Terminology lesson 12 Views on language for special

Terminology lesson 12 Views on language for special purposes

LSP as an artificial language • Language for special purposes (LSP) artificial ? man-made ? • 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 on and/or refer to natural languages • the Beaufort scale can be transformed into words 3 gentle breeze 4 moderate breeze 5 fresh breeze 6 strong breeze • chemical symbols refer to Latin Na. Cl – 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 • Na. Cl : sodium chloride/chlorure de sodium/Natriumchlorid …

3 4 5 6 7 8 Petite brise Jolie brise Bonne brise Vent frais Grand frais Coup de vent 7 à 10 11 à 16 17 à 21 22 à 27 28 à 33 34 à 40 12 à 19 Les moutons apparaissent 20 à 28 Petites vagues, de nombreux moutons 29 à 38 Vagues modérées, moutons, embruns 39 à 49 Lames, crêtes d'écumes blanches, embruns 50 à 61 Lames déferlantes, trainées d'écumes 50 à 61 Tourbillons d'écumes à la crête des lames, trainées d'écumes Lames

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 • linguistique 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 meaning controlled by definition • constraints on vocabulary used • constraints due to text type • constraints resulting from interaction linguistic 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 11461240. Collection « La Pléïade » • SAGER, Juan Carlos (1990), A Practical Course in Terminology Processing, Amsterdam/Philadelphie, John Benjamins Publishing.