Standardized terminologies and cultural diversity
Tóm tắt
In this paper we will discuss some epistemological aspects of lexical and terminological usage in the international arena, with special reference to the different rhetorics of the social and natural sciences. Sociolinguistic research confined to monolingual communities suggests that close-knit network structure is an important mechanism of language maintenance, in that speakers are able to form a cohesive group capable of resisting pressure, linguistic and social, from outside the group (MILROY, 1987). The concept of a linguistic norm in sociolinguistic theory can be viewed here as the product of “cultural focusing”. In the same way, intercultural communication is characterized by the spreading of standardized terminologies (ISO) and conceptual modes of thinking associated with a common scientific and technological practice in cross-border communities. A basic feature is frequent language interaction, based upon the need for scientific exchange and upon the extralinguistic models conveyed by powerful inter/transnational links and shared scientific paradigms. In this context, an international standard language could be seen as another case of cultural focusing, where intercultural contact would evolve along monocultural lines. However, a formally standardized language may conceal conceptual fuzziness, as has been shown for example in analyses of the kind of language used by social scientists (INTERCOCTA) or found in political rhetoric (ECCRDSS). The semantic and pragmatic differentiations of these latter forms of intercultural communication, and more generally, the interactions between the ordering of knowledge, the transfer of this knowledge through standardized language and the variety of cultural perceptions, call for a polylogic framework that accounts for their coexistence.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Dahlberg, I.: ‘Logical Arrangements of Concepts in Systematic Glossaries’, Frankfurt, March 1984. Report presented to the International Social Science Council under a contract with Unesco, in support of the INTERCOTTA Project.
Felber, H.:Terminology Manual, INFOTERM/Unesco, Paris, 1984.
Gellner, E.: ‘The Scientific Status of the Social Sciences,’ inInternational Social Science Journal 4 (1984), 567–586.
Gerstlé, J.: ‘Concepts, Theories and Research Programmes’, inInternational Social Science Journal, November 1989, 607–616.
Ghils, P.: ‘For a Polylogic Approach to Language’, inLanguage and Language Acquisition, Proceedings of the Fourth LLA Symposium, held in Mons, 1988, Paris: Didier, 1991.
Gudykunst, W. B. (ed.):Intercultural Communication Theory, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, 1983.
Harries, L.: ‘Swahili in Modern East Africa’, in Fishmanet al. (eds.),Language Problems in Developing Nations, Wiley, New York, 1968.
Joseph, J. E.:Eloquence and Power. The Rise of Language Standards and Standard Languages, Frances Pinter, London, 1987.
ISCU (International Council of Scientific Unions):Statement on the Free Circulation of Scientists, 1989.
Kainz H. P.:Paradox, Dialectic and System, Pennsylvania State U.P., 1988.
Knapp, K. and Knapp-Potthoff, A.: ‘Conceptual Issues in Analyzing Intercultural Communication’, in Knapp, K.et al. (eds.),Analyzing Intercultural Communication, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, 1987, pp. 1–14.
Lupasco, S.:Logique et contradiction, Paris: PUF, 1947.
Macdonald, G. and Pettit, P.:Semantics and Social Science, London: Routledge Kegan Paul, London-Boston, 1981.
Melhuish, G.:The Paradoxical Nature of Reality, Bristol: St. Vincent Press, 1973.
Milroy, J. and Milroy, L.:Authority in Language: Investigating Language Prescription and Standardization, London: Routeledge and Kegan Paul, 1985.
Milroy, L.:Language and Social Networks, Basil Blackwell, London, 1987.
Ogden, C. K. and Rochard, I. A.:The Meaning of Meaning, London: Paul, Trench, Trubner, 1923.
Priest, G.In Contradiction, Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhof, 1987.
Riggs, F.:Help for Social Scientists: a New Kind of Reference Process, Paris: Unesco, 1986.
Riggs, F.:The Intercocta Manual: Towards an International Encyclopedia of Social Science Terms, Paris: Unesco, 1988.
Sager, J. C. and Nkwenti-Azeh, B.:Terminological Problems Involved in the Process of Exchange of New Technology between Developing and Developed Countries, Paris: Unesco, 1989.
Shapiro, M. J.:Language and Political Understanding, Yale U.P., New Haven, 1981.
Stoberski, Z.:International Terminology Brings Nations Closer Together, Warsaw, International Organization for the Unification of Terminilogical Neologisms (IOUTN), 1990.
Termia: 1984,Terminology and International Cooperation. Papers from the International Colloquium on Terminology, GIRSTERM, 1985.
Ullmann, S.:The Principles of Semantics, Oxford, 1957.
Van Dijk, T.: ‘Discourse Analysis in the 90s’, inTEXT, Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter, 1/2, 1990, pp. 133–156.
Villain-Gandossi, C. (ed.);Le Vocabulaire des Relations Internationales: l'Acte final d'Helsinki (1975), Vienna: International Social Science Council / European Coordination Centre for Research and Documentation in Social Sciences, 1991.
Waismann, F.: ‘Verifiability’, in A. Flew (ed.),Language and Logic, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1952.