• Cf. Saussure’s distinction between :

Language and speech (langue et parole)• The first refers to the system.• The second to how it is used (speech or discourse)

Is LSP a feature which is incorporated into the language code, or is it a particular way of using the code?

LSP is a discourse feature

• LSP is the use of a language– not the language itself

• a phenomenon which is observed in texts– through textual analysis

• a particular use of a language – cf. (Quemada) for French;

• vocabulary– which was held to be the main feature of LSPs– is not central to the language system.

LSP is a language feature

• In studying texts we aim at deducing the language system (Kocourek 1991 :: 16 ; 251)

• The definition of discourse does not encompas the whole semiotic system;

• The vocabulary of LSPs is specific and systematic;

• An LSP cannot be reduced to a style or a register since it itself has styles and registers.

LSP or LSPs?

• The legal texts and chemistry texts use language very differently

• Many of the language features found in legal texts are absent from chemistry text

• Can the same methods be used for analysing the English (or French) of legal texts and chemistry texts?

Some definitions of LSP

• Par langue de spécialité, on entend essentiellement « un sous - système linguistique

qui utilise une terminologie et d'autres moyens linguistiques et qui vise la non-ambiguïté de la communication dans un domaine particulier » (Lerat, 1995).

a technolect?

• LSP is often referred to as a technolect– This introduces a parallel with

• dialect• idiolect• But is it a valid parallel ?

– Is the English (or French) LSP for motor mechanics any less English or French?

– It is simply the way English or French is used to talk about motor mechanics.

A discursive set of definitions

• Pierre Lerat points to the advantage of the English LSP, – since language is both

• linguistic activity (in French langage) • and language (langue) at once.

• Sager’s definition– the linguistic means of communication needed

to convey specialised information between specialists of the same subject.

An assimetrical definition• « Je propose de concevoir et de redéfinir la distinction entre LG et LS

comme une distinction asymétrique – où le concept de LG fait partie d'une distinction épistémologique entre ce qui est

particulier et ce qui est général, – entre traits qui ne caractérisent qu'une seule forme d'usage – et traits que l'on peut trouver dans toutes les formes d'usage d'un langue

(et cela à tous le niveaux, des unités lexicales à la cohésion textuelle et au but communicatif lié à chaque genre de texte, en passant par des structures morphologiques et syntaxiques).

On a donc, en principe, ici affaire à deux dimensions différentes de la même forme d'usage.

• Au contraire, le concept de LS fait partie d'une distinction ontologique, – c'est à dire d'une distinction à l'intérieur de ce qui est donnée empiriquement,– et où l'on compare deux forme d'usage différentes et particulières – (par exemple le français technique et le français de la presse). « Frandsen 1998 :

30

Further reading

• Read F. Gaudin, Socioterminologie, 2003, p. 46-49

disponible sur Google books,

for a sociolinguistic critique of definitions of LSP.

LSP as an ordered set of constraints

• constraints of meaningcontrolled by definition

• constraints on vocabulary used

• constraints due to text type

• constraints resulting from interactionlinguistic and non-linguistic codes

• contraints resulting from language policy

• others?

Bibliography

• CABRE, Maria Teresa (1998 [1992]), La Terminologie. Théorie, méthode et applications, Ottawa, Les Presses universitaires de l’Université d’Ottawa/Armand Colin

• FRANDSEN, Finn (1998), « Langue générale et langue de spécialité : une distinction asymétrique? » dans GAMBIER, Y (dir.), Discours professionnels en français. Peter Lang. p. 15-34

• GAUDIN, François (2003), Socioterminologie,, une approche sociolinguistique de la terminologie, Bruxelles, Duculot De Boeck.

• JAKOBSON, Roman (1963-1973), Essais de linguistique générale, Paris, Les Éditions de Minuit

• KOCOUREK, Rostislav (1991 [1982]), La langue française de la technique et de la science. Vers une linguistique de la langue savante, 2° édition augmentée, Wiesbaden/Paris, Brandstetter Verlag

• LERAT, Pierre (1995), Les langues spécialisées, Paris, PUF

• QUEMADA , Bernard (1978) « Technique et langage », dans GILLE B. (dir.), Histoire des techniques, p 1146-1240. Collection « La Pléïade »

• SAGER, Juan Carlos (1990), A Practical Course in Terminology Processing, Amsterdam/Philadelphie, John Benjamins Publishing.