سیر تطور در نظریه‌ های اصطلاح‌شناسی: از تحول واژگانی در نظریۀ عمومی تا دگردیسی واحدهای اصطلاح‌شناختی قالب‌‌بنیان

The core question of this paper is what are the main parameters that have drifted the theoricians and practicians from GTT toward the socio-communicative and cognitive theories of Terminology? It deems that the functional interactions between concepts, word/term, syntax and their interrelation, and even their difference in the units of meaning have led ontologically and epistemologically to the formation and development of various kinds of terminological theories. By differentiating different theories and sub-theories of Terminology according to functional relationships pertaining between concepts, words, terms, syntax and by following up the various contours of this development from lexical turns in the early GTT to the significant transfigurations that have ensued in frame-based terminological units, we have discovered that neither GGT, nor socio-communicative theory and even nor cognitive theory have not considered the importance of syntax; because every syntactical analysis regardless of the language (general or specialized) should be based upon a syntactical theory. Whereas both terminology and syntax have remained conservative toward each other.

We have also witnessed great efforts that terminological theories deploy to differentiate terms and words; these efforts are brought into action to an extent that some theories such as wusterian GGT, consider “terms” «exclusively as linguistic codes» presenting specifically different functionalism in respect to “words” in “general language”. This means that in GGT, Terms and onomasiological organization are predominant in nominating and qualifying specialized terms. Whereas in framed-based terminology, uses “frame” and semasiological organization to present the terminological entries.

Saying so, it deems that the ontological and phenomenological differences of semantic units in GGT and frame-based terminological theory and also inattention toward the context and the structure of technical term formation within GGT in respect to socio-communicative terminology and socio-cognitive terminology, have created some tensions in initial concepts and the very basic presumptions of these theory. This actually opens up the way to the development of other reactional or even opposite theories.

We have also noted that “terms” in communicative terminology are «content-based structures», but this theory, like all others lack, using appropriate syntactical model. Moreover, the formation of meaning is still opaque in communicative theory. In communicative terminology, although the meaning is rendered by its semantic representations, but there is no evidence that how these representations are actualized: we don’t know neither their common points or their divergent points, nor their constraints. Thus, onamasiological organization in communicative terminology, needs to be more clarified.

As for socio-communicative terminology the effort is to offer a complete definition and description of a term; this demands listing thoroughly the whole terminological entries of the given specialized discipline. We also need to propose an ontological model for each notion. But before doing so, we need to consider the relation of categories and their independence from cultural and linguistic context.

Despite this, conceptualization in frame-based cognitive terminology encounters two main problems: Given that language and culture are subjectively represented in all levels of conceptualization, the question rises, logically, about the standard criterion for distinguishing the linguistic units. Meanwhile, since subjective representations are unlimited we may imagine an infinite number of conceptual relationships. Therefore, it appears that “idealized cognitive models” or “prototypical categories” are actually rather subjective and personalized than objective and universal. This will inevitably, affect conceptualization and also terminologisation in cognitive theories and block, for indeed, any effort of normalization according to objective criterion.

Thus, it is necessary to design, for ontological and phenomenological purposes, a specific model (or some specified models) in specialized fields, facilitating by this way, the perception of that field for the specialized users. It is also recommended to create systematic models or common axiological models which allow somewhat structured definitions for each term and which are able to elaborate significant relations of the conceptual and semantic categories in each field of knowledge.