## Terminography and Lexicography. A Critical Survey of Dictionaries from a Single Specialised Field

1. LSP Lexicography and Terminography
2. Dictionary Classification
3. Dictionary Functions and Dictionary Users
4. Text Reception
5. Text Production and Translation
6. Biotec-Lexinome
7. LSP Lexicography or Terminography
8. Literature

## 1. LSP Lexicography and Terminography

LSP lexicographers describe existing terms, they suggest a preference for  specific  terms,  they  standardise  lexicographical  definitions,  and they propose new terms, all according to the terminology of a specific subject field. Terminographers describe existing terms, they suggest a preference for specific terms, they standardise definitions and propose new terms, too. Based on this description of virtually identical objects and aims specialised or LSP lexicography and terminography have been described as synonymous terms (Joly 1986, Bergenholtz 1995a, Wiegand  1995).  This  view  is  shared  by  many  'LSP  describers  and standardisers'  who  regard  themselves  as  lexicographers.  Terminographers  on  the  other  hand,  especially  those  of  the  Vienna  School tradition, have not been known to perceive a similar relation of synonymy. On the contrary, these terminographers stress the dissimilarity between LSP lexicography and terminography, a dissimilarity which they regard not as a difference of degree but as a sweeping difference between two entirely different disciplines. When forming a contrast to terminography the general term lexicography is  usually  preferred  to

* Henning Bergenholtz Centre for Lexicography Handelshøjskolen i Aarhus Fuglesangs Allé 4 DK-8210  Aarhus V HB@lng.hha.dk

* Uwe Kaufmann Agricultural University Afdelingen for Almen Genetik Bülowsvej 13 DK-1870  København V Uwe.Kaufmann@ecoll.kvl.dk

LSP  lexicography,  which  may  only  confuse  matters,  rendering  the impression  that  the  difference  here  lies  between  terminography  and LGP lexicography. At one time the term terminological lexicography was used synonymously with terminography. Finally, we must draw attention to the fact that some terminologists use the term terminology in general without distinguishing between terminology and the subfields of terminology. In the terminology of terminologists terminology is used to designate three different concepts (Sager 1990:3); in the lexicographical terminology we will find either three homonyms or a polysemous lexeme:

1. the set of practises and methods used for the collection, description and presentation of terms
2. a  theory  [...]  for  explaining  the  relationships  between  concepts and terms
3. a vocabulary of a special subject field

As we consider (1) to be a description of terminography (consistent with  Felber/Budin  1989:7),  we  shall  use  this  term  below  and  summarise the arguments put forward by terminologists/ terminographers in  favour  of  a  clear  distinction  between  terminography  and  lexicography/LSP lexicography in the following way:

1. Unlike lexicography, terminology  deals solely  with  LSP language (Dubois 1979:57f., Rey 1979:239, Picht 1985:353, Thomas 1993:44).
2. Unlike  lexicography,  terminography  uses  only  experts  as  informants, whereas lexicography will use any native speaker (Frandsen 1979:24f).
3. Unlike lexicography, terminography is computerised, its results are presented both in the form of paper dictionaries as well as on floppy disk or CD-ROM (Riggs 1989: 107).
4. Terminography  prepares  dictionaries  for  experts,  lexicography  for  laypeople (Svensén 1992:107).
5. Terminography prepares dictionaries for text production, lexicography for text reception (Riggs 1989:90, Roald 1987:11).
6. Terminography is entirely synchronic, whereas lexicography also prepares diachronic descriptions (Wüster 1985:102).
7. Terminography  is  primarily  prescriptive,  whereas  lexicography  is  primarily descriptive (Riggs 1989:89, Maidahl Christiansen/ Duvå/Laursen 1994:272).

8. Terminography  takes  an  onomasiological  approach,  whereas  lexicography takes a semasiological approach (Riggs 1989:89, Maidahl Christiansen/Duvå/Laursen 1994:276).
9. Lexicography  deals  with  polysemous  lexemes.  Terminography  has  no polysemy, but there may be several terms to one concept (Riggs 1989:107, Roald 1987:9).
10. In terminography all work is based on a systematic classification, this is not the case with lexicography (Roald 1987:6f, Felber/ Budin 1989:139).
11. Terminographers describe concept relations, whereas lexicographers take a linguistic approach (Felber/Budin 1989:139).
12. Unlike lexicography terminography prefers a systematic macrostructure to an alphabetic macrostructure (Roald 1987:6, Riggs 1989:91, Felber/Budin 1989:139, Picht 1985:366ff).
13. Terminography  deals  with  concepts  and  terms  and  not  with  linguistic signs (Felber/Budin 1989:139).
14. Lexicography allows for specific user types and user situations, whereas terminography draws selectively upon specific knowledge profiles from a knowledge bank (Picht 1992:31).

Many of the differences stated are not genuine. You may get the impression that there is an almost frantic search for differences, perhaps in an effort  to  present  terminography  as  something  really  unique  (Bergenholtz  1995a  and  1995b).  All  the  arguments  presented  as  typical  of terminology/terminography in (1), (2), (3), and (10) also apply to LSP lexicography. The importance of (8) is not completely unequivocal, but if the meaning is almost the same as in (10) this argument also applies to LSP lexicography. (6), (7), and (9) contain no clear differences, as the arguments also tend to apply to LSP lexicography. If the arguments in (4), (5), and (14) apply to LSP lexicography in general, a difference could undoubtedly be established. As to (11) a misunderstanding is at hand; as to (12) this difference is not genuine. Only (13) contains a true difference as to choice of semiotic theory and the consideration or lack of  consideration  for  actual  user  types.  We  will  comment  briefly  on some of the points mentioned:

It  goes without saying that LSP lexicography uses only experts as informants  (2),  but  LGP  lexicography  also  involves  experts  when dealing with words relating to a specific subject field. The preface of most LSP dictionaries and major general language dictionaries will say so.

It is a historical fact that terminologists have put the computer to use as  an  aid  (3)  much  earlier  than  many  lexicographers,  including  LSP lexicographers,  but  today  nearly  the  entire  field  of  lexicography  has been 'computerised' as well.

A contrast may exist between the arguments in (4) and (14), but even if argument (14) is to be understood in accordance with (4), the level of fundamental knowledge of a specific subject field will be so different between various users  that  they  will  not  be  able  to  selectively  draw upon specific knowledge profiles. Almost every entryword has been thoroughly  dealt  with  in  bulky  dictionaries,  the  content  of  which  is incomprehensible to anyone but sole experts and totally irrelevant to certain users. In our opinion information about different user situations and knowledge levels (cf. ch. 6) must be included at this point. Products of  LSP  lexicography  are  sometimes  aimed  at  experts,  sometimes  at laypeople (4), sometimes they are intended for text production, sometimes for reception, sometimes for translation, often for more than one of the functions (5), but LSP lexicography often takes specific functions and user types into consideration (14).

Terminography is often prescriptive (7), but so is LSP lexicography. In some countries lexical lexicography is primarily descriptive (e.g. in Denmark). In other countries it is far more prescriptive (e.g. in Iceland). In all countries, however, LSP lexicography tends to be more prescriptive than LGP lexicography, but we have witnessed a publishing house wanting prescriptive information in an LSP dictionary removed on the grounds that it cannot be the business of a dictionary to inform whether a  certain  usage  of  a  word  is  wrong  or  not.  In  a  common  language context this  may be open to discussion, but not in an LSP language context.

There is no distinctive difference between lexicography and terminography in terms of conception and treatment of polysemy and homonymy (9). Here we might add that a number of common language dictionaries actually do exist which in principle do not offer the possibility of polysemy, but lemmatise each polyseme in different semantic fields, e.g.  SCHUMACHER (1986).  Major  general  language  dictionaries  will usually give the different meanings of a certain lexeme within the same dictionary article, but in an LSP language context this argument is weak if  dealing  with  a  single-field  dictionary  or  a  subfield  dictionary.  The example from Roald (1987:9) regarding the expression morphology is not polyseme at all in neither a linguistic, nor a medical, nor a geological dictionary. On the contrary, there is only a small degree of polysemy within a wide number of subject fields. In KAUFMANN/ BERGENHOLTZ,  for  instance,  out  of  2,500  dictionary  articles  only  three  have more than one meaning.

Many LSP dictionaries may be criticised for treating the single LSP terms in an isolated manner (10), and rightly so. To work on the basis of a systematic classification has not been patented by terminographers, but has been demanded and also put to use by LSP lexicographers (e.g. Pedersen 1995).

The nature of linguistic methods in lexicographical work is certainly open to discussion, but the description of concept relations and projections (11) or systematic relations must and should be dealt with not only by terminography, but also by (LSP) linguistics.

In a way it is somewhat surprising that the macrostructural argument is emphasised so strongly by terminographers (12), when at the same time they rightly point to other media than paper dictionaries. On a CDROM access structure is crucial to the user, whereas macrostructure is of  no  further  importance. Naturally, you can give access to lemmata within  the  same  node  of  the  systematic  classification,  or  you  can provide a few, all of, or some of the dictionary articles directly relating to the subject field together with the article requested. When dealing with paper dictionaries there is no real contrast either. There is a wide number of thesauruses and systematically constructed encyclopaedias. In practise, both an alphabetic and a systematic macrostructure have advantages  as  well  as  disadvantages  (Nielsen  1995).  It  may  be  more lucrative to choose a partly systematic macrostructure, if a major LSP dictionary is published in smaller parts over a number of years. In this case you would benefit from having a systematic basic classification, sorting out the specific paragraphs alphabetically (Wüster 1936:167). The  mixed  macrostructure  may  also  be  lucrative  when  dealing  with single volume dictionaries. It was the structure most widely known in the LSP dictionaries of the Middle Ages, and it is also found in recent single  volume  dictionaries,  e.g.  in  the  German  monolingual  valency dictionary mentioned above (SCHUMACHER). In our opinion, the crucial aspect is not the manner of presentation, but the methodical approach during  the  preparation  of  LSP  dictionaries,  in  which  a  systematic classification is an important prerequisite for absorbing the information relevant  to  the  subject  field.  Here,  LSP  metalexicography  is  in  total accordance with the apostle of the terminologists: 'bei der Sammlung der in ein Fachwörterbuch aufzunehmenden Wörter kann man eigentlich gar nicht anders vorgehen als systematisch' (Wüster 1936:137).

When speaking of semiotic theory and the theoretical language connected to this, we encounter the only aspect which clearly distinguishes LSP lexicography from terminography (13). Whereas lexicographers speak of lemma, dictionary article and linguistic sign with content and expression, terminologists speak of independent concepts and expressions. Since both objects, methods and aims are largely identical for  terminography  and  LSP  lexicography,  we  believe  that  this  is  a typical example of two disciplines competing for the same resources and the same impact.

## 2. Dictionary Classification

Dictionaries are traditionally divided into language dictionaries, encyclopaedias and encyclopaedic dictionaries. This classification is used most consistently in a librarian context (Andersen 1990). The argumentation  is  more  or  less  the  following:  Language  dictionaries  provide information about the language and only about the subject field in as far as this is necessary to the correct usage or understanding of linguistic expressions.  Encyclopaedias,  however,  provide  information  about things or about a subject and only about the language in as far as this is necessary to the understanding of the subject matter. Finally, there are encyclopaedic dictionaries which aim at being both language dictionaries and encyclopaedias. The librarian classification has been adopted in the preface of many dictionaries and has also been used in a variety of modifications in metalexicographical literature, albeit in such a way that  the  encyclopaedic  dictionaries  have  been  projected  to  either  the language dictionaries or the encyclopaedias. To illustrate this we may take the classification suggested by Schaeder (1994:22):

<!-- image -->

To  our  knowledge  this  classification  is  really  based  on  a  division between common and specialised language. According to Schaeder's extended classification there are language dictionaries which belong to the subcategory of LSP dictionaries:

<!-- image -->

Here,  Schaeder  refers  to  Wiegand  (1988)  who  uses  and  defines  the dictionary types mentioned, but in an entirely different manner, since LSP dictionary in this case is not a category of its own as part of the group of encyclopaedias, but corresponding with the non-standardised usage  is  used  both  about  language  dictionaries,  encyclopaedias  and encyclopaedic dictionaries. They can be separated according to their respective genuine purposes:

<!-- image -->

Admittedly, we adopted this classification as part of the description in the  preface  of  KAUFMANN/BERGENHOLTZ.  In  principle,  we  wish  to maintain  this  division,  yet  justify  it  somewhat  differently  to  how Wiegand did, as we wish to build more conclusively on the genuine function  of  dictionaries,  namely  the  functions  that  a  reference  book may fulfil or intends to fulfil.

## 3. Dictionary Functions and Dictionary Users

Wiegand's analysis presumes the division between linguistic and nonlinguistic objects (Wiegand 1988:776f), i.e. between information about the  qualities  of  LSP  terms  and  information  about  specialised  objects (Wiegand  1994:107f).  At  first,  this  description  reminds  you  of  the classification  of  libraries.  It  is  an  entirely  different  classification, though, with completely different arguments and completely different results.  This  is  evident  from  the  dictionary  quotations  given,  since extracts  from  monolingual  specialised  dictionaries  are  given  for  all three  basic  types.  The  difference  between  the  various  dictionaries  is what  they  intend  to  inform  about,  not  which  information  type  they contain.  We  consider  this  basic  concept  to  be  very  lucrative  to  the metalexicographical discussion as well as to the preparation of actual dictionaries. A user may need to know about the qualities of a specific object, but in our opinion the interpretation of this is too unspecific. It is  quite  obvious  that  dictionary  users  may  need  to  gain  information about the subject matter. Things get clearer if you determine the two basic needs as text-dependent and text-independent use of lexicographical  and non-lexicographical reference books. Reference books are traditionally used for a number of basic functions, cf. below (in which L1 = native language and L2 = foreign language):

1. reception of L1-texts
2. production of L1-texts
3. reception of L2-texts
4. production of L2-texts
5. L1 -> L2 translation
6. L2 -> L1 translation
7. acquisition of encyclopaedic information
8. acquisition of linguistic information

Functions 1-6 are text-dependent, whereas 7-8 apply to text-independent functions; 8 is not relevant in this connection as function in its own right and 7 is considered in 1-6.

This description does not imply the necessity of a separate dictionary for each of the functions mentioned. On the contrary, most dictionaries are multifunctional, as they intend to serve several functions simultaneously. This is done in LGP dictionaries (which include common language only), in single-field or multi-field dictionaries (which include one or more specialised languages), and in general language dictionaries  (which  intend  to  include  both  common  language  and  the  most important parts of the specialised languages). A multifunction is often intended in terms of knowledge requirement, which may be described more  or  less  adequately  by  the  terms  laypeople,  semi-experts,  and experts. Whether this sort of multifunction is really appropriate will be discussed in the following chapters.

As stated above the opinion presented here leads to a classification of reference books which differs in theory as well as practise from the library  directed  differentiation  based  on  information  categories.  We consider it to be compatible with Wiegand (1988) and (1994).

<!-- image -->

·

·

·

To each of the lower nodes of this graph (language for special purposes) you have to add a division into knowledge levels which according to subject  field  and  intended  user  functions  may  be  more  or  less  finemeshed. The minimum requirement would undoubtedly be a division into laypeople, semi-experts and experts.

<!-- image -->

We will not enter into a discussion as to how available dictionaries may be  adopted  into  this  classification  (cf.  Bergenholtz  1996).  We  will concentrate on the utility value of available terminological and lexicographical  reference  books  within  a  specific  field,  namely  that  of biotechnology. This area is defined in various ways. We presume the description presented by Dreux de Nettancourt in 1975. He identified three main areas of the 'new biology': enzyme technology and bioreactors, transfer of genetic information between organisms and the molecular understanding of disease. Using this definition with special emphasis on gene technology we have selected some dictionaries for the following discussion.

## 4. Text Reception

There is an old tradition of differentiating between laypeople and experts, but a much more detailed classification can also be made (Kalverkämper  1990).  In  this  context,  i.e.  the  evaluation  of  dictionaries,  in which information concerning text reception on biotechnological problems can be found, we will adopt a rather rough classification, which distinguishes  between  laypeople,  semi-experts,  and  experts.  By laypeople is meant potential dictionary users who have no knowledge of the basic theories of biotechnology, or the basic knowledge only, which corresponds with the general understanding with the part of the population that has obtained a higher education. We have chosen to make this description rather vague and it covers a wide range of knowledge. The group must be differentiated from the group of semi-experts who also constitute a heterogeneous group, but on a higher level of knowledge. These are experts from other related subject fields, in this case physicians,  biologists,  biochemists,  veterinary  physicians,  etc.,  and such workers of the public and private sector who are confronted daily by  biotechnological  information.  They  may  be  general  advisers  on science and technology whose daily job it is to advise politicians on a municipal and county level. They may also be journalists at local or national newspapers who are confronted with this controversial subject on a regular basis. One can also imagine certain politicians and other opinion leaders to have made themselves so familiar with biotechnology  that  they  may  be  regarded  as  semi-experts.  Usually,  however, these groups - like many journalists - would be counted as educated laypeople at best. Finally, in terms of biotechnological subfields which are wide apart from the specialised knowledge of an expert, biotechnological experts must also be described as semi-experts. A true expert will have no reception problems within his own field. He may have to acquire new knowledge, but he is not likely to find this in any lexicographical dictionary. Where semi-experts and experts tend to read English specialist literature and thus may encounter reception problems of a  linguistic  nature,  the  interested  layman  will  usually  be  confronted with native language texts (L1-texts) and thus consult an L1-dictionary. Apart from this, the educated layman may read periodicals or books on the subject and thus may need the assistance of an encyclopaedic L2 -> L1-dictionary.

Daily any layman will hear an expression from the biotechnological world in the paper, on radio or television. It is an area which develops constantly  and  also  an  area  which  makes  frequent  headlines  in  the news, since some people are fascinated by the new technological possibilities while others are alarmed or feel insecure. When a biotechnological layman hears or reads an expression like this he may look for further information about the expression that he either does not understand or of which he is uncertain. In the following we have consulted some major dictionaries and encyclopaedias for a few important terms. There are many dictionaries available to laypeople, including general language dictionaries, and minor and major encyclopaedias. We have consulted some of these books for terms which you may encounter in the daily paper or on television: gene , chromosome , DNA , gene modification , amino acid , enzyme and bacteriophage . Some of these terms are absolutely central to the ongoing discussion, others are somewhat less important, but not less relevant; they may, for instance, appear in connection with the marketing of biotechnological products. When evaluating the single dictionary articles we will focus on three criteria: Is the content of the article correct? Is the information relevant? And is the information comprehensible to the user group in question?

Monolingual dictionaries often include biotechnological entries, but besides being extremely few in number they appear to be the result of a random selection, and though apparently comprehensible, the information  content  is  often  downright  wrong,  cf.  the  article gene from HARRAP:

gene Your genes are the parts of the cells in your body responsible for passing on some of your physical characteristics to your children.

The definition is comprehensible, but wrong in several ways. Judging from this text the layman has to assume that genes only exist in humans. Furthermore, the dictionary user is told that genes are strictly something which is passed on from one generation to the next, whereas the activity  of  genes,  which  is  vital  for  sustaining  the  complicated  biochemical instrument inside living beings, is totally overlooked.

It is almost to easy to find misleading information in dictionaries for  laypeople;  COBUILD states  that  genes  exist  in  living  things  only, thereby wrongly precluding the fact that genes exist in vira:

gene A gene is the part of a cell in a living thing which controls  its  physical  characteristics,  growth,  and  development. Genes can change and reproduce themselves and they  are  passed  on  from  one  generation  to  another,  for example from parents to their children.

However,  the  short  description  of  the  gene  functions  in  COBUILD is informative and easy to understand. The same goes for the article in DUDEN-GWB which does not mention the fact that genes are passed on from one generation to the next:

Gen in den Chromosomen lokalisierter Träger einer Erbanlage, eines Erbfaktors, der die Ausbildung eines bestimmten Merkmals bestimmt, beeinflußt; Erbträger.

Genes are located on the chromosomes . The term appears frequently in the  media,  e.g.  in  connection  with  gene  therapy  which  is  a  way  of treating hereditary diseases by alterating the chromosomes and thus the balance between the remaining genes found on the chromosomes. A layman may want to get more detailed information about the nature of chromosomes  and  the functions performed  by  these.  LONGMAN CULTURE states the following:

chromosome a  threadlike  object  found  in  all  living  cells, which passes on and controls the nature, character, etc. of a young plant, animal, or cell.

The  text  is  misleading,  because  it  gives  the  indication  that  chromosomes are found exclusively in young plants, animals, or cells. Naturally, they are also found in older plants and animals, but not in bacteria, since bacterial chromosomes are not regarded as having a threadlike structure.  Furthermore,  the  user  is  not  given  the  important  piece  of information that chromosomes actually carry the genes. The following article from DUDEN-GWB is not directly misleading, but linguistically almost incomprehensible because of the rugged language. Besides, it is too complicated for a layman in terms of specialised language:

Chromosom in jedem Zellkern in artverschiedener Anzahl u. Gestalt  vorhandenes,  das  Erbgut  eines  Lebewesens  tragendes, fadenförmiges Gebilde.

It is possible, however, to explain these correlations in a way which is both comprehensible to laypeople and yet gives the relevant information. An example of this can be found in HERITAGE SCIENCE:

chromosome any of the threadlike bodies found in the nucleus of a cell that appear when the cell divides. Chromosomes are derived from the parents and carry the genes that  determine  heredity.  The  genetic  material  in  each chromosome is a long polynucleotide strand of DNA in association with protein.

In  major  CD-ROM encyclopaedias,  e.g.  GROLIER and  ENCARTA,  you may also find explanations which are comprehensible to laypeople, yet usually not as brief as the example above. The description of DNA in ENCARTA,  for  example,  comprises  14  pages  when  transferred  to  the printer. Consequently, the user who wishes to find a concise explanation must surf around on the CD-ROM for a longer period of time and may have to read his way through several pages. To a semi-expert the information given is usually not so precise as to make it totally relevant. Besides, just like the layman, the semi-expert often has to read many screen pages or surf around before managing to find all of or some of the wanted information. In other words, you might say that available major CD-ROM encyclopaedias do offer the layman adequate information, but the search itself may be time consuming, since the medium elaborates  very  quickly  on  a  wide  number  of  available  information which is not central to the understanding of the matter. If such CDROM editions were to foresee different types of explanations of the same matter  (cf. suggestion in ch. 6), this would be an advantage.

With very few exceptions the molecular basis of the structure and function  of  genes  are  attached  to  the  world's  biggest  biomolecule: DNA, i.e. deoxyribonucleic acid. The expression is known in the media and is usually associated with the alteration of the molecule performed in the lab by biotechnologists. To the user who wishes to obtain more information  on  this  biochemical  key  molecule,  ordinary  dictionaries would  be  the  immediate  source  of  information,  but  this  is  not  done without  certain  problems.  In  Harrap  neither DNA , deoxyribonucleic acid nor nucleic acid is  found  as  an  entryword.  In  DUDEN-GWB you search in vain for DNA , but under DNS , the earlier German name for DNA , you find a reference to the antiquated name Desoxyribonukleinsäure . You cannot find the now common name Deoxyribonukleinsäure . Thus, it requires a great deal of insight to get on the track of DNA. The explanation itself is misleading, since DNA presence is mentioned only in connection with plants and animals. The amount of DNA found in bacteria  and  vira  is  not  mentioned  at  all.  In  COBUILD DNA is  found without difficulty. The text is comprehensible, but the specification of DNA presence is misleading, as the article indicates that DNA is found in the centre of the cells of living things which must be understood as higher organisms. Thus, the presence of DNA in bacteria and vira has been overlooked.

Gene  modification,  gene  manipulation,  gene  splicing or genetic engineering, all of them synonymous terms, are absolutely central in the  public  debate.  Especially  in  the  light  of  the  first  'gene  spliced product', gene modified tomato purée, being sold in England since the beginning of 1996, which product is also marked by this term on the declaration of contents, incidentally by an agreement between the producer and various distributors. If a purchasor of such a product tries to look up one of these terms in his dictionary, in most cases he will be disappointed: It is not found in COBUILD, HARRAP or LONGMAN CULTURE as an entryword. A few dictionaries do give the term, in this case through a comprehensible and even correct explanation, e.g. in HERITAGE SCIENCE both under gene-splicing and genetic engineering , and in DUDEN-GWB under Genmanipulation .

Some  laypeople  may  assume  that  an enzyme is  a  component  of detergents, but if you come across the term in a biotechnological context, in DUDEN-GWB you will find the following explanation:

Enzym in  der  lebenden  Zelle  gebildete  organische  Verbindung, die den Stoffwechsel des Organismus steuert; Ferment.

This  explanation  is  comprehensible,  but  not  entirely  correct,  as  enzymes do not control biochemical processes, but influence the reaction rate of these. In LONGMAN CULTURE the explanation is comprehensible, but still it manages to present three mistakes in four lines of a narrow dictionary column. From the explanation you get the impression that just  a  few  living  cells  produce  and  contain  enzymes.  This  is  wrong, since all life depends on the presence of enzymes. Furthermore, explanations  indicate  that  enzymes  in  plants  and  animals  may  induce  the biochemical  processes  of  these  to  happen  with  increased  speed.  Enzymes will always increase the rate of a reaction. Finally, enzymes are found not only in plants and animals, but in bacteria also.

enzyme a catalyst produced by certain living cells, which can cause chemical change in plants or animals or can make these changes happen more quickly, without being changed itself.

As  a  counterweight  to  these  critical  remarks  we  must  add  that  it  is possible  to  find  articles  in  almost  all  dictionaries  which  are  both elegant, well-defined as well as correct and relevant. This is the case of the lexicographical definition in OXFORD ENCYCLOPEDIC DICTIONARY:

enzyme any of a class of large molecules, consisting entirely or  chiefly  of  protein,  found  in  all  cells  and  essential  to life,  that  act  as  catalysts  of  biochemical reactions in all living organisms. They may work within a cell or (as with digestive enzymes) outside it. The shape of each enzyme is such that it catalyses only a specific type of reaction.

Generally, however, you cannot rely upon the information of reference books for laypeople. This is evident in connection with bacteriophage . The first two examples are taken from HERITAGE SCIENCE and BROCKHAUS/WAHRIG, resp.:

bacteriophage a virus that destroys various bacteria, normally present in the intestines, blood, etc.

Bakteriophage bakterienzerstörendes, virusartiges Gebilde

It is not correct to say that bacteriophages destroy bacteria. They attack bacteria. More precisely, bacteriophages are vira whose host cells are bacteria, and sometimes they destroy their hosts. But general language dictionaries do not only copy information from each other or from the more reliable specialised reference books, where such exist, they write their own new, but still incorrect articles, cf. a particularly misleading article  in  DUDEN-GWB,  a  monolingual  German  dictionary  in  eight volumes:

## Bakteriophage virenähnliches Kleinstlebewesen, das Bakterien vernichtet

The objections raised above are also valid here. Add to this, it is wrong to  say  that  bacteriophages  are  'Kleinstlebewesen'.  They  have  never lived.

Unlike  reference  books  for  laypeople,  dictionaries  intended  for semi-experts are usually written by molecular biological experts and thus  only  in  exceptional  cases  contain  inaccuracies  as  to  specialised terms.  A  criticism  of  these  works  would  be  based  on  the  fact  that several of them comprise less than 1,000 terms and thus offer only the terms most central, but perhaps not always the terms of which a semiexperts may feel unsure. Furthermore, you have to notice that a large part of these works are in English, especially American English. This may be sufficient for semi-experts, as semi-experts often read texts in English, but such dictionaries offer no help to the semi-expert who does not have English as his mother tongue and who may need to produce a text in or translate a text into or from his native language.

## 5. Text Production and Translation

The semi-expert who works as an adviser in the public sector must orally or in writing - be able to explain a problem relating to a certain subject field in such a way as to make it comprehensible to a layman. This explanation must be accurate, but not necessarily very detailed. If there is a need for a more in-depth illustration of a problem, the semiexpert may have to turn to specialised literature which at times may not be easily obtained. For this the semi-expert will need an explanatory dictionary which, apart from the more important terms, contain more peripheral terms as well. There are a number of biotechnological dictionaries which are quite satisfactory in fulfilling the requirements of a specialised field in order to assist the semi-expert, but hardly any of them offer enough assistance, as they contain a too limited number of entrywords. Thus, explanations of these terms are not only lacking, but information  on  orthography,  including  the  use  of  hyphens  etc.,  and grammatical usage are nowhere to be found. On the whole, available dictionaries  offer  only  a  few  explicit  grammatical  information  items and almost no implicit collocational information, i.e. information about the word combinations surrounding a specific term. Examples of such dictionaries  are  AGRICULTURE (appr.  2,500  entries),  BIOTECHNOLOGY FROM A TO Z (250 entries), BIOTECHNOLOGY GLOSSARY (700 entries), BRAND (600 entries), COOMBS (4,700 entries), GLOSSARY OF BIOTECHNOLOGICAL TERMS (239 entries), OLIVER/WARD (600 entries), WALKER/ COX (1,530 entries). In principle, there is a wide number of implicit grammatical and collocational information items in the encyclopaedic explanations and in the quotations given by e.g. HERITAGE SCIENCE. In one  respect,  general  language  dictionaries  such  as  DUDEN-GWB and COBUILD are better suited as a text production tool than the monolingual biotechnological dictionaries, as they will usually contain more explicit grammatical  information  items.  These  dictionaries,  however,  do  not give the relevant collocational information items.

The latter problem is even bigger in terms of translation. Available dictionaries are not very well suited for translation purposes. Specialised bi- and multilingual dictionaries are usually mere word lists with lemmata in the source language, which are accompanied by their foreign-language equivalent(s). Providing neither encyclopaedic  nor grammatical  nor  collocational  information,  such  dictionaries  at  best confirm  the  expert's  own  assumptions,  but  layman  and  semi-expert alike will find them unsuitable for reception and translation purposes. Several equivalents addressed to the same lemma pose a special problem, as the layman translator will be in no position to know whether or not this is a case of full synonymy (BABEL et al. 1991):

biotin Biotin, Vitamin H

biotinylated DNA biotinylierte  DNA,  mit  Biotin  markierte

DNA

biotop Biotop

biotransformation Biotransformation, biologische Stoffwandlung

This is the case of the typical bilingual LSP dictionary of which there is a wide number, e.g. SCHMIDT/FUKUI and LH. But a very few, such as KUCERA, contain some encyclopaedic information and rather explicit grammatical  and  some  collocational  information  items.  Two  of  the dictionaries which apart from information on equivalence also contain several types of encyclopaedic information are more interesting.

GLOSSARY OF BIOTECHNOLOGICAL TERMS comprise seven languages: American  English,  French,  German,  Japanese,  Portuguese,  Russian, and Spanish. There are brief, well-written and accurate lexicographical definitions  in  each  language  which  are  all  translations  of  originally English texts. An index allows you to get to and from the languages stated. The preface of the dictionary states that it aims to contribute as a translation tool which for several reasons it cannot do this without restrictions. First of all, it contains no grammatical and collocational information,  and  secondly,  there  are  only  239  terms  in  all  which  is absolutely inadequate in any translation situation. Finally, we may add that the dictionary considers itself to be a contribution to standardising specialised  language  within  the  framework  of  IUPAC  (International Union in Pure and Applied Chemistry). With as little as 239 entries this objective can be fulfilled in a modest way only.

According to the preface of the dictionary of 1995 above this is the first biotechnological dictionary with this number of languages, but the editors  must  have  overlooked  BIOTECHNOLOGY GLOSSARY of  1990, which was published somewhat earlier by the European Commission with  the  intention  of  procuring  a  translation  tool.  This  dictionary  is about three times the size of the dictionary above and does also give lexicographical definitions. However, these are not given every time and there are no translations, since defining quotations are chosen in the various languages. The result is a certain irregularity, since some of the definitions are very thorough, mostly aimed at semi-experts, whereas others are very brief and easy to understand:

## EN structural gene

RF Rieger Genetics

DF Any gene (representing a unique segment of geneticmaterial) that determines the primary structure (the aminoacid sequence) of a polypeptide by genetic transcriptionand genetic translation of the genetic code contained inits nucleotide sequence.

## FR gène de structure

RF Biofutur 1/85 p.32

DF Gène qui contient l'information nécessaire à la synthèse d'une protéine et qui est exprimé à l'aide de l'opérateur et du promoteur au sein d'une unité de régulation dite opéron.

## DE Struktur-G

RF Spiegel 52/82

DF Strukturgene codieren für die Primärstruktur der Enzymproteine. Für das An- und Abschalten der Funktion der Strukturgene ist der Operator verantwortlich. Der Promotor ist der Startpunkt der RNS-Synthese. Diese drei Gentypen bilden zusammen eine Steuereinheit die Operon heisst.

- IT gene strutturale

RF FAST Bio, p.159

- NL structurgen(1); structureel gen(2)

RF COM(79)793(1); Biotechnologie Teleac, p.75(2)

- DA struktur-gen(1); strukturelt gen(2)

RF Genetisk ordb.; p.7(1); Claus Christiansen(2)

- ES gen estrutural

RF Invest. y Ciencia 4/85, p.9

- PT gene estrutural RF

Enzimas, p.131

- El dogiks gonidio RF Mourkishz: Biol. Chmeia, sel.259

At this point we wanted to present the definition of gene, but the term is nowhere to be found in this dictionary as a general term, only as a part of 22 compounds such as gene amplification and the structural gene quoted here. The English definition (marked by DF) is correct, incidentally it has been taken from one of the best genetic dictionaries (RIEGER et  al.  1991)  which  is  designed  for  experts  and  quoted  here  from  the 1976 edition. The French definition is too narrow, since it comprises structural genes in bacteria exclusively. The German definition taken as a quotation from the weekly Spiegel is very close to the French definition, but has clearly been written by a layman who is not quite in control of the terminology required. Because of the inaccuracy relating to the subject field, the lack of grammatical and collocational information and most particularly the lack of lemmatisation of the main entryword gene , this dictionary cannot fulfil the needs of a translator of biotechnological texts to the full. The choice of some of the terms is not convincing either: The common phrase in German is not Struktur-G , but Strukturgen (as  stated  in  the  definition),  in  Danish  it  is  neither struktur-gen nor strukturelt gen , but simply strukturgen . By often stating several equivalents  the  dictionary  -  also  corresponding  with  the  terminographical background  -  does  not  fulfil  the  standardising  function  that  such  a dictionary may be expected to aim for.

The function 'translation' is connected to a somewhat complicated systematic macrostructure:

'This glossary was originally conceived as an aid to translators faced with technical texts relating to biotechnology. [...] With this in mind it was decided to subdivide the work into a series of chapters, each dealing with a field in which biotechnology has made particularly spectacular inroads. In addition, one chapter has been devoted to the basic terminology of molecular biology, which constitutes the foundation of biotechnological research.' (English Introduction, p. 1).

The systematic structure of the dictionary is based on the basic area(s) of molecular biology and eight other special areas derived from that. As stated in the preface, the macrostructure is motivated by the needs of the translator. It is difficult to understand the nature of this advantage, however,  when  comparing  the  'concepts'  within  each  subdivision. There is no doubt that certain correlations exist within the various subdivisions,  e.g.  between cell  fusion , hybridoma , protoplast  fusion .  In many other cases a comparison does not reveal any correlation between the 'concepts' nested together. This is true of the pages immediately preceding the 'concepts' above: hybridization probe , somatic cell hybridization , nucleic acids hybridization , protoplast fusion . Admittedly, the terms are identical or partly mutual, but within the framework of the systematic classification they are not related. There is no subject field relation. Here, we are really dealing with false friends, whose closeness in the macrostructure will confuse the translator rather than help him. The collective terms of hybridization and fusion conceal the differences.

In the case of hybridization probe the molecule in question is a small nucleic acid which is labelled. This piece of nucleic acid can recognise a specific sequence in a larger DNA fragment and hybridise by hydrogen bonds. In this way the probe labels the DNA fragment of interest. Concerning somatic cell hybridisation somatic cells are maintained in culture. By the use of different treatments some of these cells are able to  fuse  resulting  in  a  new  cell  which  contains  the  genomes  of  both mother  cells.  These  hybridoma  cells  are  very  useful  i.e.  to  produce monoclonal antibodies. The following term nucleic acids hybridisation brings us back to the area of molecular hybridisation. In this case, two larger single stranded nucleic acids are redoing each other forming a double  strand  by  the  use  of  hydrogen  bonds.  The  process  is  called annealing. Next to this we get the term protoplasts . Here we return to the cell fusion field. The cells involved are most often plant cells which have lost their cell wall by a suitable enzymatic treatment with different cellulases.

It is a matter of doubt whether a translator without a certain knowledge of molecular biology will be able to produce a quality translation. If the translator possesses such knowledge he will be bothered only by the 'systematic classification', which is really not systematic at all. In this case he would be able to find the wanted entryword more quickly if an alphabetic macrostructure had been chosen. In a different dictionary with  a  more  correct  systematic  structure  presumably  the  translator would  still  prefer  the  alphabetic  order  since  each  term  takes  up  the space of an entire page and yet he does not obtain several subject field related terms at a glance.

## 6. Biotec-Lexinome

The lexicographical and terminographical reference books within the field of biotechnology have shown that some criticism may be adduced against a large part of the dictionaries. The lexicographical dictionaries for  laypeople  contain  a  wide  amount  of  inaccuracies  relating  to  the subject field. Several of them have lexicographical definitions which are intended for semi-experts rather than laypeople. This is also true of the terminographical dictionaries whose systematic macrostructure is not convincing. Furthermore, they are non standardised, as opposed to some of the lexicographical dictionaries for semi-experts. For several lexicographical and all terminographical dictionaries to be useful tools in  native-language  text  production  and  translation  they  are  not  very well  designed,  especially  because  of  lacking  grammatical  and  collocational information.

How should a dictionary on biotechnology be designed in order to fulfil the requirements of certain user groups? We do not claim to have the only possible answer, but we do claim that it is possible to avoid some of the shortcomings and sources of error described in the previous chapters.

It is not a matter of creed, i.e. between the traditions of lexicography and terminography. In the case of biotechnology some lexicographical dictionaries were definitely more convincing, but that may also have been due to the small number of terminographical dictionaries on this topic.  It  is  important  that  the  work  be  based  on  a  systematic  classification which forms the basis of the selection of the empirical basis, the selection of lemmata, the preparation of lexicographical definitions and the preparation of an encyclopaedic section. Since the project implies  the  preparation  of  a  CD-ROM  version  the  user  may  have  the macrostructure of his own choice, i.e. an alphabetic arrangement, a systematic arrangement or an alphabetic arrangement of lemmata within a certain part of the systematic classification.

The  dictionary  planned  is  titled  BIOTEC-LEXINOME.  'Biotec-'  is short for biotechnology, 'Lexinome' is a neologism which represents a highly multifunctional dictionary, designed in order to provide information concerning both text-dependent and text-independent problems.

The project is subtitled 'Information about Biotechnology with a Special View to Mediators and Decision Makers'. In other words, the prime concern is information about biotechnology, an area which, like computer  technology,  is  experiencing  rapid  growth  both  in  terms  of basic and applied research. Even now, 25 years after the breakthrough of biotechnology, many industrial products, including pharmaceuticals and  food,  are  manufactured  by  means  of  biotechnological  methods. This share is bound to increase in the years to come.

This  development  does  not  arouse  universal  enthusiasm  with  the general public who tends to see the technology and the possible consequences as being dangerous. This anxiety may be well-grounded, it may also be a natural fear  of  something  that  is  new  and  difficult  to understand.  The  fear  may  be  justified  in  some  areas,  but  not  in  all. Independently of the attitude of the single man, no rational discussion can be made until there is a certain amount of knowledge on the subject. The present state of things may be explained by the lack of correct and easily comprehensible information. The information available is communicated by professional mediators, i.e. journalists and experts mostly.  The  information  communicated  by  experts  and  semi-experts  to decision makers in the public sector and the political committees is of particular importance. A large part of the information available is available only in American English which may pose an additional problem, and since American contexts are logically accentuated and referred to, the rest of the English-speaking world may have a problem with this, too. Naturally, it poses a special problem to all other native languages.

Consequently, dictionaries are primarily aimed at two distinct user types: mediators and decision makers, i.e. politicians and civil servants who make executive  decisions  concerning  biotechnological  research and biotechnological products, including those applied in medical treatments. Special attention is also given the needs of the people who in newspapers, on radio or television, in books and brochures inform of these decisions, the ongoing research and the products.

Mediators cover a wide field ranging from journalists at small provincial newspapers to writers of popular-science articles at magazines for semi-experts (such as Scientific American). In the former case some journalists  may  be  considered  laypeople,  in  the  latter  they  would  be experts of molecular biology. Journalists at major newspapers may also be experts of molecular biology, though in most cases the members of staff  writing  about  biotechnology  will  have  a  scholarly  background; these may be regarded as semi-experts. Decision makers who are members of political committees will usually be laypeople. Their advisors at municipal level will usually be semi-experts as they may not necessarily have a molecular biological background and mainly work with environmental issues etc. At government level the advisors will typically be experts who may have problems giving information in a language comprehensible to laypeople.

Thus, the user group described is heterogeneous, covering problems relating to subject field and language for laypeople and semi-experts alike, and linguistic problems for experts. With a user profile such as this BIOTEC-LEXINOME can be applied by user groups without further ado. Most importantly by experts of allied scientific subject fields (such as veterinary medicine, biology, environmental engineering, etc.) and by  teachers  at  secondary  schools.  Finally,  BIOTEC-LEXINOME will  be useful to that part of the population who according to the media have reception problems or wish to obtain information at a specialised level of explanation corresponding with that of their own qualifications.

As indicated by the simplified diagram of different levels of competence shown below BIOTEC-LEXINOME is directed at groups 1, 2, and 4:

<!-- image -->

In other words, we are aiming at a multifunctional dictionary which is intended  to  cover  functions  1-7  as  described  in  ch.  3,  i.e.  both  textdependent functions and one text-independent function. It  will  comprise the languages (British) English, French, German, Dutch, Spanish, and Danish.

We  differentiate  between  encyclopaedic  information  (lexicographical definitions) on three levels: interested laypeople, educated laypeople, and semi-experts. This information must be available in each of the six languages above. For this purpose we shall present dictionary examples from the English version in the following. However, these entries do not correspond with the final version, as no illustrations and animations have been included.

First, there is a dictionary encyclopaedic item for the interested layman, i.e. for the user who does not have or does not think he has any basic knowledge of biology and chemistry. The information has been chosen in such a way that molecular biological functions have been focused upon. Information is given about synonyms, where such exist. Moreover, a reference is made to a simple systematic description of biotechnology which may be read as a further introduction to the subject:

## gene

the  basic  unit  of  inheritance  which  is  transmitted  from parents to offspring -> § 3, 21

The interested layman is given a description which more or less presupposes the knowledge obtained with passed A-levels in mathematics and science.  The  first  sentence  of  the  explanation  is  identical  to  the explanation  for  the  interested  layman.  Apart  from  referring  to  the systematic classification, terms of special relevance are referred to:

## gene

the  basic  unit  of  inheritance  transmitted  from  parent  to offspring

An  organism  contains  many  genes  -  in  humans approximately more than 100,000. Each gene has a specific characteristic, e.g. one out of the potential blood groups. In chemical terms genes are small sections of big complex  molecules,  the  nucleic  acids.  In  bacteria  these  are coiled aggregates and in higher organisms they are constituents of chromosomes.

- -> bacterium, chromosome, molecule, nucleic acid
- -> § 3, 21

Semi-experts  are  not  necessarily  given  more  detailed  encyclopaedic information, but the description is of a more technical nature and it uses a  terminology which presupposes a certain basic knowledge of molecular biology:

## gene (Johannsen 1909)

A gene is a DNA sequence encoding a mRNA (protein), tRNA or rRNA. For eukaryotes a gene can also be defined as a transcribed DNA sequence or transcription unit. In prokaryotes two or more proteins are often encoded in the same transcription unit, and such a transcription unit plus  its  associated  regulatory  sequences  is  termed  an operon.

- -> bacterium, chromosome, molecule, nucleic acid
- -> § 21B

In practise, any user may define himself as an interested layman, an educated layman, or a semi-expert. He may also proceed by the method of  trial  and  error  in  order  to  find  the  level  appropriate  for  the  given context on the basis of his own qualifications.

The three dictionary quotations may be regarded as extracts from 18 monolingual encyclopaedias (i.e. 3 x 6 dictionaries corresponding with three levels for six languages). This section of the intended CD-ROM may  also  be  published  in  form  of  18  biotechnological  paper  dictionaries.

If compared to paper dictionaries we could say that there will be 5 x 2  bilingual  dictionaries,  one  for  each  of  the  language  pairs  GermanEnglish/English-German, French-English/English-French, SpanishEnglish/English-Spanish,  Dutch-English/English-Dutch,  and  DanishEnglish/English-Danish. Through English the users may go from each of the six languages into the remaining five. Bilingual dictionaries of this sort offer three types of information: grammatical, collocational, and citation examples (authentic examples) which separately or put together may be combined with one of the three levels of encyclopaedic information. Grammatical information consists of word class information and - in the case of irregular inflection or syntactical usage - information  on  inflection  and  syntax  (cf.  Bergenholtz/Pedersen  1994). Collocational information is a central function of both text production and translation (Bergenholtz/Tarp 1994), and it is conspicuously absent in almost all available biotechnological dictionaries. Information on citation examples may be understood as implicit information on grammar and collocation, it may also contain further encyclopaedic information, but in no way is it to be regarded as definitions. The following examples correspond with the equivalent passages in KAUFMANN/ BERGENHOLTZ et al.:

gene gen m

- fi ancestral ~ ~ ancestral ; a cancer causing ~ un ~ causante de cáncer ; a chimeric ~ un ~ quimérico ; determine the precise boundaries of a ~ determinar los límites precisos de un ~ ; insert a ~ insertar un ~ ; a ~ library una biblioteca de ~es ; locate a ~ localizar un ~ ; a ~ regulatory protein una proteína reguladora de ~es ; structural ~ ~ estructural
- fl In the case of the AIDS virus the protein might stimulate the transcription of viral genes (and perhaps the viral or host gene for soluble suppressor factor) while either inhibiting genes that stimulate replication of the T4 host cell or activating genes that turn off cell division.

In connection with the dictionary section BIOTEC-LEXINOME will have as mentioned previously - two different introducktions to biotechnology in each of the six languages, one for laypeople and one for semiexperts. They will serve both as an introduction to the field and as a reference  from  the  dictionary  articles  for  the  description  of  systematic correlations. Again, each user may select the knowledge level of his own choice, in this case the choice of two levels only.

Furthermore, BIOTEC-LEXINOME will include a survey of biotechnology-related legislation in the individual EU-countries. This survey will be  rendered  in  the  native  language  of  the  country  concerned  and  in English. Moreover, there will be a complete presentation of international agreements.

Finally, we anticipate minor contributions from critics and supporters of biotechnology from each individual country. Public debate often differs widely in the individual countries and may only be relevant for the country in question. Consequently, these contributions will not be translated, but only presented in the individual native languages. This part of BIOTEC-LEXINOME must be viewed in connection with the fact that  just  communicating  'naked  facts'  is  not  adequate  for  people  to rationally make up their minds about socially controversial issues. The managing director of Unilever has put it quite clearly: 'Let me confront you  with  the  conclusion  which  Unilever  has  reached  internally:  For food, this new technology can only be introduced in the market place with the consent and support of the major public opinion leaders' (de Vet  1993:83).  More  knowledge  does  not,  however,  lead  to  a  higher degree of acceptance; things are more complicated than that. Things are not  the  other  way  around  either,  but  more  knowledge  does  lead  to changes in attitude. A greater amount of knowledge leads to a higher degree of acceptance and also to a higher degree of scepticism (Eurobarometer 1991). Increased knowledge is a precondition of discussing on a higher factual level and it permits the fear of the unknown to be transformed into an attitude or fear of a known, but specific dangerous development (Marlier 1992:67-70). This is not only true for laypeople (level  0-4),  but  also  for  semi-experts  (level  5-6),  and  even  where experts are concerned (level 7) the total of sceptics exceed that of the laypeople of levels 0-3.

|   Knowledge | Optimists   | Pessimists   |
|-------------|-------------|--------------|
|           1 | 6%          | 5%           |
|           2 | 3%          | 4%           |
|           3 | 5%          | 6%           |
|           4 | 10%         | 14%          |
|           5 | 16%         | 21%          |
|           6 | 16%         | 17%          |
|           7 | 15%         | 15%          |
|           8 | 29%         | 18%          |

All  in  all,  BIOTEC-LEXINOME will  be  able  to  contribute  to  factually relevant information on different levels, it will contribute to a standardisation of specialised language where available extensive studies do not exist, and it can be used as a tool in text production and translation.

## 7 LSP Lexicography or Terminography

In chapter 1 we expressed general scepticism as to the durability of the criteria  established  by  terminologists  in  order  to  distinguish  between lexicographical and terminographical reference books. In conclusion, we will support this scepticism by comparing the 14 criteria mentioned in chapter 1 to a special case, namely the structure and content of some of the biotechnological dictionaries included in chapters 4-6.

Criterion (1) applied to reception dictionaries for laypeople implies that they must be regarded as lexicographical dictionaries since their object  is  not  exclusively  LSP  language.  The  remaining  dictionaries examined had to be regarded as potential terminographical dictionaries.

If  by  criterion  (2)  is  meant  the  involvement  of  experts,  reception dictionaries  are  not  terminographical.  However,  the  criterion  would apply to most of the other dictionaries mentioned, perhaps with the exception  of  BIOTECHNOLOGY GLOSSARY whose systematic macrostructure  (criterion  10  and  12)  would  be  an  obvious  candidate  for  a  projection to terminographical reference books. Still, this is not the case either, since in its choice of defining quotations the dictionary reveals such  pronounced  lacks  that  one  must  doubt  whether  experts  have actually been involved in the entire process of planning and preparing the dictionary at all. Furthermore, the macrostructure of this dictionary is only partly systematic, since in several places it contains an expression-related arrangement of lemmata which does not correspond with the subject field universe (cf. ch. 6). Besides, it differs from the purely systematic structure in starting with a passage containing biotechnological basic terms which in principle should have been included in the other systematic passages. BIOTEC-LEXINOME will satisfy the requirement for systematic macrostructure to a larger extent, as the intended CD-ROM version will be able to produce the single articles in an alphabetic or a systematic order.

Most of the dictionaries examined are available in the form of paper dictionaries (criterion 3), including BIOTECHNOLOGY GLOSSARY, where- as BIOTEC-LEXINOME - as mentioned above - is planned exclusively as a  CD-ROM  version.  Several  of  the  dictionaries,  including  BIOTECLEXINOME, have been prepared for experts or semi-experts (criterion 4), not  BIOTECHNOLOGY GLOSSARY,  however,  which  is  intended  for  laypeople only. None of the dictionaries examined have been designed exclusively as an aid for text production (criterion 5), but several multifunctional  dictionaries,  including  BIOTEC-LEXINOME,  aim  at  being  an aid  for  both  text  reception  and  text  production.  Consequently,  these three criteria prove rather unsuccessful. Only BIOTEC-LEXINOME may be said to meet the terminographical requirements mentioned, whereas the translation dictionary BIOTECHNOLOGY GLOSSARY in this context must be characterised as a lexicographical reference book - provided that you wish to accept the attempt to separate made by terminologists.

Several of the reception dictionaries give etymological information (criterion 6), whereas what the biotechnological dictionaries are concerned only Rieger et al. give references to the first use of the term in question  within  genetic  LSP.  Such  information  may  be  extremely relevant to the understanding of a term; it should not be excluded and is intended to form part of BIOTEC-LEXINOME.

Most  general  language  dictionaries  are  primarily  descriptive  and consequently  according  to  criterion  (7)  lexicographical.  This  is  also true  of  BIOTECHNOLOGY GLOSSARY which  often  gives  several  equivalents without standardising recommendations. In principle, most of the remaining dictionaries must be considered to be primarily prescriptive, as new terms have been constructed and only one of several possible terms has been chosen as the only information given. This is also true of BIOTEC-LEXINOME. As for polysemous lexemes (criterion 9) we may establish beyond all doubt that polysemy - or rather homonymy - on the  whole  only  occurs  in  connection  with  abbreviations  (e.g. a for adenine and adenosine ) in the biotechnological dictionaries examined which in this respect all fulfil the terminographical requirement.

As for criterion (4) we wish to comment that it is difficult to imagine how the large amount of dictionaries for semi-experts could have been prepared  by  using  linguistic  methods,  as  most  of  them  have  been prepared by biotechnological experts without any help from linguists. All in all, we believe that all of the purely biotechnological reference books describe concept relations and projections and consequently may all be defined as terminographical judging from this criterion.

Somewhat surprisingly we have to establish the fact that the dictionary which fulfils the highest number of the 14 terminographical criteria is BIOTEC-LEXINOME, whose authors do not see themselves as terminographers, but very much as lexicographers. If you exclude certain different choices of terms used in describing the lexicographical and the terminological theory, this projection is particularly valid.  All  things considered, we will reject the relevance of a distinct conflict of interests between  lexicographical  and  terminographical  reference  books.  It  is more relevant to separate the reference books which contain wrong or inaccurate information, which lack substantial information for certain purposes, and which do not or only slightly give standardising references. It should be possible to avoid such lacks of quality in any reference book, independent of whether the author of the work defines himself as a terminographer or as a lexicographer.

Hand  in  hand  with  the  demand  for  quality  comes  the  necessary regard for different user groups and user situations. In this particular respect the authors of this article and of BIOTEC-LEXINOME are bound to regard themselves as lexicographers, taking into account - as opposed to terminographers - certain genuine purposes (criterion 4). This choice does not necessarily involve the reduction of potential user groups. It is possible to give the same kind of information  in more ways than one within the same dictionary so that the explanations correspond with the qualifications of the single user group (cf. ch. 6).

## 8. Literature

## 8.1.  Dictionaries

- AGRICULTURE =  Alan  Stephens  (ed.): Dictionary  of  Agriculture :    Middlesex:  Peter Collin  1990.
- BABEL et  al.  =  Wolfgang  Babel/Monica  Hagemann/Wolfgang  Höhne: Wörterbuch Biotechnologie  Englisch-Deutsch/Dictionary  of  Biotechnology  English-German . Thun, Frankfurt/M.: Verlag Harri Deutsch 1989.
- BIOTEC-LEXINOME = Henning Bergenholtz/Henri Bejoint/Uwe Kaufmann/Dean Madden/Willy Martin/Rigomar Rieger/Rosa de la Viesca: Biotec-Lexinome. Encyclopaedic and Linguistic Information about Biotechnology with a Special View to  Mediators and Decision Makers. Project Proposal. Århus: Handelshøjskolen i Århus 1996.
- BIOTECHNOLOGY FROM A TO Z = William Bains: Biotechnology  from  A  to  Z.  Introduction by G. Kirk Raab. Oxford/New York/Tokyo: Oxford University Press 1993.

- BIOTECHNOLOGY GLOSSARY = Biotechnology Glossary. Glossaire de Biotechnologie. etc. English français deutsch italiano nederlands dansk español português ellhnika. London/New York: Elsevier 1990.
- BRAND = Karl Brand: Taschenlexikon der Biochemie und Molekularbiologie. Heidelberg/Wiesbaden: Quelle & Meyer 1992.
- BROCKHAUS/WAHRIG = Brockhaus-Wahrig.  Deutsches  Wörterbuch  in  sechs  Bänden. Hrsg. von Gerhard Wahrig, Hildegard Krämer, Harald Zimmermann. Wiesbaden: Brockhaus / Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlagsanstalt 1980-1984.
- COBUILD = Collins  COBUILD English  Language  Dictionary. Editor  in  Chief:  John Sinclair, Managing Editor: Patrick Hanks. London/Glasgow: Collins 1995.
- COOMBS =  James  Coombs: Macmillan  Dictionary  of  Biotechnology. Second  Ed. London/Basingstoke: Macmillan 1992.
- DUDEN-GWB = Duden. Das große Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache in acht Bänden. Hrsg. u. bearb. vom Wissenschaftlichen Rat und den Mitarbeitern der Dudenredaktion unter Leitung von Günther Drosdowski. Mannheim/Wien/Zürich: Dudenverlag 1993-1995.
- ENCARTA = Encarta 96. Encyclopedia. Microsoft 1996.
- GLOSSARY OF BIOTECHNOLOGICAL TERMS =  Hans  Georg  W.  Leuenberger/Bertrand Nagel/Heinz  Kölbl  (eds.): A  Multilingual  Glossary  of  Biotechnological  Term  in English,  French,  German,  Japanese,  Portuguese,  Russian,  Spanisch  (IUPAC Recommendations). Basel: Helvetica Chimica Acta/Weinheim usw: VCH 1995.
- GROLIER = Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia. Grolier 1995.
- HARRAP = Harrap's Essential English Dictionary. Managing Editor: Elaine Higgleton, Senior Editor: Anne Seaton. Edingburgh: Harrap 1995.
- HERITAGE SCIENCE =  Robert  K.  Barnhart: The  American  Heritage  Dictionary  of Science. Bonston/New York: Houghton Mifflin 1986.
- KAUFMANN/BERGENHOLTZ =  Uwe  Kaufmann/Henning  Bergenholtz: Genteknologisk ordbog . Dansk-engelsk/engelsk-dansk molekylærbiologi og DNA-teknologi . København: Gad 1992.
- KAUFMANN/BERGENHOLTZ et  al.  =  Uwe  Kaufmann/Henning  Bergenholtz  in  Cooperation  with  Bjarne  Stumman/Sven  Tarp/Francisco  Planas  Guiral/Laura  de  la Rosa  Marabet/Nelson  la  Serna  Torres/Gladys  la  Serna  Miranda: Diccionario Enciclopédico de Ingeniería Genética Español-Inglés/Inglés-Español . (in prep.)
- KUCERA = Kucera, Antonín: The Compact Dictionary of Exact Science and Technology. English-German .  2.  ed.  Wiesbaden: Oscar Brandstetter Verlag GmbH & Co. KG 1989.
- LH = L & H Compact Teknisk Ordbog dansk-engelsk. Redigeret af Thomas Nielsen. København: Langkilde & Høedt Forlag 1993.
- LONGMAN CULTURE = Longman Dictionary of English Language and Culture. Harlow: Longman 1992.

- OLIVER/WARD =  Stephen  G.  Oliver/John  M.  Ward: Wörterbuch  der  Gentechnik , Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer Verlag 1988.
- OXFORD ENCYCLOPEDIC DICTIONARY = The Oxford Encyclopedic English Dictionary. Ed. by Joyce M. Hawkins and Robert Allen. Oxford: Clarendon Press 1991.
- RIEGER et al. = Rigomar Rieger/Arnd Michaelis/Melvin Green: Glossary of Genetics. Classical and Molecular. 5. ed. Berlin/Heidelberg/New York/London/Paris/Tokyo/ Hong Kong/Barcelona/Budapest: Springer-Verlag 1991.
- SCHMID/FUKUI = Rolf Schmid/Saburo Fukui: Dictionary of Biotechnology. Berlin etc.: Springer 1986.
- SCHUMACHER = Helmut Schumacher (Hrsg.) (1986): Verben in Feldern, Valenzwörterbuch  zur  Syntax  und  Semantik  deutscher  Verben. Berlin/New  York:  Walter  de Gruyter.
- WALKER/COX =  John  M.  Walker/Michael  Cox: The  Language  of  Biotechnology.  A Dictionary of Terms. With Allan Whitaker as contributor. Washington DC: ACS Professional Reference Book/American Chemical Society 1988.

## 8.2. Secondary literature

- Andersen,  Axel  (1990): Veje  til  viden.  Håndbøger  og  andre  informationskilder. Danmarks Biblioteksskole 1990.
- Bergenholtz,  Henning  (1995a):  Wodurch  unterscheidet  sich  Fachlexikographie  von Terminographie? In: Lexicographica 11, 37-46.
- Bergenholtz,  Henning  (1995b):  Leksikografi.  Hvad  er  det?  In:  Åsta  Svararsdóttir/ Gu ∂ run  Kvaran/Jón  Hilmar  Jónsson  (red.): Nordiske  studier  i  leksikografi  3. Rapport  fra  Konference  om  leksikografi  i  Norden.  Reykjavik  7.-10.  juni  1995. Reykjavik: Nordisk forening for leksikografi, 37-49.
- Bergenholtz, Henning (1996): Grundfragen der Fachlexikographie. In: Martin Gellerstam/Jerker  Järborg/Sven-Göran  Malmgren/Kerstin  Norén/Lena  Rogström/ Catarina Röjder Papmehl (eds.): Euralex '96. Proceedings I-II. Papers submitted to the  Seventh  EURALEX  International  Congress  on  Lexicography  in  Göteborg, Sweden . Göteborg: Göteborg University, 731-758.
- Bergenholtz, Henning/Pedersen, Jette (1994): Grammar in bilingual LSP dictionaries, with a special view to technical English. In: Burkhard Schaeder/Henning Bergenholtz (Hrsg.): Fachlexikographie. Fachwissen und seine Repräsentation in Wörterbüchern. Tübingen: Narr, 351-383.
- Bergenholtz,  Henning/Tarp,  Sven  (1994):  Mehrworttermini  und  Kollokationen in Fachwörterbüchern.  In:  Burkhard  Schaeder/Henning  Bergenholtz  (Hrsg.): Fachlexikographie. Fachwissen und seine Repräsentation in Wörterbüchern. Tübingen: Narr, 385-419.
- Dubois, Claude (1979): La spécificité de la définiton en terminologie (par comparaison avec la définition en lexicographie). In: Actes du sixiéme colloque international de terminologie. Pointe-au-Pic (Québec) du 2 au 7 octobre 1977 . Québec, 45-59.

- Eurobarometer  = Eurobarometer  35.1.  'Biotechnology'  for  the  Commission  of  the European  Communities. Directorate  -  General  Science,  Research,  Development 'Cube'-Biotechnology Unit  by INRA (EUROPE0 European Coordination Office SA/NV. June 1991.
- Felber, Helmut/Budin, Gerhard (1989): Terminologie in Theorie und Praxis. Tübingen: Narr.
- Frandsen,  Lene  (1979): Terminologi  og  Leksikologi.  Forskelle  og  Ligheder. København: Handelshøjskolen i København.
- Joly,  Hubert  (1986):  Itinéaire  d'un  lexicographe  de  fortune.  In: Language Monthly. September '86, 12-14.
- Kalverkämper, Hartwig (1990): Der Begriff der »Fachlichkeit«  im  modernen Italienischen.  Lexikalische  Systematik  und  textuelle  Integration.  In: Quardini  di Semantica. Rivista internazionale di semantica teorica e applicata 11, 79-115.
- Kaufmann,  Uwe  (1997):  Fachwörterbücher  mit  und  ohne  Mitwirkung  von  Lexikographen, Fachexperten und Sprachexperten. In: Arne Zettersten/Jens Erik Mogensen/Viggo  Hjørnager  Pedersen  (eds.): Symposium  on  Lexicography  VIII. Proceedings  of  the  Eigthth  International  Symposium  on  Lexicography  May  2-5, 1996 at the University of Copenhagen . (in print)
- Maidahl  Christiansen,  Lisbet/Duvå,  Grete/Laursen,  Anna-Lise  (1994):  Das  Translationswörterbuch für Fachsprachen. Ein integriertes Konzept.  In:  Burkhard Schaeder/Henning  Bergenholtz  (Hrsg.): Das  Fachwörterbuch.  Fachwissen  und seine Repräsentation in Wörterbüchern. Tübingen: Narr, 269-284.
- Marlier, Eric 1992: Eurobarometer 35.1. Opinions of Europeans on biotechnology in 1991. In: biotechnology in public a review of recent research. Ed. by John Durant. London: Science Museum, 52-108.
- Nielsen,  Sandro  (1995):  Alphabetic  macrostructure.  In:  Henning  Bergenholtz/Sven Tarp (eds.): Manual of Specialised Lexicography. Preparation of LSP dictionaries problems and suggested solutions. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 190-195.
- Pedersen, Jette (1995): Systematic classification. In: Henning Bergenholtz/Sven Tarp (eds.): Manual  of  Specialised  Lexicography.  Preparation  of  LSP  dictionaries  problems and suggested solutions. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 83-90.
- Picht, Heribert (1985): Leksikografi - Terminografi. In: Nordisk terminologikursus 2. Bind 1, 351-372.
- Picht, Heribert (1992): Grænseflader mellem terminologi og vidensteknik. In: Bertha Toft  (Hrsg.): Proceedings  af  2.  nordisk  symposium  om  Terminologi  EDB  & Vidensteknik. [Kolding], 22-33.
- Rey,  Alain  (1979):  Définition  de  la  terminologie  en  tant  que  discipline  lingistique autonome:  état  de  la  question.  In: Actes  du  sixiéme  colloque  internaitoanl  de terminologie. Pointe-au-Pic (Québec) du 2 au 7 octobre 1977 . Québec, 229-257.
- Riggs, Fred W. (1989): Terminology and Lexicography: Their Complementarity. In: International Journal of Lexicography 2 , 89-110.

- Roald, Jan 1987: Leksikografi og terminologi: en sammenligning. In: Tove Jacobsen/ Jan Roald (eds.): Flerspråklig leksikografi og terminologi. Seminarrapport Bergen 22.-23. mai 1987. Bergen: Universitetet i Bergen, 3-13.
- Sager,  Juan  C.  (1990): A Practical Course in Terminology Processing. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
- Schaeder,  Burkhard  (1994):  Zu  einer  Theorie  der  Fachlexikographie.  In:  Burkhard Schaeder/Henning Bergenholtz (Hrsg.): Fachlexikographie. Fachwissen und seine Repräsentation in Wörterbüchern. Tübingen: Narr, 11-41.
- Svensén,  Bo  (1992):  Terminologi  och  lexikografi.  In: Terminologiläran  och  dess relationer till andra områden. Nordisk forskarkurs i Mariehamn, Åland, september 1990. Stockholm: NordTerm, 97-122.
- Thomas,  Patricia  (1993):  Choosing  headwords  from  language-for-special-purposes (LSP) collocations for entry into a terminology data bank (term bank). In: Helmi B. Sonneveld/Kurt L. Loening (eds.): Terminology. Applications in interdisciplinary communication. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 43-68.
- Vet, Bernard de (1993): Public Acceptance: Dialogue with Opinion Leaders. In: Brian Ager (ed.): BioEurope '93. Proceedings. International Conference and Exhibition. Brussels  1-6  June  1993 .  Brussel:  Senior  Advisory  Group  on  biotechnology (SAGB), 83-91.
- Wiegand, Herbert Ernst (1988) : Was eigentlich ist Fachlexikographie? Mit Hinweisen zum Verhältnis von sprachlichem und enzyklopädischem Wissen. In: H.H. Munske et al (Hrsg.): Deutscher Wortschatz. Lexikologische Studien. Ludwig Erich Schmitt zum 80. Geburtstag von seinen Marburgern Schülern . Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 729-790.
- Wiegand, Herbert Ernst (1994): Zur Unterscheidung von semantischen und enzyklopädischen Daten in Fachwörterbüchern. In: Burkhard Schaeder/Henning Bergenholtz (Hrsg.): Fachlexikographie.  Fachwissen  und  seine  Repräsentation  in  Wörterbüchern. Tübingen: Narr, 103-132.
- Wiegand , Herbert  Ernst  (1995):  Der  kulturelle  Beitrag  der  Lexicographie  zur  Umgestaltung Osteuropas. In: Lexicographica 11 , 210-218.
- Wüster, Eugen Wüster (1936): Wörterbücher der Technik. In: Wörter und Sachen 17 , 164-173.
- Wüster, Eugen (1985): Einführung in die allgemeine Terminologielehre und terminologische  Lexikographie. 2.  Aufl.  Kopenhagen.  (1.  ed.  Wien/New  York:  Springer 1979)

126

127