Montero Martínez, Silvia, and Pamela Faber. 2009. Terminological Competence
in Translation. Terminology 15, no. 1: 88-104. doi:10.1075/term.15.1.05mon.
This is the final peer-reviewed version of the following article: Montero Martínez, Silvia and Pamela Faber. 2009. TerminologicalCompetence in Translation. Terminology 15, no. 1: 88-104. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/term.15.1.05mon> You can find more articles authored by LexiCon Research Group members at <http://lexicon.ugr.es>. Terminological Competence in Translation SILVIAMONTEROMARTÍNEZ PAMELA FABER University of Granada Abstract A Terminology course for Translation students must deal with the role of terminology in the translationprocess fromboth a theoretical and practical perspective. The objective ofsuch acourse isnot to train translators as terminologists or documentation professionals, but rather as language mediators whose job is to facilitateinterlinguistic communication. Translation students shouldthus learn how to carry out descriptive terminological work oriented towards producing a suitable target text. This means developing specific strategies as well as learning how to use availableresources with a view to producing optimal translations. In this context, a truly effective Terminology course program must be adapted to fit new professional profiles. Such a program would target terminology management against the backdrop of specialized language translation. The specific characteristics of thetranslation process are whatdeterminethetype ofterminological competence required. Keywords: Terminologytraining, terminology management, translation, curriculum design 1. Introduction The study of Terminology1 intranslator trainingshould targettheuseof termsinreallifecontexts, and situate these specialized knowledge units within the context of dynamiccommunication processes. When the meaning and usage of terminological units areanalyzed asthey appearintexts, oraldiscourse, and communication situations, it becomes evident that general language and specialized languages are not so very different. For example, polysemy and synonymy occur quite frequently in specialized communication, and generate translation problems. In contrast, standardization and neologisms, whicharecrucial issues in many traditional Terminology programs, recede into the background. Animportant factor to be taken into account is that translators generally do not have the samelevelofexpert knowledgeastext originators and receivers. Consequently, they must learnhowto rapidly situate terms withintheirrespective conceptual systems.At the same time, this process should allow translators to increase their knowledgein the specialized domain so that it reaches the threshold that enables them to satisfactorily translate the original text (Faber 2004). Terminological Competence in Translation In this respect, the analysis and subsequent structuring ofterminology is motivated by the text in which it appears, and is carried out as part of the translation process. In other words, translators frequently find themselves working as ad hoc terminologists and terminographers (Wright and Wright 1997), who must reconstruct bits and pieces of conceptual systems instead of structuring entire specialized knowledge domains. As aresult, Translation students should acquire knowledge and strategies that will help them carry out this type of terminology work. However, undergraduate Terminology courses in Translation have received very little attention up to the present. Despite the conferences and seminars that have focused on this issue (Gallardo and Sánchez 1992, Gallardo 2003), there is ascarcity ofbibliography on the bestway toteach Terminology. Furthermore, there is no consensus of opinion on the contents ofsuch acourse because its objectives and methods have never been clearly defined. (Cabré 2000: 42). It is also necessary to examine how to teach Terminology for different professional profiles. In the absence of clear ideas regarding Terminology as an academic subject, what generally happens is that professors use teaching models that they have observed, used, and/or experienced during their academic career. Cabré and Estopá (1997) criticize the cloning oftraditional teachingmethods and strategies in the Terminology classroom. This article describes a new perspective on teaching Terminology within the context ofTranslation Studies Degree programsoffered in the Spanish university system (Montero and Faber 2008). Course objectives, theoretical contents, practical applications, teachingmethodology, and evaluation criteria are all determined by the professional profile thatstudents will ultimately acquire. Course elements are thus oriented towards enablingstudents to develop terminology management strategies for translation as well as helping them to learn how to use available terminological resources with a view to producing high-quality translations. 2. Terminology teaching Little has been written about how todesign and teach a Terminology course for different user profiles. Notable exceptions are Parc (1997), Resche (1997), Soffritti et al. (1997) and more specifically, in the case of Translation Studies, Picht and Acuña Partal (1997), Monterde Rey (2002), Faber and Jiménez Raya (2003), andFedor de Diego (2003). It istrue thatTerminology has only recently come intoits own as a scientific discipline. Cabré et al (2003) underlines the fact that theoretical principles and methods in Terminology are still taking shape. For example, in Spain, Terminology was not taken seriously as an academic subject until1991whenitbegantobetaughtinuniversities as part of adegree in Translation and Interpreting. Althoughinternational conferences and symposiums on Terminology date from the 1930s (Chueca 1998), they were principally geared to scientists and engineers who were interested in the conceptual structure and standardization of linguistic designations forconcepts within theirown specialized knowledge domains. Terminological Competence in Translation Terminology first appeared in an academic setting at the beginning of the 1970s when Eugen Wüster, an engineer with a clear interest in Information Science, gave a course titledIntroduction to the General Terminology Theory and Terminological Lexicography at the University of Vienna. Wüster established a foundation for working methods andprinciples for Terminology, with the aim of standardizing scientific language (Cabré 1999).His ideas left an indelible mark on terminological research, teaching, and practice. Cabré (2000) underlines the fact that in Spain until the 1990s all Terminology training was carried out by national and regional agencies, each with their own ideas regarding Terminology and terminological work. For example, TermEsp, asubsection ofthe Centro Superior de Investigaciones Científicas,2 adhered to the Wüsterian guidelines ofinternational organizations such as INFOTERM. In contrast, regional agencies, such asTERMCAT(Catalonia), UZEI(BasqueCountry),and SNL (Galicia) preferredthe model for terminological work followed in Quebec, which ismore oriented towards terminological standardization in minority languages. In Spain this type of terminological work was initially used as a model for the course design of the subject Terminology in TranslationStudies. Terminology is one of the core materials of this degree, and is offered in the last two years after students have had time to reflect on the language mediation process. Thisreflection naturally leads to the realization thatinorder to effectively translate specialized texts,atranslatormust beawareof how to identify and resolve terminology problems. In 1991, the Coloquio Iberoamericano sobre la Enseñanza de la Terminología3 drewupa proposal for a Terminology course design (Gallardo and Sanchez 1992: 294-300), a variant ofwhich is now used in mostSpanish universities. Nevertheless, its usefulness for translator training is somewhat questionable. For example, this proposal reflects an excessive influence of Wüster’s General Terminology Theory, which was logically not conceived with translators in mind. Furthermore, there is an imbalance between theory and practicewith a significant overload oftheory.Over adecade later this same criticism was reflected in the II Coloquio Internacional sobre Enseñanza de la Terminología (Gallardo2003). Alcina(2003), Cabré et al. (2003), Cámara (2003) and Gómez (2003) underline the need torevise and updatethis Terminology coursedesign,which seems toprioritize other professional profiles. Both Terminology and Translation Studies have evolved over the years. Accordingly, the objectives and contents in our proposal are exclusively oriented towards translators, who do not have time to carry out systematic terminology management,butmust perform thisactivityad hoc. Within the context of translator training, Terminology should betaughtasan indispensable instrument in any process of specialized language communication. In this sense, the descriptor orbriefguidelines regarding the subject’s contents alwaysseems to fall short because it does not capture the true scope and complexity of the relation between terminology and the translation process. Terminological Competence in Translation 3. Terminological competence in translation In any analysis of the relation between Terminology and Translation, it is necessary to bear inmind thatbothare conditionedby semantic, pragmatic,contextual, and cultural factors that operate at the level of the source language and target language (House 2000:150). Accordingto Cabré(2000:73,74), Translation andInterpreting Studies4 and Terminology are relatively recent academic disciplines despite the fact that they have existed forcenturies as applied language activities. Furthermore, both areinterdisciplinary, and also happen to be convergence points for linguistic, cognitive, and communication sciences. However, they are different because terminology, as the inventory of terms within a specializeddomain,is notinitself a typeof speechact, butrather an instrument usedinspecialized communication. Translation primarily focuses onthecommunication process, whereas terminology receives a secondary focus. Terminology is interesting for the translatorinthemeasurethatitis partof the message conveyed byaspecializedtext.As aresult, the relationship between Terminology and Translation is asymmetric since terminology has no intrinsic need to recur to translation. In contrast, translation must use terminology as a means to achieve the interlinguistic transfer of specialized knowledge units (Velasquez 2002: 447). It goes without saying that the adequacy of the terminology in a text as well as itssuitability for the level of specialization determines to a great extent the quality of atranslation. This signifies that the translator must successfully deal with terminologicalproblems during the analysis of the source text and the production of the target text. Obstacles to the transmission of specialized knowledge stem from the translator’sunfamiliarity with the terminological units, their meaning in discourse, and their possible correspondences in the target language (Rodríguez Camacho 2002: 319, 320; Cabré etal.2002: 168, 9). The lack ofreliable terminological resources obliges translators to acquire information management skills and be able to manage terminology ad hoc in order to resolve translation problems. Translators thus need to develop strategies to carry out the following processes: . the identification and acquisition of specialized concepts activated in discourse; . the evaluation, consultation, and elaboration of information resources; . the recognition of interlinguistic correspondences based on concepts in the specialized knowledge field; . the management of the information and knowledge acquired and its re-use in future translations. This set ofabilities is part of the terminological subcompetence(Faber2004), a moduleofgeneral translation competence. In this regard, Neubert (2000: 9) states that it is not necessary for translators to be experts in the specialized field. What is essential is that they be capable of rapidly acquiring expert knowledge, an ability which includes the processes listed above. The ability to recognize concept systems activated by terms incontext does not transform translators into experts within the field, but provides them Terminological Competence in Translation with the knowledgenecessary to facilitate understanding and succeed in the process ofinformation transfer and communication (Rodríguez Camacho 2002: 311). Consequently, terminological subcompetence does notrefer to the acquisition of alist of terms, but rather to the ability ofthe translator to acquire the knowledge represented by these terms. According to Izquierdo Aymerich (2003), terminological acquisition is acognitive and linguistic ability that permits the translator tomodel realityin consonance with cognitive schemas or world views that serve as areferencefor eachtranslation. For example, translators shouldbe abletoidentifythemost relevant conceptual relations and their lexical formalizations in the discourse. They should alsobe able to extract recurrent semantic and syntactic patterns or templates in both languages (Faber and Mairal,forthcoming). 4. Proposal for the acquisiton of terminological competence Our proposal for a Terminology course for translators is summarized in the following descriptor: Acquisition, documentation, and management of specialized language for translators. The contents, exercises, and activities of the course contribute to theacquisition of terminological competence in translation. 4.1 Objectives and contents The contents of our program (see Annex I) are organized under the following fourheadings: 1.INTRODUCTION TO TERMINOLOGY 2.THEORYAND PRACTICE OFTERMINOLOGY 3.TERMINOLOGY APPLIED TO TRANSLATION 4.TERMINOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION IN THE TRANSLATIONPROCESS The first three include a total of seven subdivisions (equivalent to 40 hours), and are divided into 25 teaching units. Thefourth andfinal partof the course on terminographic documentation (40 hours) is exclusively devoted to the practicalactivitiesimplicit in the elaboration of a translation-oriented terminology project. The contents in these four sections are in consonance with the teaching objectives.5 Firstly, it is necessary for students to understand the basic premises of terminological work, which may vary according to user needs andprofiles. Students are initially provided with an overview of Lexicology and Terminology (UNITS 1, 3-6), and also learn basicconcepts pertaining to Lexicography and Terminography (UNITS 7, 8). The distinction between word and term is the basis for a parallel distinction between Lexicology and Terminology, adifference that in many ways is more artificial than real. Anoverly rigidview ofTerminology has often created unnecessary barriers between the two disciplines.Both general and specialized language are tools used to control and regulate communication, not only by means oflinguistic rules, but also through social conventions,which dictate linguistic behavior in different types of communicative situation (UNIT 9). Terminological Competence in Translation The characteristics that differentiate general discourse and specialized discourse go farbeyond thedichotomy between word and term. Important variablesare topic, user, andcontext, which make specialized discourse a communication tool that requires its own type of analysis. However, specialized languages also possess many features of general language(UNIT14).This means that there is aconstant exchange ofunits between the two. Specialized language and general language are thus regarded as pragmatic subsets of language (in its widest sense), which encompasses general languages as well as all specialized languages. From this perspective, we propose that word and term (UNIT 9)should betreatedas different points in a continuum.Whenweapproach the conceptof LINGUISTIC UNIT as agraded category, the boundaries betweencategory members such as word and term are fuzzy. The structuring of a specialized domain in dynamic or prototypical categories (UNIT12)signifiesthat terms can belocatedat eitherasubordinate or superordinate level, while words tend to belong to the basic level of categorization. Both words and terms reflect conceptual structure,andaresubject to linguistic as well as non-linguistic rules thatgovern any act of communication. Secondly, students should be aware ofthe various approaches to Terminologythat existinthe world. We thus make a clear distinction between Wüster’s General Terminology Theory (UNIT 3) and other proposals that appeared afterwards, such as Communicative Terminology Theory (Cabré 1999) (UNIT 4), Sociocognitive Theory of Terminology (Temmerman 2000) (UNIT 5), and Frame-Based Terminology (Faber et al. 2006, 2007; Faber and Mairal, forthcoming) (UNIT6). The reductionism ofGeneralTerminology Theory is clearly at odds with the complexity ofspecialized knowledgecommunication in the real world. If Terminology is regarded as an idealized model, based only on prescriptive principles, there is no room for either diversity or variation. Lexical units becomestaticentities thatare merely names, unable to account for the knowledge structures and the sociocognitive dimension of communication. Instead, Terminology should be regarded as adiscipline that is based on textual variation, and whose objectives are the following: (i) to formally, semantically and functionally describe units that can acquire terminological value; (ii) to account for how this value is activated; (iii) to explain the relations of theseunits with other types of sign. In Translation Studies, terms should be studied as they really occur in texts, and not from the perspective of an idealized conceptual structure determined by organizations that must standardize terminology in specialized domains. Thirdly, students should be awarethat the way terminological work is carried out dependson its ultimate purpose. Consequently, in order to better understand how to manageterminology in translation (UNIT 16,17), a distinction will be made between descriptive and prescriptive terminography (UNIT 7); between systematic and ad hoc terminography (UNIT 8); and between monolingual, bilingual, and multilingual terminological management (UNIT 8). Although terminology management by translators needs to take Terminological Competence in Translation into account the prescriptive use oflanguage, theprocess itself is descriptive and depends on the sourcetext. It is not the job ofthe translator to standardize terminology, but ratherto create seamless texts in which terms are used the same way as experts in the field would use them. Even though it would be desirable for translators tohave the timeto do more systematic terminographic work, they are generally obliged to reconstruct partial conceptual systems for each translation job. The number of languages involved interminology work means that there are monolingual, bilingual, and multilingual strategies for terminology management. Fourthly, students should be acquainted with the phases of term extraction, analysis, andlexical-conceptual representation that comprise the process of terminographicdocumentation (UNITS 18-25). In this sense, students’ ability to apply theoretical and practical knowledge can be assessed by means ofexercisesandactivitiesas well as the terminology project, in which they willdemonstrate what they havelearned in relationto different types of translation jobs. The terminology project consists of the following six tasks:(i) outline and descriptionof the characteristics ofthe translation job (UNITS16,17); (ii) analysisof the difficultiesof the source textandextraction oftermcandidates (UNITS10, 12, 14); (iii) study and evaluation of the most useful sources of terminographic documentation (UNIT 18-21);(iv) compilation and consultation of an ad hoc corpus; (v)organization of lexical and conceptual knowledge (UNITS 22,23); (vi) elaboration of ten definitionsfor specialized knowledge units withinone ofthe conceptual categories (UNITS15,23).These six tasks reflect our vision of terminographicwork as a dynamic process that goes fromthe beginning ofthe translationassignment to the productionof thefinalversion of thetarget text. It also includes the evaluation of the translation by the clientorreceivers. For this reason, the terminological decisions of translators should not be divorced fromthesocialand professional context of thetranslation assignment. Their role as language mediators requires that they use the most suitable terminology for the knowledge level of the text receivers. Evidently, the communication problems that can arise from an overly rigidand standardized conception of terminology should be avoidedat all costs. From a theoreticalviewpoint,this typeof terminographicworkis in consonance with: (i) the Communicative Theory of Terminology (Cabré 1999), which is based on discourse variation as a natural dimension of any speech act; (ii) the Sociocognitive Theory ofTerminology (Temmerman 2000) in which concepts do not exist in themselves as isolated entities, but as interrelated elements in texts which make them come alive, and (iii)Frame-based Terminology (Faber et al. 2006, 2007; Faber and Mairal, forthcoming) in which both words and terms are part of the same linguistic reality although they may belong todifferent cognitive structures or frames. Regarding the practical part of the course, our concept of the process of terminographic documentation includes: . Ad hoc terminological exercises, which help students to deal with problems generated by terms in texts; Terminological Competence in Translation . Exercises pertaining to terminological description because translators must deal with lexical units in discourse, which often do not correspond to standardized terminological forms; . Semasiological and onomasiological exercises in which students will organize specialized knowledge units either going from termto concept or fromconcept to term; . Exercises on conceptual structures that go beyond traditional hierarchical relations in the partial reconstruction of conceptual systems. As a way ofsuccessfully dealing withallof thesefactorsinterminographic management, we propose the methodology usedin Frame-Based Terminology(Faber et al. 2005, 2006,2007; Montero 2008), which includes the use of modern terminographic tools andresources to organize specialized knowledge in dynamic frames. 4.2 Teaching methodology Terminology, as an academic subject, is only usefulto Translation studentsin the measure that they can perceive its usefulness within the context of their future professional activity. Accordingly, itisadvisableto use a teaching modelthattransformsthe students into the managers of their own learning process (Faber and Jiménez Raya 2003). This entails the progressive integration of new concepts with a view to fomenting learnerautonomy so that students actively participate in this process. Such a teaching modelshould be flexible, open-ended, and based onboth individualand groupparticipation. Inclass, the teacher should encourage discussion and debate, and provide students with opportunities to learnfrom their mistakes as well as to reaffirm whattheyhavedone well.This model is evidently learner-centered, based on cognitive restructuring and autonomous learning(Fedor deDiego 2003). Given the fact that our vision of the world is conditioned by previous experiences, knowledge and emotions (Amestoy de Sánchez 2001: 13), the model proposedis basedon cognitive restructuring, which involves the conscious, deliberate reformulation ofprocessing schemas. In order to produce any sort of conceptual change, it isnecessary to: (i) identify and clarify the previous ideas of the students; (ii) question these ideas by using counterexamples; (iii) introduce new concepts; (iv) provide opportunities for students to use new ideas in varioustypes of situation and confirm their explanatory and predictive power. These steps involve the use of a series of techniques and activities that reveal to the students what they are unable to discover for themselves. Furthermore, teachingstrategies shouldalso avoid the presentationof information,and rely more on exercisesthat encourage the discovery and consolidation of new concepts. Finally, the teachershould foment the progressive learning of procedural knowledge and its application in different situations. Terminological Competence in Translation In an effective Terminology course, the constructivist paradigm(Cracolice 2001, Macbeth 2000), which combines aspects of discovery learning (Bruner 1996) and meaningfulreception (Ausubel 2000), helps transform conceptual knowledge into mental images, whereas procedural knowledge becomes the capacity to autonomously carry out terminographic documentation applied to translation. Thus, itis extremely important that students understand the value, usefulness, and purpose of all exercises, and thus progressively take charge of their own learning process (Faberand JiménezRaya2003). Learner autonomy is very useful in Translation Studies since students should beencouragedto work on their own, andthus become accustomed tofinding solutions forproblems that arise in the translation process. Within this type of context, the teacher becomes a facilitator of resources and learning (Jiménez Raya 1994). The teaching methodology proposed evidently depends on activities and exercises thatallow students not only to use and contrast the validity of theknowledge acquired, butalso to deal with new situations where knowledge needs to be adapted. It should encourage students to design problem-solving strategies, and when necessary, improve theirknowledgeof the documentation process. The teachingmaterials recommended are the usual bibliographical sources (manuals, monographs, and journal articles), specializedlanguage texts, multimedia texts, terminographicresources in bothpaper and electronicformat (e.g. dictionaries, glossaries, databases), and software applications such as WordSmith Tools®,MultiTerm® andOntoTerm® for lexical and terminological analysis. 4.3 Evaluation The evaluation process has generally focused on the student. However, students are only one component ofa teaching process, whose goal is to achieve permanent changes in their cognitivemake-up. These changes are progressively carried out in stages, eachof which has its own set of objectives. Consequently, the evaluation process is progressive as well with thefollowing three typesofevaluation (Fenwick and Parsons 2000): (i) aninitial evaluation withadiagnostic-predictive function in the form of tests, questionnaires, and discussion; (ii) a formative evaluation during the learning process with a view to orientingstudents and helping themto rectify orreaffirm terminology management strategies. Thisevaluation can bein theformof questions, dialogue, or tests; (iii) a final evaluation in which the results obtained are assessed and the student is given afinalmark. The positive or negative assessments obtained with each of these methods should be applied to all of the factors that are a part of the teaching process. Students should be aware at all times of theirprogress and the effectiveness of their strategies. The teachershould be able to judge the validity of his objectives, program, and methodology. Terminological Competence in Translation All of the conceptual, procedural, and attitudinal knowledge taught in the subject of Terminology should be evaluated by means of class work, expositions or presentations. Table 1 shows some ofthe learning objectives and tools proposed for aninitial, formative and final evaluation: Table 1. Examples of the initial, formative, and final evaluation of the subject of Terminology Knowledge type Objective Evaluation tool Conceptual andattitudinal knowledge To make students aware of the distinctionbetween wordand term • Elicitation of students’ opinions(initial evaluation)• Discussion of required readingand oral presentation byteacher(initial/formative evaluation) Conceptual andattitudinal knowledge To increase students’ knowledge ofGeneral Terminology Theory and new tendencies in Terminology theory • Discussion of required readingand oral presentation byteacher(initial/formative evaluation) Conceptual andattitudinal knowledge To increasestudents’awareness ofdifferent types ofterminology management • Discussion of required readingand oral presentation by teacher (initial/formative evaluation) Procedural and attitudinal knowledge To help students develop strategies for using and consulting different types of terminographicresources • Group work on different aspects of terminographic resources • Terminographic searches • Oral presentation of resultsin class (formative evaluation) Procedural and attitudinal knowledge To help students develop terminologywork methods and management strategies regarding the following activities: • description ofthe translationjob and the specialized knowledge domain; • term extraction; • consultationofterminographic resources; • identificationofconceptual categories and linguistic designations; • elaboration of definitions; • presentation ofterminographic work usingOntoTerm® • Supervised workand final projectdeliverable (formative and final evaluation) Terminological Competence in Translation For example, the evaluation of conceptual categories, such as those related to thedichotomy between wordand term,can be evaluated both diagnostically and formatively through discussion and debate. Thefinalevaluation should measure the students’ capacity to successfully resolve terminological problems that arise in translation work. In this sense the terminographic documentation project that the students will present is ofcrucial importance. 4.4 Class organization For the learning process to be successful, it is necessary for the teacher to coherentlyorganize the contents and objectives, teaching activities, exercises, materials, and evaluation methods. Each teaching unit proposed in the program can be planned according to the template in (1), which exemplifies Unit 18 regarding terminographic resources. (1) TEMPLATE Objective: To make the student aware of the terminographic resources and systems of terminology managementfor translation as well as the need to evaluate them. Phase 1 Introduction and explanation. The teacher gives a concise overview of the standard types ofterminographicresources for translators and asks them to examine the advantages and disadvantages of each type. This task is carried out in groups. Each group is assigned a specific type of resource,which they will analyze according to a series of variables. Phase 2 Group work. Each group makes a list of terminology-related problems that translators must deal with, and proposes a list of solutions for each problem. Theinformationineach resourceisanalyzedinreference to the range of solutions proposed. Phase 3 Exposition and discussion of results. The students learn about the different types of terminographic resources through the presentations given, andthus become aware of the wide range of information offered in such resources. Phase 4 Evaluation of results. The class then reflects on the usefulness of these resources in translation jobs. This type of class structure encourages the active participation of the students in theirown learningprocess in the context of agoal-directed activity.As a result, studentsare able to widen their horizons and integrate new knowledge into previous knowledge structures. It prepares them to carry out a terminology project and apply terminology management skills to specific translation jobs. 5. Conclusions In order tobe ableto translate successfully,linguistic mediators shouldbe abletoapplytheoretical concepts and use skills that are part of a dynamic translation macrocompetence,whosenature can varywith the changingdemandsofthe translation market. Terminological Competence in Translation In this sense one of the factors that contribute to a good translation is terminological subcompetence, which includes processes that range from terminographic search and documentation strategiesto the partialreconstruction of specialized knowledge domains. The effective acquisition of terminological knowledge and skills by translation studentsrequires: (i) a careful selection of teaching objectives as well as program contents in accordance with the professional profile targeted; (ii) teaching methods that make use of suitable techniques and activities; (iii) the use of didactic material that contribute to the achievement ofthe teaching objectives; (iv) the application of evaluation strategies in consonance with the teaching methodology. Within thisteaching context,students are encouragedto becomeautonomous, and to take charge of their own learning process. The ultimate objective is to enable them to successfully function in a professional context and to apply concepts and/or terminographic processesin their work. For thisreasonstudents should receive training based on Terminology theories that highlight the dynamicity of language as well as terminographic methods that facilitate ad hoc descriptive terminology managementinthe translationof specialized language texts. Acknowledgments This research has been carried out within the framework of the MarcoCosta: Marcos de conocimiento multilingüe en la gestión integrada de zonas costeras [Multilingual knowledge frames in the integrated managementof coastal areas], projectnumberPO6-HUM-01489 funded by the Andalusian Regional Government. Notes 1. We follow the conventional use of upper case for the theory of Terminology andlower case for terminology as the inventory of terms. 2. The National Research Institute in Spain. 3. Iberian Colloquium on Terminology Teaching. 4. Research on the terminological necessities ofthe interpreter is virtually inexistent.Most of the authors cited in this section write about translation; however, the majority oftheir observations are also applicable to interpreting though there aresignificant differences between the twocontexts. Without a doubt, more researchis needed in this area. 5. Montero and Faber (2008) offer guidelines regarding (i) the number of hoursnecessary to give the program; (ii) course objectives; (iii) teaching methodology, exercises and activities;(iv) evaluation method. Terminological Competence in Translation References Alcina Caudet, A. 2003. “La programación de objetivos didácticos en Terminóticaatendiendo a las nuevas herramientas y recursos”. In Gallardo San Salvador, N. (ed.). Terminología y traducción: un bosquejo de su evolución. Actas II Coloquio Internacional sobre Enseñanza de la Terminología. 79-90. Granada: Atrio. Amestoyde Sánchez,M. 2001.“Lainvestigaciónsobreel desarrollo ylaenseñanzadelas habilidades de pensamiento”. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa 4(1). http://redie.ens.uabc.mx/vol4no1/contenido-amestoy.htm. Ausubel, D. A.2000. The Acquisition and Retention of Knowledge. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Bruner, J. S.1996. The Culture of Education. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Cabré, M. T. 1999. La Terminología: Representación y comunicación. Elementos para una teoría de base comunicativa y otros artículos. Barcelona: IULA. Cabré, M.T. 2000.“Laenseñanza dela Terminología enEspaña:Problemas y propuestas”. Hermèneus 2, 41-94. Cabré, M. T. and R. Estopá. 1997. “Formar en Terminología: una nueva experiencia docente-Parte I.”TradTerm 4(1), 175-202. Cabré, M. T., R. Estopá, J. Freixa, M. Lorente, and C. Tebé. 2002. “Les necessitatsterminològiques del traductor científic”. In Chabás, J., R. Gaser and J. Rey (eds.). Translating Science. Proceedings 2nd International Conference on Specialized Translation, 28 February 2 March 2002. Barcelona: PPU. 165-174. Barcelona:Universitat Pompeu Fabra. Cabré, M. T., R. Estopá, J. Freixa, M. Lorente, J. Marí, and C.Tebé. 2003.“Laenseñanza delaTerminología en la traducción especializada: Nuevas propuestas para viejos problemas.” In Gallardo San Salvador, N. (ed.). Terminología y traducción: un bosquejo de su evolución. Actas II Coloquio Internacional sobre Enseñanza de la Terminología. 177-130. Granada: Atrio. Cámara, E. 2003. “El papel de la terminología en las asignaturas de traducción especializada científica ytécnica”. In Gallardo San Salvador, N. (ed.)Terminología y traducción: un bosquejo de su evolución. Actas II Coloquio Internacional sobre Enseñanza de la Terminología. 205-212. Granada:Atrio. Chueca Moncayo, F. 1998. Aproximaciones a la enseñanza de la Terminología en España: El caso específico de la formación de traductores en las Facultades de Traducción e Interpretación. PhD Dissertation. Departamento deLengua y Literatura Inglesa y Alemana. University ofValladolid, Spain. Cracolice, M. S. 2001. “Constructivism:A framework used to understand human learning”. Mediated Learning 2(1), 1-5. Faber, P. 2004. “Terminological competence and enhanced knowledge acquisition”. InFleischmann, P.A., J. Schmitt and G. Wotjak (eds.). Translationskompetenz. 479-499. Tübingen:Stauffenburg. Faber, P. andM. Jiménez Raya. 2003. “Autonomíade aprendizajeen laenseñanza de la Terminología”. In Correia, M. (ed.). Terminologia e Indústrias da Língua, Proceedings of the VII Simpósio IberoAmericano de Terminologia. ILTEC: Lisboa. 359-371. Barcelona:ILTEC. Faber, P. and R. Mairal. (eds.). Forthcoming. A Cognitive Linguistics View of Terminology and Specialized Language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Faber, P., C. Márquez and M. Vega. 2005. “Framing Terminology: Aprocess-oriented approach”.Meta 50(4), http://www.erudit.org/livre/meta/2005/index.htm. Faber, P., P. León Araúz, J. A. Prieto Velasco and A.Reimerink. 2007. “Linking images and words: the description of specialized concepts.” International Journal of Lexicography 20, 39-65. Terminological Competence in Translation Faber, P., S. Montero Martínez, R. Castro Prieto, J. Senso, J. A. Prieto, P. León Arauz, C.Márquez Linares and M. Vega Expósito. 2006. “Process-oriented terminology management in thedomain ofcoastalengineering”.Terminology 12(2), 189-213. Fedor de Diego,A. 2003. “Sobrelas propiedades metacognitivas y constructivistas de la terminología y sus consecuencias didácticas”. In Muñoz Martín, R. (ed.). I AIETI. Actas del I Congreso Internacional de la Asociación Ibérica de Estudios de Traducción e Interpretación. Granada, 12-14 February 2003. 19-31. Granada, Spain. Fenwick, T. and J. Parsons. 2000. The Art of Evaluation: A Handbook for Educators and Trainers. Toronto: Thompson. Gallardo San Salvador, N. (ed.). 2003. Terminología y traducción: un bosquejo de su evolución. Actas II Coloquio Internacional sobre Enseñanza de la Terminología.Granada: Atrio. Gallardo San Salvador, N. andD. Sánchez (eds.). 1992. La enseñanza de la Terminología: Actas del Coloquio Iberoamericano sobre Enseñanza de la Terminología: Seminario sobre programa de los cursos de Terminología en la Licenciatura de Traducción e Interpretación en España. Granada, Spain, June 1991. Granada: Escuela Universitaria de Traductores e Intérpretes. GómezSánchez, A.F.2003.“La enseñanzade la terminología enfocada a lainterpretación”. In Gallardo San Salvador, N. (ed.). Terminología y traducción: un bosquejo de su evolución. Actas II Coloquio Internacional sobre Enseñanza de la Terminología. 131 142. Granada: Atrio. Izquierdo Aymerich, M. 2003. “Enseñanza y conocimientoespecializado:conocimiento y conceptos”. In Cabré, T. (ed.). Terminología y conocimiento especializado. 55-88. Barcelona: IULA, UPF. Jiménez Raya, M. 1994. “Aprendizaje centrado en el alumno: Desarrollo de la autonomía del aprendiz de lenguas extranjeras”. Didáctica del español como lengua extranjera. 38-52. Madrid: Fundación Actilibre. Macbeth, D. 2000. “On an actual apparatus for conceptual change”. Science Education 84(2), 228-264. Monterde Rey, A. M. 2002. “Creaciónde bancosde datos terminológicos conMultiTerm:Una experiencia docente”. In Bravo Utrera, S.(ed.)Estudios de Filología Moderna y Traducción en los inicios del nuevo milenio. 169-201. Las Palmas de Gran Canaria:Departamento de Filología Moderna de la Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria. Montero Martínez, S. 2008. “Tidying up tides: Modelling coastalprocesses in terminology management”. Translation and Cultural Diversity. Proceedings of the XVIII FIT World Congress. Shanghai, 4-7 August 2008. Montero Martínez, S. and P. Faber. 2008. Terminología para traductores e intérpretes. Granada:Editorial Tragacanto.Neubert, A.2000.“Competenceinlanguage,inlanguages,andintranslation”. In Schäffner, C. and B. Adab (eds.). Developing Translation Competence. 3-18. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Parc, F.1997. “Évolution d’une formation enmilieu detravail”. Terminologies Nouvelles: Terminologie et formation 17, 35-36.Picht, H. and C. Acuña Partal. 1997. “Aspects of Terminology Training.” InWright, S. E. and G. Budin (eds.). Handbook of Terminology Management. Basic Aspects of Terminology Management. 305-321.Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins. Resche, C. 1997. “Terminologieet phraséologie comparées: un moyen etnon une fin pour l’enseignement dans le secteur Lansad”. Terminologies Nouvelles: Terminologie et formation 17, 37-42. Rodríguez Camacho, E. 2002. “La Terminología en la formación de un traductor especializado”. In Guerrero Ramos, G. and M. F. Pérez Lagos (eds.). Panorama Actual de la Terminología. 307-326. Granada:Comares. Terminological Competence in Translation Soffritti, M., F. Bertaccini and C. Cortesi. 1997. “L’icone dans lafiche terminologique: un nouveaupoint de départ?” Terminologies Nouvelles: Terminologie et formation 17, 43-48. Temmerman,R. 2000. Towards New Ways of Terminology Description: The SociocognitiveApproach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins. Wright, S. E. and G. Budin (eds.). 1997. Handbook of Terminology Management. Basic Aspects of Terminology Management. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Wright, S. E. and L. D. Wright. 1997. “Terminologymanagementfor technical translation.” In Wright, S.E. and G.Budin(eds.). Handbook of Terminology Management. Basic Aspects of Terminology Management. 147-159. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins. Annex 1. Terminology Course Program I.INTRODUCTION Topic1: What is Terminology? Unit1. Views on Terminology Unit 2. Functions and users II.THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF TERMINOLOGY Topic 2: Approaches to Terminology Unit3. General Terminology Theory Unit 4. Communicative Theory of Terminology Unit5. Sociocognitive Theory of Terminology Unit6. Frame-Based Terminology Theory Topic3: Approaches to terminology work Unit 7. Prescriptive and descriptive terminology management Unit 8. Systematicand ad hoc terminology work. Monolingual and multilingual strategies III.TERMINOLOGYAPPLIED TOTRANSLATION Topic4: Basic concepts Unit9. General and specialized discourse: words andterms Unit10. Specialized knowledge units Unit11. Term formation Unit 12. Conceptual categories, concepts,and relations Terminological Competence in Translation Unit13. Conceptual systems and multidimensionality Unit14. Terminological and conceptual variation in specialized discourse Unit15. Terminographic definition Topic 5: Terminology and the translation process Unit 16. Terminological needsofthe translator Unit 17. Terminology in translation Topic6: Sources ofterminologyacquisition and documentation Unit 18. Standard terminographic documentation sources Unit19. Terminographic documentation in Internet Unit 20. The compilation ofanad hoc corpusfor terminographic documentation Unit 21. The role of corpora in the translation documentation process Topic 7: Analysis and representation of lexical and conceptualknowledge Unit 22. Structuring lexicaland conceptual knowledge Unit 23. The elaboration ofterminographic definitions Unit 24.MultiTerm®: standard softwareapplication for terminological databases Unit 25.OntoTerm®: software application for terminological knowledge bases
© LexiCon Research Group