Chapter Twenty
444
have received some attention from cognitively minded linguists, for
example, with regard to what components of concepts are highlighted if
there are several such terms for one concept (Fernández-Silva et al. 2012;
León-Araúz 2015) or what order of constituents is chosen in particular
textual situations (Bowker 1997; Bowker, Hawkins 2006). Thus, the
present chapter appears to be exploring an out-of-the-limelight area in
cognitive terminological studies, the author hoping to publicise this issue
among the cognitive linguistic community.
In the consecutive sections, the notion of term formation principles
and, specifically, terminological transparency is examined first to arrive at
the concept of terminological salience of term components. Then,
eponymic terms and terms with alphanumeric symbols are discussed.
Next, similarities between the use of eponymic terms and terminological
abbreviations are pointed out, followed by some comments on the unstable
nature of certain non-terminological adjectives (such as high, low or early)
used as term components. Finally, certain conclusions are drawn focusing
on notions such as definitional stability.
Terminological transparency
“Term formation principles” is a prescriptive concept stipulating—simply
put—what terms should be like. Sets of term formation principles have
been formulated by a number of terminology researchers. In Poland, a
notable first attempt was that of Prof. Marian Mazur, an engineering
expert, in his work of 1961 (Mazur 1961), where he named 14 “principles
of term correctness”, using such headwords as: universality, preference for
native language, internationality, homogeneity, logicality, systematicity,
monosemy, mononymy and others.
Recommendations on forming terms are also be found in the international
standard ISO 704 Terminology work—principles and methods (ISO-704
2010), developed by ISO’s “terminological” committee ISO TC37. This
document lists 5 term formation principles, beginning with the concept of
term transparency. Transparency is defined in the following way “A term
or appellation is considered transparent when the concept it designates can
be inferred, at least partially, without a definition or an explanation. In
other words, its meaning can be deduced from its parts [emphasis
mine—M.G.].” The definition is supplemented with examples, such as a
comparison of the terms torque wrench and monkey wrench: “torque
wrench (wrench used to measure torque, usually when tightening a nut or
bolt component of an assembly) is transparent while monkey wrench
(wrench named after its inventor, Möncke) is opaque (not transparent).” In