Questioning the univocity ideal. The difference between socio-cognitive Terminology and traditional Terminology

Rita Temmerman

doi:10.7146/hjlcb.v10i18.25412

Abstract

In this article we are questioning the univocity ideal of traditional Terminology. We show how traditional Terminology in line with Saussurian structuralism ignores part of the interplay between the elements of the semantic triangle. Cognitive semantics and functional linguistics have offered an alternative for the Saussurian structuralist approach. Several of their findings can be of use for the development of socio-cognitive Terminology.In the LSP of the life sciences, the structure of concepts reflects their episte-mological function. This could have consequences for the principles and methods of terminological description. While some concepts (like intron ) are clear-cut and can therefore be submitted to the principle of univocity, others (like blotting and biotech-nology) have prototype structure. For prototypically structured categories univocity can not be the aim as polysemy, synonymy and figurative language are part of their naming history.

Highlights

In this article we are questioning the univocity ideal of traditional Terminology
First we describe the coming into existence of the new technique for making large numbers of exact copies: polymerase chain reaction (PCR), we shall illustrate the generic posting phenomenon
Two methods for ‘amplifying’ a DNA segment are at hand: molecular cloning, which was developed in the 1970s, and the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), which was developed less than a decade ago.” (Cooper, 1994:58)

Summary

Terminology cognitive Terminology

Univocity aspect 1: a term is not polysemous. Terminology takes a synchronic point of view The dynamic nature of language is disregarded. Two methods for ‘amplifying’ a DNA segment are at hand: molecular cloning, which was developed in the 1970s, and the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), which was developed less than a decade ago.” (Cooper, 1994:58) This is a typical example of a situation where an existing term might extend its meaning, due to new inventions or developments. His modesty shows from the paragraph entitled “Detection of Specific Sequences.” (157) in which he gives a survey of the methods available to identify a particular sequence in DNA fragments separated by gel electrophoresis; and mentions his own method in the last place, even though his method (the Southern blotting technique) chronologically was the first one developed in time (1975) (protein: 1976; RNA: 1977) His summary description of his own method is very accurate and contains the three elements which served in naming the technique: transfer, blotting and hybridization.(157-58). It ensures that DNA is transcribed into RNA, which is translated into protein

Transcription and translation

Conclusion