Published in Unesco Alsed-LSP Newsletter Vol. 11 No.2 (27) January 1989 - ISSN 0106-0341
© LSP Centre, CBS, Denmark
S.V. GRIN'OV: SOME PROBLEMS OF TERMINOLOGICAL DICTIONARIES AND
THEIR CLASSIFICATION
In the course of my activities concerned with the compiling of
various types of terminological dictionaries and preparing guidelines for the elaboration of specialized dictionaries, I was
alerted to the glaring lack of manuals or methodological literature concerning the general principles governing the compiling of
special dictionaries. Although there are quite a number of national and international norms and regulations concerning the working-out of particular kinds of terminological dictionaries (l),
there is no general soundly based document regulating the preparation and layout of the most widely-used types of special dictionaries, such as defining and translating dictionaries. The
same applies to the general theory of lexicography, where there
are at the present time no universally accepted, widely-known general rules for dictionary making. In these conditions, the specialists from all spheres of science and technology who are engaged in dictionary-making often have no means of acquiring lexicographical knowledge or of obtaining qualified help. As a result,
the compilers of terminological dictionaries have to solve all
kinds of lexicographical problems in a purely empirical way, guided by their own, often rather vague and erroneous, notions of
terminography.
A comparative analysis of some 200 special dictionaries in English and Russian shows that there is at the present time no uniformity of method for the compilation and layout of dictionaries
belonging to the same type and describing the same field of knowledge in the same language. This leads to various different, often contradictory, ways of presenting what is essentially the
same information, or even contradictory information, thus seriously affecting the quality of the special dictionary. The lack
of uniformity is most keenly felt in defining dictionaries; this
is extremely unfortunate, since this type of dictionary usually
serves as the basis for other kinds of special dictionaries
(translating, educational, informational, etc.) and may be regarded as a central type of terminological dictionary ( 2 ) .
This lack of uniformity between special dictionaries manifests
itself most clearly in unjustified inconsistencies in their
structure, in the absence of coordination between their purpose
and layout, in the general randomness of choice of compositional
methods. A typical example of this discrepancy between the aim
and the layout of the dictionary is the traditional use of alphabetically ordered entries in a number of normative (including
terminological standards) and educational terminological dictionaries, where, as J. CASARES would say, "alphabetical order is
organized disorder" (3).
The list of the most common defects of terminological dictionaries is alarmingly long; it contains, among others:
- attempts to combine several purposes within the limits of one
dictionary, which causes great difficulty for the compiler and
more for the user of such a dictionary;
- the haphazard nature of the choice of terms for inclusion in
word-lists. As a result, many important terms belonging to the
chosen subject field are not included, while at the same time the
dictionary is often crammed with "ballast" material (words that
are not terms, random terms from other subject fields, etc.):
- lack of structural and informational (semantic) uniformity between terminological dictionaries of the same type;
- unsystematic description of terms in the dictionary which reveals itself in incompleteness or absence of references between
interrelated terms; also the absence of information about the basic (hierarchical) relations between concepts in some terminological definitions:
- absence of any definite decision on the problem of means of
presentation of terminological word-combinations in dictionaries
(as separate entries or according to basic elements, in direct or
inversed order, maximal length, etc.);
- inadequate semantic description of terms, especially in translating dictionaries;
- poor general quality of terminological definitions: lack of
uniformity and coordination between definitions of related similar terms, discrepancies between the definition of a term and the
meaning of the same term in other entries in the same dictionary,
incompatibility between terminological definitions of one and the
same term in different types of terminological dictionaries:
- lack of uniformity in organization of information within the
entry, choice of labels, cross-references.
These and many other deficiences of the terminological dictionaries currently available are at variance with the "exact" nature
of science and technology, and make it extremely inconvenient for
the users to transfer from one type of specialized dictionary to
another, or to use several dictionaries simultaneously. Thus the
problem of establishing general unified principles for the description of terms in terminological dictionaries becomes especially urgent.
At the same time, analysis of the existing regulations shows that
the particular methodical and normative documents are so different in nature that they cannot make a united complex. The task
of working out a unified complex of documents based on common general principles, taking into account common features of terminological dictionaries, will become feasible after the preliminary
establisment of the general theory of terminography.
When we turn to general lexicography, we see that here, also,
there is no sufficiently well-grounded general methodology for
one description of lexical units in different kinds of dictionaries. Nevertheless, the theory of general lexicography is much
more developed. Therefore the main directions of terminographical
research may be modelled upon general lexicography. The main problems of general lexicography are establishing the scientifically
based classification of dictionaries, the methods of choice of
lexical units for inclusion in the dictionary, and determining
the structure of the entry. Accordingly, we may consider as the
main problems of terminography, the establishment of sound principles for the appraisal and classification of terminological
dictionaries, laying out scientifically-based principles of
choice of special lexical units for different types of terminological dictionaries, and also the elaboration of the common principles of organization and presentation (defining, translating,
description, etc.) of terms in special dictionaries to ensure optimal conditions for the application of terminological information.
The first problem - that of the classification of dictionaries has in general lexicography received a great deal of attention
which has led to a realization of the problem of finding lexicographical features which may be used as basis for classification.
Many lexicographers singled out and suggested such features as
range, scope, perspective, function (descriptive or prescriptive)
of a dictionary, order of entries in the main index, purpose of
dictionary (translating, defining, educational, informational),
source orientation, choice of linguistic level of description
(phonetic, morphological, syntactic, semantic, etc.), volume and
many others (4). At the present time there is a tendency to
single out the so-called lexicographical parameters, based on the
type of information in the dictionary, and to make inventories of
these parameters. By "lexicographical parameter" is generally understood the mode of lexicographical interpretation, or a structural element, or a functional phenomenon of language, and their
extralinguistic correspondent features ( 5 ) . There is every reason
to believe that lexicographical parameters may not only serve as
distinctive features used for the appraisal and description of
various kinds of dictionaries but that they may also be used in
computerizing lexicographical work. The development of terminological data banks has shown that there is a need for a concrete
means of formalization and ordering of terminographical information, and singling out of lexicographical parameters was intensified with the development and establishing of compatibility between terminological data banks (6).
We may view as lexicographical parameters of special dictionaries, elements of terminological information and also compositional features. By "dictionary composition" we mean the compiler's
decision on the arrangement of the main and auxiliary parts of a
dictionary, the order of entries, and also the contents and design of entries that enable him to organize according to his intention different kinds of information about the special lexicon
of a chosen field of knowledge.
Compositional parameters may be divided into two main groups:
those belonging to macrocomposition and those belonging to microcomposition. This division is based on the difference between the
macrostructure and the microstructure of a dictionary as viewed
by many lexicographers (7).
The questions of the general structure of a dictionary, such as
the choice of compositional elements (Preface, Introduction, Rules of usage, Tables of Abbreviations, Main and Auxiliary Indi-
ces, Appendices, etc.), arrangement of the entries, and also mode
of presentation of some lexical units (polysemantic words, wordcombinations) belong to macrocomposition. It is evident that the
concept of macrocomposition is considerably wider than the concept of macrostructure, the latter denoting solely the arrangement of the entries in the main index.
The problems of the entry format, the choice of lexical, semantic
and terminological information inside the entry, together with
metalinguistic means employed by the compiler of the dictionary,
belong to microcomposition. It was found convenient to subdivide
the microcompositional parameters singled out as the result of
the analysis of various types of existing dictionaries and terminological data bases into ten subgroups, each containing parameters representing a certain kind of lexicographical information.
Comparative analysis of the dictionaries and their characteristics also showed that no proper evaluation of the composition of
a dictionary is possible without taking into consideration certain factors which influence the realization of compositional parameters and comprise the compiler's methodological stand. These
factors emerge as preliminary, exterior parameters in relation to
the compositional parameters proper.
The following parameters belong to this group:
- subject orientation, i.e., the choice of the lexical layer to
be treated in the dictionary. It consists of thematic orientation, resulting in polythematic, specialized or highly specialized dictionary; area1 orientation, the attitude towards territorial peculiarities of terminology usage and variants, chronological orientation, the time perspective, i.e. the choice of time
depth in description of special lexis, the time limits of the
sources and also the recentness of a dictionary: dialect orientation i.e. the attitude towards scientific school dialects and
idiolects and finally, language orientation, the number of languages covered or resorted to in the dictionary;
ur ose of the dictionary, (translating, defining, educational
- the d~dactic, teaching/or informational/informational thesauri, rubricators etc./ dictionaries):
- address, or user orientation: for whom the dictionary is intended
- .:
- descriptive orientation, level of description of special lexis
in the dictionary (semantic, word-formative, syntactic,
-phonetic,
etc. ) ;
- the function of the dictionary, meaning orientation towards inventory or normalization of terms in the dictionary. Though frequently elements of description and prescription are simultaneously present in the dictionary, in many cases the aim of the
dictionary is quite evident - normative, as in terminological
standards, or descriptive, when terminology is in a state of revolution or in stato nascendi. Prof. O.S. AKHMANOVA has stated
that a certain relationship prevails between the state of terminology and the possibility of presenting it in the dictionary
F---
-~
-~
-
(8);
- the volume of the dictionary that depends on the previously
stated factors;
- the principles of selection of terms for a certain type of dictionary, including singling out terms from the text and separating them from the words of everyday speech; degree and criteria
of including terms from adjacent fields of knowledge: separating
terms and nomenclature units; attitude towards inclusion into the
dictionary different parts of speech (verbs, adjectives, adverbs); maximal length of terminological word-combinations: criteria of selection of terms (frequency of occurrence, importance
for the chosen subject field, word-formztion ability, etc. ) , determining the coverage of special lexis.
These parameters may serve as differential features, making it
possible to describe, appraise or classify dictionaries. They may
also be used to elaborate a certain technology in designing dictionaries. The analysis of interrelations between lexicographical
parameters shows that some of them usually influence others; for
example parameters of the compilers1 methodological conception
influence the realization of the macrocompositional parameters,
which in turn influence the choice and layout of the microcompositional parameters. This makes it possible to present the process of designing a terminological dictionary as a conscious
choice of alternatives of realization of parameters to ensure the
optimal correspondence between the aims of a dictionary and its
structure. Furthermore, it is possible to arrange parameters in a
sequence that will help the compiler to choose the most appropriate composition for a dictionary, the preceding parameters limiting, determining and facilitating the most effective choice of
parameters. This factor is of great importance for specialists
who are thus enabled to choose the most appropriate means of presenting terminological information in accordance with the particular aims and requirements of a certain type of dictionary.
The study and elaboration of the optimal sequence of choice of
compositional parameters of the future dictionary will lessen the
compiler~slabours and enable him to organize his work on a sound
basis, reducing the chances of making wrong decisions. It will
also help to raise the general quality of terminological dictionaries and make them more efficient and accessible.
These principles are to be used in the making of medical dictionaries. The basic types of specialized dictionaries are to be
established here. They will be based on the unified structure and
metalinguistic means and designed according to a standardized
technology.
The classification of specialized dictionaries in the field of
medicine and the determination of sets of compositional parameters for the basic models of specialized dictionaries is to be
based on a thorough investigation of more than one thousand already registered dictionaries in the field of medicine and adjacent fields of knowledge. The results of this study are to be
used not only in establishing the basic models of specialized
dictionaries and the elaboration of terminological data banks,
but also in contributing to the development of the general theory
of dictionary classification.
1. See, for example, the list of the basic national and international regulations for compiling terminological dictionaries, given in "Infoterm 4-84" (International Bibliography of Standards
and Non-Standardized Guidelines for Terminology).
2. See, for example A.S.GERD, Special'nyje slovari i ich isto6niki.- v Sovremennoj russkoj leksikografii. Leningrad, 1983 (Special Dictionaries and Their Sources. - In: Modern Russian Lexicography): also S.V. GRINlOV. Vvedenije v terminologiEeskuju leksikografiju/uEebnoje posobije/ (Introduction to Terminological Lexicography/A Manual/). Moscow, 1986.
3. CASARES J. Introduccion a la lexicografia moderna. Madrid,
1950.
4. These, and some other parameters, are singled out by L.V.
teorii leksikografii/On the General Theory of
Lexicography/ In: L.V.~?ERBA Jazykova ja sistema i re8eva ja de jatel'nost'.
Leningrad, 1974): T.A.SEBEOK (Materials for a Typology
of Dictionaries. Lingua, 1962, v l l ) M.L.APA%EV (Leksikografija
i klassifikacija slovarej russkogo jazyka/Lexicography and Classification of Dictionaries of Russian Language/. Nal'&ik, 1971);
L.ZGUSTA (Manual of Lexicography. Hague, 1971): A.REY (Typologie
g$n$tique des dictionnaires. In Langages. La Lexicographie. Paris, 1971): V.N. SERGEJEV (0 tipah sovremennych slovarej. V kn:
Voprosy razrabotki nau8no-tehni8eskoj terminologii/on types of
Modern Dictionaries. In: Problems of development of scientific
and technical terminology/. Riga, 1973): P.N. DENISOV (06erki p0
russkoj leksikologii i ukbnoj leksikografii/Essays on Russian
lexicology and educational lexicography/l. Moscow, 1974):Y.MALKIEL. (A Typological Classification of Dictionaries on the Basis
of Distinctive Features. In: Problems in Lexicography. Bloomington, 1975); A.M. TSYBIN (K voprosu o klassifikacii russkih slovarej/Concerning classification of Russian dictionaries/. Voprosy
Jazykoznanija, 1978, No.1) C.L. BARNHART (American Lexicography,
1945-1973. American Speech, 1978, v.53, No.2): Ju.N. KARAULOV
(~ingvisti6eskojekonstruirovanije i tezaurus literaturnoge jazyka/Linguistic design and thesaurus of literary language/. Moscow,
1981): and many others.
~EERBA(Opyt ob&Eej
5. Ju.N. KARAULOV. Analiz metajazyka slovar'a
s pomo&8ju EVM/Analysis of metalanguage of dictionary with the help of computer/, Moscow, 1982.
6. One of the clearest examples of this is Prof. H. FELBER's work
"The terminological data elements as derived from the General
Theory of Terminology and their recording in machine readable
form" (Infoterm 10-81).
7. See, for example,J. REY-DEBOVE. Etude linguistique et sbmiotique des dictionnaires francais contemporains. Paris, 1971: P.N.
.
terminologi6eskoj leksiDENISOV Op.cit., A. JA.~ A J K E V I ~Problemy
kografii/~roblemsof terminological Lexicography/. Moscow, 1983;
S.V. GRINcOV. Vvedenije v terminologiceskuju leksicografiju/Introduction into terminological lexicography/. Moscow, 1986.
.
8.
O.S.
AKHMANOVA
Slovar '
lingvisticeskih
terminov.
Vvedenije./~ictionary of linguistic terms. Introduction/. Moscow,
1969.
AND&
STRAUSS: LJINTERPR~TEET LE TRADUCTEUR FACE AUX LANGAGES DE
SPECIALITZ
Le probl&me fondamental des langages de sp6cialit6 a souvent 6th
pos6: faut-il ou non les enseigner? comment les d6finir? Comment
les enseigner?
Le premier colloque que jfai organise h ce sujet remonte h 1965
alors que beaucoup de ceux qui, h prbsent, apportent leur contours precieux d ces travaux 6taient mes stagiaires ou faisaient
leurs.premi$res armes comme assistants. Le seul fait qulils aient
pers6vbr6 dans cette voie prouve que, dans les r6alit6s du monde
moderne, ils ont trouvb une ample justification h cette poursuite
de la tsche.
Je voudrais tout dfabord souligner, sur un plan pratique et utilitaire, que ces langages, comme leur dhnomination llindique,
sont, bien entendu, utilises par des sp6cialistes; en revanche,
en ce qui concerne les linguistes, ils les concernent en tant que
traducteurs ou inter~rstes: clest pourquoi, j ~ a ilimit6 le pr6sent article h cet aspect du problhe.
I1 surgit, h cette occasion, une situation conflictuelle aussi
bien dans les Ecoles, dans les Universitbs que dans les Entreprises: nombreux sont malheureusement ceux qui affirment que llenseignement des langages de sp6cialitb doit Stre confi6 h des
ing6nieurs ou h des techniciens et surtout pas h des linguistes.
I1 nous appartient de d6noncer avec fermet6 cette prise de position. Mes travaux de traduction dans divers domaines, au cours
des derni6res trente annbes, mnont permis de constater que le
linguiste peut, en un an, acqubrir les connaissances techniques
ou scientifiques ayant trait h une sp6cialit6, mieux pointue, qui
lui permettent de manier les concepts de cette sp6cialit6 sans
risque. En revanche, les tr&s nombreux techniciens ou chercheurs
scientifiques que j f a i envoy6s stage h 116tranger nlont pas r6ussi d acqu6rir un maniement pleinement satisfaisant de la langue
et sont toujours contraints dlavoir recours h un linguiste pour
la mise au point d6finitive de leur texte: la connaissance effectivement opbrationnelle dlune langue 6trang;re exige, en effet,
une approche d la fois sur le plan linguistique pur et sur le
plan de la compr6hension psychologique qui requiert une dur6e et
une pratique de plusieurs ann6es.
Ciest pourquoi, il est indispensable que le traducteur des langages de specialit6 ait obligatoirement acquis une connaissance
operationnelle de la spkcialit6, en y consacrant le temps n6ces-