Translation Environment Tools (TEnTs) became popular in the early 1990s as a partial solution for coping with ever-increasing translation demands and the decreasing number of translators available. TEnTs allow the creation of repositories of legacy translations (translation memories) and terminology (integrated termbases) used to identify repetition in new source texts and provide alternate translations, thereby reducing the need to translate the same information twice. While awareness of the important role of terminology in translation and documentation management has been on the rise, little research is available on best practices for building and using integrated termbases. The present research is a first step toward filling this gap and provides a set of guidelines on how best to optimize the design and use of integrated termbases. Based on existing translation technology and terminology management literature, as well as our own experience, we propose that traditional terminology and terminography principles designed for stand-alone termbases should be adapted when an integrated termbase is created in order to take into account its unique characteristics: active term recognition, d one-click insertion of equivalents into the target text and document pretranslation. The proposed modifications to traditional principles cover a wide range of issues, including using record structures with fewer fields, adopting the TBX-Basic’s record structure, classifying records by project or client, creating records based on equivalent pairs rather concepts in cases where synonyms exist, recording non-term units and multiple forms of a unit, and using translated documents as sources. The overarching hypothesis and its associated concrete strategies were evaluated first against a survey of current practices in terminology management within TEnTs and later through a second survey that tested user acceptance of the strategies. The result is a set of guidelines that describe best practices relating to design, content selection and information recording within integrated termbases that will be used for translation purposes. These guidelines will serve as a point of reference for new users of TEnTs, as an academic resource for translation technology educators, as a map of challenges in terminology management within TEnTs that translation software developers seek to resolve and, finally, as a springboard for further research on the optimization of integrated termbases for translation.

Le secteur langagier vit actuellement un changement de paradigme. De nouvelles pratiques collaboratives facilitent les échanges entre des gens de partout dans le monde. Bien que certaines de ces pratiques, par exemple la traduction collaborative, ont suscité l'intérêt de nombreux chercheurs, d'autres, comme la terminographie collaborative, sont peu connues. Quel est le spectre de la terminographie collaborative? En quoi la terminographie collaborative se distingue-t-elle de la terminographie classique? Quelles sont leurs forces et leurs faiblesses respectives? La présente thèse définit la terminographie collaborative, identifie ses caractéristiques et ses divers modes et formes et présente ses outils afin de permettre une compréhension approfondie du phénomène. Nous comparons la terminographie classique et la terminographie collaborative au moyen d'une étude de cas d'un modèle classique (TERMIUM Plus) et d’un modèle collaboratif (TermWiki) afin de relever les ressemblances et les différences entre elles. Puis nous illustrons leurs forces et leurs faiblesses respectives. Nous concluons que la terminographie classique et la terminographie collaborative diffèrent principalement au niveau des participants, du style d'interaction et de l'infrastructure. The language industry is experiencing a paradigm shift. New collaborative practices facilitate exchanges between people from all around the world. Although some of these practices, such as collaborative translation, have attracted the interest of many researchers, others, such as collaborative terminography, are little known. What is the spectrum of collaborative terminography? How do collaborative terminography and traditional terminography differ? What are their respective strengths and weaknesses? This thesis defines collaborative terminography, identifies its characteristics and its various modes and forms, and presents collaborative tools to enable a thorough understanding of the phenomenon. We compare traditional and collaborative terminography through a case study of a traditional model (TERMIUM Plus) and a collaborative model (TermWiki) to identify similarities and differences between them. We then list their respective strengths and weaknesses. We conclude that traditional terminography and collaborative terminography differ mainly in terms of participants, interaction styles and infrastructure.

Le secteur langagier vit actuellement un changement de paradigme. De nouvelles pratiques collaboratives facilitent les échanges entre des gens de partout dans le monde. Bien que certaines de ces pratiques, par exemple la traduction collaborative, ont suscité l'intérêt de nombreux chercheurs, d'autres, comme la terminographie collaborative, sont peu connues. Quel est le spectre de la terminographie collaborative? En quoi la terminographie collaborative se distingue-t-elle de la terminographie classique? Quelles sont leurs forces et leurs faiblesses respectives? La présente thèse définit la terminographie collaborative, identifie ses caractéristiques et ses divers modes et formes et présente ses outils afin de permettre une compréhension approfondie du phénomène. Nous comparons la terminographie classique et la terminographie collaborative au moyen d'une étude de cas d'un modèle classique (TERMIUM Plus) et d’un modèle collaboratif (TermWiki) afin de relever les ressemblances et les différences entre elles. Puis nous illustrons leurs forces et leurs faiblesses respectives. Nous concluons que la terminographie classique et la terminographie collaborative diffèrent principalement au niveau des participants, du style d'interaction et de l'infrastructure. The language industry is experiencing a paradigm shift. New collaborative practices facilitate exchanges between people from all around the world. Although some of these practices, such as collaborative translation, have attracted the interest of many researchers, others, such as collaborative terminography, are little known. What is the spectrum of collaborative terminography? How do collaborative terminography and traditional terminography differ? What are their respective strengths and weaknesses? This thesis defines collaborative terminography, identifies its characteristics and its various modes and forms, and presents collaborative tools to enable a thorough understanding of the phenomenon. We compare traditional and collaborative terminography through a case study of a traditional model (TERMIUM Plus) and a collaborative model (TermWiki) to identify similarities and differences between them. We then list their respective strengths and weaknesses. We conclude that traditional terminography and collaborative terminography differ mainly in terms of participants, interaction styles and infrastructure.

L’objectif principal de cette thèse est d’explorer et d’analyser la réception de l’œuvre d’Eugen Wüster afin d’expliquer comment ses travaux ont influencé le développement disciplinaire de la terminologie. Du point de vue historique, les travaux de Wüster, en particulier la Théorie générale de la terminologie, ont stimulé la recherche en terminologie. Malgré des opinions divergentes, on s’entend pour reconnaître que les travaux de Wüster constituent la pierre angulaire de la terminologie moderne. Notre recherche vise spécifiquement à explorer la réception de l’œuvre wüsterienne en étudiant les écrits relatifs à cette œuvre dans la littérature universitaire en anglais, en espagnol et en français entre 1979 et 2009, en Europe et en Amérique. Réalisée dans le cadre du débat sur la réception de l’œuvre de Wüster, cette étude se concentre exclusivement sur l’analyse des critiques et des commentaires de son œuvre. Pour ce faire, nous avons tenu compte de la production intellectuelle de Wüster, de sa réception positive ou négative, des nouvelles approches théoriques en terminologie ainsi que des études portant sur l’état de la question en terminologie entre 1979 et 2009. Au moyen d’une recherche qualitative de type exploratoire, nous avons analysé un corpus de textes dans lesquels les auteurs : a. ont cité textuellement au moins un extrait d’un texte écrit par Wüster ; b. ont référé aux travaux de Wüster dans la bibliographie de l’article ; ou c. ont fait un commentaire sur ces travaux. De cette manière, nous avons cerné les grandes lignes du débat autour de la réception de son œuvre. Les résultats de notre étude sont éloquents. Ils offrent une idée claire de la réception des travaux de Wüster dans la communauté scientifique. Premièrement, Wüster représente une figure centrale de la terminologie moderne en ce qui concerne la normalisation terminologique. Il fut le premier à proposer une théorie de la terminologie. Deuxièmement, la contextualisation appropriée de son œuvre constitue un point de départ essentiel pour une appréciation éclairée et juste de sa contribution à l’évolution de la discipline. Troisièmement, les résultats de notre recherche dévoilent comment les nouvelles approches théoriques de la terminologie se sont adaptées aux progrès scientifiques et techniques. Quatrièmement, une étude menée sur 166 articles publiés dans des revues savantes confirme que l’œuvre de Wüster a provoqué des réactions variées tant en Europe qu’en Amérique et que sa réception est plutôt positive. Les résultats de notre étude font état d’une tendance qu’ont les auteurs de critiquer les travaux de Wüster avec lesquels, dans la plupart des cas, ils ne semblent cependant pas être bien familiarisés. La « méthodologie des programmes de recherche scientifique », proposée par Lakatos (1978) et appliquée comme un modèle interprétatif, nous a permis de démontrer que Wüster a joué un rôle décisif dans le développement de la terminologie comme discipline et que la terminologie peut être perçue comme un programme de recherche scientifique. La conclusion principale de notre thèse est que la terminologie a vécu des changements considérables et progressifs qui l’ont aidée à devenir, en termes lakatosiens, une discipline forte tant au plan théorique que descriptif. / The main objective of this dissertation is to explore and analyze the reception of Eugen Wüster’s work with the goal of explaining how it has influenced the development of terminology as a discipline. In the history of terminology, Wüster’s work, especially his general theory of terminology, has been an inspiration for terminology research studies. Nowadays, the reactions to Wüster’s work have been both positive and negative. His legacy is still considered the cornerstone in the field of terminology. Our specific undertaking is to explore the reception of Wüster’s work by studying what has been said about it in the academic literature written in English, French and Spanish, between 1979 and 2009, in Europe and the Americas. This study, carried out within the context of debate on the reception of Wüster’s work, focuses on analyzing the responses to and comments on his work. It takes into account his work, its positive and negative reception, new theoretical approaches to terminology and studies that have concentrated on analyzing the state of the art of terminology. The research process follows an exploratory method, focusing on studying texts where authors quote, cite or make reference to Wüster’s work. It also falls under descriptive research studies as it accurately portrays the characteristics of the debate around the reception of his work. The results are revealing, and lead to a more refined view of what comprises the reception of Wüster’s work. First, Wüster is recognized as an important founding figure in modern terminology, as a pioneer of terminology standardization, and as the first author to propose a theory of terminology. Second, an adequate contextualization is an essential starting point for an accurate and appropriate appreciation of Wüster’s contribution to the development of the discipline. Third, results uncovered how new theoretical approaches to terminology have coped with advances in technology and science. These approaches have also identified new methods, methodologies, applications and uses for terminology. Forth, a sample study of 166 academic journal articles confirms that Wüster work has generated mixed reactions in Europe and the Americas, and that its reception has been more positive than negative. Results indicate a strong interest in criticizing Wüster’s work, yet a lack of familiarity with it seems to exist. The “methodology of scientific research programmes” proposed by Lakatos (1978), applied as an interpretive model, demonstrates that the reception of Wüster’s contribution to terminology has influenced the development of the academic field and that terminology is now perceived as a research programme. The main conclusion is that terminology has undergone substantial changes leading, in Lakatos’ terms, to a stronger theoretical and descriptive discipline.

Translation Environment Tools (TEnTs) became popular in the early 1990s as a partial solution for coping with ever-increasing translation demands and the decreasing number of translators available. TEnTs allow the creation of repositories of legacy translations (translation memories) and terminology (integrated termbases) used to identify repetition in new source texts and provide alternate translations, thereby reducing the need to translate the same information twice. While awareness of the important role of terminology in translation and documentation management has been on the rise, little research is available on best practices for building and using integrated termbases. The present research is a first step toward filling this gap and provides a set of guidelines on how best to optimize the design and use of integrated termbases. Based on existing translation technology and terminology management literature, as well as our own experience, we propose that traditional terminology and terminography principles designed for stand-alone termbases should be adapted when an integrated termbase is created in order to take into account its unique characteristics: active term recognition, d one-click insertion of equivalents into the target text and document pretranslation. The proposed modifications to traditional principles cover a wide range of issues, including using record structures with fewer fields, adopting the TBX-Basic’s record structure, classifying records by project or client, creating records based on equivalent pairs rather concepts in cases where synonyms exist, recording non-term units and multiple forms of a unit, and using translated documents as sources. The overarching hypothesis and its associated concrete strategies were evaluated first against a survey of current practices in terminology management within TEnTs and later through a second survey that tested user acceptance of the strategies. The result is a set of guidelines that describe best practices relating to design, content selection and information recording within integrated termbases that will be used for translation purposes. These guidelines will serve as a point of reference for new users of TEnTs, as an academic resource for translation technology educators, as a map of challenges in terminology management within TEnTs that translation software developers seek to resolve and, finally, as a springboard for further research on the optimization of integrated termbases for translation.

Translation Environment Tools (TEnTs) became popular in the early 1990s as a partial solution for coping with ever-increasing translation demands and the decreasing number of translators available. TEnTs allow the creation of repositories of legacy translations (translation memories) and terminology (integrated termbases) used to identify repetition in new source texts and provide alternate translations, thereby reducing the need to translate the same information twice. While awareness of the important role of terminology in translation and documentation management has been on the rise, little research is available on best practices for building and using integrated termbases. The present research is a first step toward filling this gap and provides a set of guidelines on how best to optimize the design and use of integrated termbases. Based on existing translation technology and terminology management literature, as well as our own experience, we propose that traditional terminology and terminography principles designed for stand-alone termbases should be adapted when an integrated termbase is created in order to take into account its unique characteristics: active term recognition, d one-click insertion of equivalents into the target text and document pretranslation. The proposed modifications to traditional principles cover a wide range of issues, including using record structures with fewer fields, adopting the TBX-Basic’s record structure, classifying records by project or client, creating records based on equivalent pairs rather concepts in cases where synonyms exist, recording non-term units and multiple forms of a unit, and using translated documents as sources. The overarching hypothesis and its associated concrete strategies were evaluated first against a survey of current practices in terminology management within TEnTs and later through a second survey that tested user acceptance of the strategies. The result is a set of guidelines that describe best practices relating to design, content selection and information recording within integrated termbases that will be used for translation purposes. These guidelines will serve as a point of reference for new users of TEnTs, as an academic resource for translation technology educators, as a map of challenges in terminology management within TEnTs that translation software developers seek to resolve and, finally, as a springboard for further research on the optimization of integrated termbases for translation.

Le secteur langagier vit actuellement un changement de paradigme. De nouvelles pratiques collaboratives facilitent les échanges entre des gens de partout dans le monde. Bien que certaines de ces pratiques, par exemple la traduction collaborative, ont suscité l'intérêt de nombreux chercheurs, d'autres, comme la terminographie collaborative, sont peu connues. Quel est le spectre de la terminographie collaborative? En quoi la terminographie collaborative se distingue-t-elle de la terminographie classique? Quelles sont leurs forces et leurs faiblesses respectives? La présente thèse définit la terminographie collaborative, identifie ses caractéristiques et ses divers modes et formes et présente ses outils afin de permettre une compréhension approfondie du phénomène. Nous comparons la terminographie classique et la terminographie collaborative au moyen d'une étude de cas d'un modèle classique (TERMIUM Plus) et d’un modèle collaboratif (TermWiki) afin de relever les ressemblances et les différences entre elles. Puis nous illustrons leurs forces et leurs faiblesses respectives. Nous concluons que la terminographie classique et la terminographie collaborative diffèrent principalement au niveau des participants, du style d'interaction et de l'infrastructure. The language industry is experiencing a paradigm shift. New collaborative practices facilitate exchanges between people from all around the world. Although some of these practices, such as collaborative translation, have attracted the interest of many researchers, others, such as collaborative terminography, are little known. What is the spectrum of collaborative terminography? How do collaborative terminography and traditional terminography differ? What are their respective strengths and weaknesses? This thesis defines collaborative terminography, identifies its characteristics and its various modes and forms, and presents collaborative tools to enable a thorough understanding of the phenomenon. We compare traditional and collaborative terminography through a case study of a traditional model (TERMIUM Plus) and a collaborative model (TermWiki) to identify similarities and differences between them. We then list their respective strengths and weaknesses. We conclude that traditional terminography and collaborative terminography differ mainly in terms of participants, interaction styles and infrastructure.

No description available.

My thesis will reconsider the failed attempt by a number of Roman citizens to gain power in Rome in 63 B.C., commonly labeled “The Conspiracy of Catiline.” Two Roman authors, M. Tullius Cicero and C. Sallustius Crispus, were eyewitnesses to the events occurring that year and both wrote lengthy accounts about the discovery and suppression of the affair and its participants, who were planning to gain power in Rome through violent means. The participants planned murder and arson inside of Rome and threatened the city with an army in northern Etruria. Our sources tend to ascribe the leadership of these hostile activities to L. Sergius Catilina, presented as a debauched, and indebted, scion of a noble family. However, our sources discuss many other Roman citizens who participated with the affair. My thesis provides a comprehensive study of the terminology Cicero and Sallust used and the lexical choices they made to describe the affair and its participants. I examine the terminology that both these authors used to identify the affair’s context, primarily focusing on the terms coniuratio (“conspiracy”) and bellum (“war”), with the aim of showing how these terms and concepts become crystallized in this period. In addition, I examine the portrayal of the reported disturbances occurring inside and outside of Rome and the representation of the Roman citizens who were involved in them. By scrutinizing the terminology found in Cicero and Sallust’s accounts of the affair of 63, my thesis demonstrates that its common appellation as “The Conspiracy of Catiline” and all that it means – in terms of a single event with one leader – needs to be reconsidered due to the interpretations of its multifarious aspects.

<p>This essay deals with some of the difficulties that translation of a technical text may present, more specifically the handling of terminology, proper nouns and titles of cited publications. For this purpose, a text dealing with medical geology, taken from <em>Essentials of Medical Geology</em> (Selinus <em>et al</em>., 2005), was translated and analysed.</p><p>Medical geology is an interdisciplinary science and hence contains terminology from several different scientific areas. The present study includes terminology within the field of medicine and geochemistry in the analysis. The preferred and predominant translation procedure was literal translation (Munday, 2001:57). Many source text terms have synonyms in the target language. With the intention to preserve and transfer the level of technical style into the target text, terms were analysed and classified as belonging to one of three levels of technical style: <em>academic</em>, <em>professional</em> and <em>popular</em> (Newmark, 1988:151). The handling of proper nouns connected to medicine and geology was also included in the analysis. One common procedure is to use a translation which is established in the target language. The present study discusses the strategies used when no such established translation was found. The procedure of using a recognised translation was discussed in connection to the handling of titles of cited publications referred to in the source text.</p>