Chinese terminology studies

1 Introduction

It is pointed out by Gerhard Budin concerning the theoretical system of terminology that “we can expect that a single, but collective, yet very multifaceted and multidimensional theory of terminology is currently emerging, on the basis of pioneering achievements of the first generation of terminology researchers” (Budin 2001: 20). While this indicates his optimism on the future of the discipline, he is also implying that a complete and satisfactory terminology theoretical system is still not available. Ever since the birth of modern terminology studies in the 1930s, terminology as a discipline has struck a bottleneck whenever it was developing rather slowly, and there have been no obvious breakthroughs observed in recent years. As to the way out of this dilemma, Prof. Budin offers his suggestion that all researchers may make their contributions in different ways and in different languages (Budin 2001: 17). It is worth noting that, geographically speaking, the current schools and researchers in the field of terminology are mostly from the West, like Austria, Germany, Russia, Canada, and Spain. Few contributions are seen by scholars from Eastern countries with both their languages and cultures significantly different from their Western counterparts.

There is no doubt that research resembles a journey full of thorns, challenges, questions, and debates, the tackling of which entail both cooperation and criticism in the academic community. However, this is more fruitful provided the cooperation and criticism are from those with differentiated language and cultural backgrounds. It is our belief that the probe into local questions helps construct a universal theoretical system. A dialectical relation exists between universality and locality concerning terminology exploration. In the initial stage, Eugen Wüster (1968), the founder of terminology studies, proposed the universal principles and methods of terminological work based on local practice in the domain of engineering. Based on Wüster’s universal principles, local paradigms were proposed and contributions were made by the four schools in Russia, Czechoslovakia, Quebec, and Austria. It is a matter of derivation and feedback: while local paradigms derive and benefit from universal principles based on specific conditions, local practice and exploration feedback the general theory and jointly contribute to the completion of a comprehensive theoretical system.

Some research in Chinese terminology studies has been conducted in China (Feng 2011, 2019; Liu 2015; Wei 2018), which demonstrates Chinese scholars’ major contributions in this field. From November 10 to 12, 2017, “NUTerm 2017: The 3rd International Symposium on Translation-Oriented Terminology Studies” was held in Nanjing, China. Researchers from Germany, Spain, Canada, Austria, Russia, Romania, and China held a wide range of discussions on such topics as terminology theories, terminology translation history, multi-disciplinary terminology translation studies, terminology management, technology and teaching, and terminology dictionary compilation. At the symposium, a keynote speech was held by Zhiwei Feng, Chairman of the Academic Committee, who advocated that the “Chinese School” of terminology studies be constructed based on the glorious achievements in both theory and practice. All these explorations and contributions have well promoted the development of terminology as a discipline both in China and around the world. Due to these achievements, it is considered as necessary to systematically introduce the characteristics of Chinese terminology studies.

In the following sections, we will introduce the development of terminology studies in China, including its practical explorations and theoretical contributions. Examples of terminology practice and relevant theoretical constructions are offered. In Section 2, we analyze the driving force of terminology: application, including standardized, domain-specific communicative and cross-cultural/cross-lingual applications. In Section 3, several characteristics of terminology translation in China are introduced which are bound by and affect Chinese language in the aspects of knowledge dissemination and discourse construction. Following that, the major characteristics of Chinese terminology studies will be introduced with examples in Section 4. In Section 5, the Conclusion, it is argued that considering the specialty and contribution of Chinese terminology studies, the Chinese School of terminology studies is emerging, whose answers to the local puzzles and questions will prove to be valuable for the multifaceted and multidimensional theory of terminology in a universal sense. It is our viewpoint that considering its great achievements in terminology, China is entitled to become the fifth school in this field of research.

2 Application: The driving force of terminology

From its time of birth, terminology studies have had its applied side. Application has always been the driving force for this discipline. Terminology principles, procedures, and methods are applied in standardization, domain-specific, and cross-cultural/cross-lingual communication, in the process of which more and more in-depth understandings are obtained, for example, the definition of terms, the dimensions of terminological units, the user group of terminology, and the context of terminology application. All the retrospections and improvements are owing to the consistent widening of terminology applications. Behind the application side is the great need for the theoretical reflection in terminology. As is pointed out by Cabré (2003: 182), “terminology is simultaneously a set of needs […] A terminological application must be oriented towards the solution of specific needs and therefore it must take into account its recipient and the activities they plan to carry out by means of such a specific application.” The fulfillment of need gives birth to the application of terminology of various types in different stages.

In general, terminology is used for professional communication, so our criterion of division is based on the types of communication and the application of terminology in these communication contexts. In the light of application types, the development of terminology can be divided into three major stages: standardized application, domain-specific communicative application, and cross-cultural/cross-lingual communicative application. Of course, the above division is mainly for the sake of convenient discussion and is not a chronological ranking. For instance, in the early years when terminology science was just established as a discipline, both terminology standardization and translation were conducted in the compilation of bilingual terminology dictionaries. However, terminology translation at that stage was mainly among European languages. Terminology among these languages did not seem like a challenge and became the major concern of terminology work. Likewise, when emphasis is laid on domain-specific communication and cross-cultural/cross-lingual communication, the need for standardization still exists. The above three stages are not a matter of substitution but complementation, which co-exist.

2.3 Cross-cultural/cross-lingual communicative application of terminology

Here the cross-cultural/cross-lingual application of terminology refers to terminology translation, which is usually defined as the practice of pursuing conceptual equivalents between different language pairs. From the view of GTT, this cannot evoke any difficulties, since in Wüster’s idea, concepts are universal and independent of cultural differences. Admittedly, in the fields of natural science, technology, and engineering, this does not seem like a problem, especially for translation among Indo-European languages. It is due to the above reasons that terminology translation studies are still in an “illegitimate” state.

However, in a broader perspective, terminology translation may encounter both complexity and particularity. As for the complexity, if terminology translation is conducted among far-distant cultures, for example, British culture and Chinese culture, such outer factors as social and historical context may affect the creation, interpretation, and communication of terms. Wei (2018) points out more complexities of terminology in cross-lingual application. The first one is typological complexity, since terms in the humanities and social sciences (or H&SS) are mostly intangible, culture-specific, polysemous, figurative, and ambiguous. Secondly, terminology translation finds its complexity in the systemic level, that is, the application of terminology finds expression not only in the use of individual terms as discourse units, but also in the whole term system. The translation and application of terminology at the system level is not just a matter of language shift but relates to cross-cultural communication and discourse construction. The third one, procedure complexity, refers to the synchronic and diachronic renaming mechanism when terms in H&SS are translated. As for the particularity, terminology in H&SS are different from those in natural science, technology, and engineering in that the former usually reflect complementary understanding of concepts in these fields, and it can frequently be observed that different scholars may have different understandings and interpretations of the same concept, but this does not prevent H&SS from remaining valuable as academic exploration.

The legitimacy of terminology translation studies comes not only from its inherent complexity and particularity, but also from its potential value for the development of terminology as a discipline. As Wei (2018) points out concerning the interplay between terminology and translation, the latter is usually deemed as the beneficiary of terminology. That is, translation benefits from such terminology work as terminology management, term banks, and the like. The contribution of terminology to translation is emphasized, but that of translation to terminology is less discussed, yet it does exist. From a cross-lingual perspective, the nature of terminology can be seen more clearly and deeply. In order to justify her proposal of setting terminology translation as an independent and valuable field of research, Wei (2018: 282) proposes a 3-M model, or a map of the territory of terminology translation studies in which the description, presentation, and application of terminology translation is presented (see Figure 1).

Figure 1:

A tentative 3-M model for researching terminology translation (Wei 2018).

Terminology translation practice and studies in China have their particularities for both linguistic and cultural reasons. As one type of cross-cultural/cross-lingual application, the probe into terminology translation may deepen our understanding of terminology application and help improve its theorization. To take Chinese–English terminology translation as an example, the two languages belong to totally different language families, and the cultures between English-speaking countries and China are heterogeneous in nature. Besides, in the history of translation, the role of terminology translation cannot be overemphasized. In China, terminology translation, as the third type of terminology application, constitutes an important application area among all terminology practice. The following section introduces the three characteristics of terminology translation practice in China.

3 Characteristics of terminology translation practice in China

There are several other phrases related to terminology translation, for example, terminology-related translation, translation-oriented terminology, terminology in translation, terminology for translation, equivalence in terminology, and comparative terminology. While the above phrases all share their core meaning of an interplay between translation and terminology, terminology translation has many more implications, since it is not just a simple act of finding equivalent terms in another language. More importantly, in China, terminology translation is a multi-functional and multifaceted phenomenon closely related to knowledge, discourse construction, and the Chinese language.

4 Characteristics of Chinese terminology studies

In November 2017, the 3rd International Symposium on Translation-Oriented Terminology Studies (NUTerm 2017) was held at Nanjing University, China. Besides scholars in the fields of terminology and terminology translation, the attendees also included those from such international organizations as Infoterm and TermNet and some universities in Europe, the United States, and Canada. In his keynote speech, Zhiwei Feng, Chairman of the Academic Committee, advocated that the “Chinese School” of terminology studies be constructed based on the glorious achievements in both theory and practice. Feng pointed out that the long history of China’s terminology work was the realistic basis justifying the title of “Chinese School” while cross-lingual communication was its important attribute. In the meantime, a systematically theoretical exploration based on the practice identity between terminology and translation, together with the theoretical complementarity of the two, is the key footing for the “Chinese School.” The following section summarizes the six characteristics of terminology studies in China.

Firstly, emphasis is laid on the relationship between terminology and knowledge. It is advocated that while the close relation between term and concept be stressed, Chinese terminology studies should be conducted from the perspective of knowledge and ontology. Terminology is the vehicle for knowledge, and ontology is in essence a system of concepts in a specific domain, or a formal explicit specification of a shared conceptualization. More attention should be paid to the source of the concept and the systematicness, which is especially significant for such Third World countries as China, with lower language and cultural power. For instance, in such terminology work as automatic term extraction (ATE) and terminology management, the definition of terminology is made from an ontological perspective. According to Feng, terminology can be defined as “the linguistic expression of specialized knowledge in language for specific purposes” (Yin and Feng 2019). Other terminology work adopting an ontological approach involves terminology computing and knowledge organization.

Secondly, both prescriptive and descriptive approaches are adopted. Unlike research in the natural sciences, technology, and engineering, the paradigms in arts and the humanities are usually complementary, not substitutable. While the standardization of terminology is still of great importance in China, its descriptive nature should never be ignored, especially in the age of globalization and informationization. For instance, corpora of specialized texts can be utilized to extract terms and observe the actual behaviors of terminology in its use. In this respect, China’s National Committee for Terms in Sciences and Technologies is a government agency in charge of the standardization and normalization of terminology, mostly in the fields of the natural sciences and technology. In recent years, the Committee has also been conducting terminology research in the field of social sciences, like linguistics, education science, and the like. The above terminology work by the Committee is mostly prescriptive, similar to the purpose of Wüster, which is to guarantee the unambiguity and efficiency of communication among professionals. Meanwhile, descriptive terminology work is also carried out in China. For example, NUTermBank, the interlingual term bank built by scholars at Nanjing University, offers the translation data of 22 humanities and social sciences (Wei 2018). Unlike the data offered by the China National Committee for Terms in Sciences and Technologies, the entries in NUTermBank are descriptive in nature and reflect the status quo of the use of these terms currently in China, and the data in the term bank are also dynamic, stored and presented in a diachronic manner so as to fully describe the actual application of terminology in these fields.

Third, a dynamic view on terminology is taken. One of the principles in GTT is to only conduct synchronic research on terminology, leaving diachronic investigation aside. In Wüster’s view, as long as a term is artificially created, it will remain stable in concept and linguistic structure. However, observation of the actual behavior of terminology in natural texts indicates that the formation of a term is not a once-and-for-all process. A dimension of time should be added into consideration. With the passage of time, the linguistic sign, concept, and communicative condition will all change. In the case of terminology translation, when a new term is introduced to the target culture, it will usually go through a process of interpretation, reconstruction, and acceptance. The study of these phenomena helps deepen our understanding of terminology in use. Zhu and Qin (2018), for instance, have conducted corpus-based research on the translation and reconstruction of the term “individualism” from the West to China. It was found that once the concept was introduced to China by translation, it took on different linguistic forms like “个体主义 (gè tǐ zhǔ yì)” or “个人主义 (gè rén zhǔ yì)”. Meanwhile, its connotations and semantic prosody were also changing. Taking only a static view on terminology may stop us from fully understanding the nature of its use.

Fourth, a structural approach is adopted. While terminology studies in the West lay emphasis on concept, in China attention is given to both the concept and the structure of terminology. For example, Chinese scholars put forth theories concerning the systematic structure of terms. For instance, Feng (2011: 384) discovered the potential ambiguity of multi-word terms and put forth the Potential Ambiguity Theory and introduced it in the international arena. Moreover, based on his analysis of multi-word terms, Feng also proposed Economic Law for the Formation of Terms and used the FEL formula to describe the phenomenon. The above theories concerning terminology structure are unique contributions made by Chinese scholars in the domain of terminology studies.

Fifth, a functional approach is taken. In Wüster’s age, the function of terminology seemed to be rather clear and singular: Terms were created to represent concepts in science and technology and to eliminate ambiguity in professional communication. However, with the widening of terminology research and the increase in research objects, people are gaining deeper understanding of the functions of terminology. Sun (2001) classifies the functions of terminology as two major types: ordinary functions and special functions. While the former include nomenclatural, semantic, communicative, and pragmatic functions, the latter cover cognitive, instrumental, and enlightening functions. Furthermore, since terms are used in specialized texts, they do not always abide by such principles as univocity or stability. Variation in various types does occur. Terminology variation in its use is also studied, including both formal variations and functional variations.

Sixth, great achievements have been accomplished. The history of translation in China is first and foremost a history of terminology translation (Wei 2018). Buddhist terms, science and technology terms, and terms in the social sciences have also been introduced in China by means of terminology translation. Such a large scale of terminology work is rare in the world, from organization structuring to academic publishing and professional division. A mature and well-managed system for terminology work has been established. The National Committee for Terms in Sciences and Technologies is responsible for standardizing and normalizing terminology at the state level. Within its framework, 96 specialized committees are established, engaging thousands of experts (including more than 300 academicians, the top scholars in China). Such a large scale of terminology work is rather remarkable. In addition, a series of monographs in terminology studies have been published. Some of them deserve to be mentioned, for example, An introduction to modern terminology by Zhiwei Feng (1997), Analects of terminology by Shupu Zheng (2014), Chinese terminology research and exploration by Qing Liu (2011), Principles and methods of terminology work in social sciences by Yi Gong (2009), An introduction to cognitive terminology by Xue Chen (2017), An introduction to English–Chinese term translation by Xiangqing Wei and Lianzhen Zhao (2012), and Keywords of terminology studies by Qisong Ye (2016) are all representative contributions by Chinese scholars. Moreover, IT technology is utilized and Chinese terminology work is data-oriented, with quite a number of online term banks constructed, one of the most representative being Terminology Online, a data intelligent search engine built by the National Committee for Terms in Sciences and Technologies.

5 Conclusion

A bottleneck seems to be emerging in the field of terminology studies, and one of the countermeasures is to assimilate local terminology practice and theorizations in various cultures and languages so as to enrich the universal terminology theory. The science of terminology, ever since its birth in the 1930s, has had its applied side. Application is always the driving force for the development of the discipline. In the age of Wüster and his followers, terminology was mostly for standardization purposes, so as to eliminate ambiguity among scientists and technicians. Then in the 1990s, due to a change in the pragmatics of terminology, that is, its user group, use scenarios, and communicative aim, besides standardization, terminology also came to be used for domain-specific communicative contexts, thanks to which new conceptions and theorizations emerged as descriptive paradigms. As one special communicative scenario, the cross-cultural/cross-lingual application of terminology and its theorization have been ignored in the West. However, on the one hand, the study of terminology translation helps deepen our understanding of the discipline. On the other hand, terminology translation constitutes a unique aspect of terminology application in China. As a multi-functional and multifaceted practice, in China it is simultaneously an act of knowledge dissemination and discourse construction. Meanwhile, the practice of terminology translation is bound by the differences between Chinese and Western languages, and it also alters the structure of Chinese language.

There are some prerequisites for an academic community to call itself a school of thought. Specifically for the discipline of terminology, if Chinese terminology studies want to establish itself as one school, two pre-conditions must be satisfied. The first one concerns the specificity of the research object – Chinese terminology – and the second is about the specificity of terminology practice in China. Judging from the characteristics of terminology translation in China as well as the characteristics of Chinese terminology studies, Chinese terminology studies are entitled to the status of a school of thought in terminology. Due to the above characteristics, Feng (2019) advocates that a “Chinese School” of terminology studies can be called a Structural Functional School of Terminology. It is our view that Chinese terminology studies are based on the answering of terminology problems in China, whose answers have universal value for terminology as a whole discipline.