## Questioning the univocity ideal.

## The difference between socio-cognitive Terminology and traditional Terminology

## 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  epistemological 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 biotechnology )  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.

The  semantic  triangle  which  was  introduced  by  Gomperz  (1908) (Felber,  1984:100)  has  been  referred  to  by  Wüster  in  1956 1 ( Dreiteiliges Wortmodell (Wüster, 1991:165; in English translation: Felber, 1984:100)), the founder of the Vienna school of Terminology. What is basically explored in this triangular model is the relationship between some kind of reality (the world), a means to communicate about and to create this reality (language), and the centre of reasoning about and of understanding both the world and language (the human mind). (figure 1)

1 Other  authors  who  made  reference  to  the  semantic  triangle  are  Ogden  (1923), Ullmann (1952), Knobloch (1956), Baldinger (1959)).

* Rita Temmerman Erasmushogeschool B-Brussels.

Figure 1: The semantic triangle

<!-- image -->

Wüster's interpretation of the elements at the three vertices are: 'Gegenstand (Sachverhalt)' , 'Lautkörper' and 'Wortinhalt' translated by Felber into individual object , symbol and concept . (figure 2)

Figure 2: Wüster's Dreiteiliges Wortmodell

<!-- image -->

In what follows we shall try and compare the filling in of these three elements in traditional Terminology and in a new theory of Terminology 2 we should like to propose here which opts for a different theoretical framework being strongly inspired by the insights of cognitive semantics and functional linguistics.

This new socio-cognitive theory of Terminology reacts against the theoretical framework which underpins the procedures and methods of Terminology  as  traditionally  defined,  perceived  and  established  by Wüster and his successors by means of a set of guiding principles as from 1959 (Laurén & Picht, 1993). The same theoretical framework was largely shared by the allegedly different schools of Terminology (the Soviet school, the Prague school, the Canadian centre, etc.) This is understandable as on the one hand all the Terminology schools underwent the influence of the leading trend in linguistics at the time of their heydays: Saussurian structuralism; and on the other hand the underlying motivation for each of the Terminology schools seems to be language planning. In more detail this involves that: one, Saussurian structuralist  semantics  believed  that  (words  have)  meanings  (that)  can  be clearly delineated. The European (as opposed to the Canadian) terminology model starts from the belief that a concept, that will be given the status of the 'meaning' of the term that will be assigned to it, can and should be clearly delineated.

2 We distinguish  between Terminology and terminology . Terminology (capitalised) refers to the theory underlying and resulting from the study of terminology ,  the  vocabulary of LSP (Language for Specific Purposes).

Two, Saussurian structuralist semantics believes that the best way to describe  meaning  is  to  describe  the  mutual  delimitation  of  concepts (semantic relations). Traditional Terminology believes that the best way to describe concepts is to determine their position in a concept system which visualises logical and ontological relationships. On the basis of the position in the concept system a definition will be formulated.

Three, Saussurian structuralist semantics believes that the best way to describe meaning is to concentrate on denotational meaning (as opposed to connotational meaning) and on the literal meaning (and not the figurative meaning) of words. Traditional Terminology believes that the concept system is to be seen as independent from the term system, and that  consequently,  unlike  words,  terms  are  context  independent:  the meaning of the term is the concept.

Four, Saussurian structuralist semantics believes that meaning is to be described synchronically. For traditional Terminology language development and language evolution need not be studied as the main emphasis is on the concept system. Therefore terminology is synchronic.

Five, it is significant that the underlying motivation for each of the Terminology schools seems to be language planning. For the Prague, the Soviet and the Vienna schools there is a strong orientation towards standardisation. The Vienna school has the conviction that it is possible to influence the naming activities in LSP, and the Canadian centre has the  specific  aim  to  secure  the  survival  of  the  French  language  in Canada. One can imagine how difficult it is to question the principles and methods of terminological meaning description if the underlying motivation  for  the  claimed  scientific  schools  is  language  planning, which implies sponsoring by governmental bodies with language political objectives. The outcome is that the scientific study of Terminology is confounded with establishing principles and methods for the pragmatic activity of standardisation.

The new socio-cognitive theory of Terminology emphasises that Terminology should not be uniquely oriented towards standardisation and it questions the validity of objectivism as the theoretical underpinning of terminology.

## 1. The objectivist model of traditional Terminology

In traditional Terminology the full potential of the three elements of the semantic triangle was deliberately not explored nor exploited.

The world was reduced to what could be objectified, l anguage was only considered in its naming capacity, and the human mind was only given credit for its capacity to classify individual objects on the basis of recognising characteristics which were common to all the members of the class representing a concept.

The relationship between the world and language was limited to the acceptance that the world is objectively given and has to be named.

The relationship between the world and the mind was reduced to the fact that the world can be understood by the human mind thanks to the classificatory capacity of the mind.

For as far as the relationship between language and the mind is concerned, the fact that language may have a role to play in the mental activity of understanding the world, in other words the creative potential of language is not ignored, but disregarded, brushed aside as irrelevant.

Underlying all this is logical positivism's belief that for clear thinking natural language is an obstacle. A calculus, i.e. a formal axiomatic system, would be ideal. In formalising an existing axiomatic system variables are replaced by meaningless symbols. In doing so one obtains a logical system without meaning which allows for the objectification of several purely formal deductions. A calculus allows for a sum up of existing  theoretical  systems  in  short  symbolic  representations  which permits  more  insight  in  the  purely  logical  relations  between  diverse statements. Natural language is treated as a necessary evil which one tries to constrict. One example of such attempts at constriction is standardisation  of  terminology.  Standardisation  equals  a  strife  for  univocity. One concept is referred to by one term (no synomymy) and one term can only refer to one concept (no polysemy). Polysemy, which is a characteristic of natural language is treated as uneconomical and therefore  steps  need  to  be  taken  to  curtail  the  phenomenon.  Language  is reduced to the conscious literal level. Figurative language and connotative language are disregarded. Language is not to be seen as a process in time. What is aimed at is a synchronic language description.

## 2. The integrated model of modern Terminology

Modern socio-cognitive Terminology can benefit from the findings of cognitive semantics which elaborates on the full potential of the interaction between the world, language, and the human mind; and from the insight that the elements of the semantic triangle function in a social setting.

Cognitive Terminology considers the world of science and technology as experiential. Much of what we know and understand about the world is embodied, is the result of our sensory perceptions. It should be added that the other part is the result of our reasoning, which is interactive  with  the  input  via  sensory  perception,  and  via  the  transfer  of other language users' ideas which we take in via discourse (written and spoken) for which language is the medium.

Language has a cognitive function (ideational), next to a textual and a communicative (interpersonal) function. (Halliday, 1985). Language is a means for categorisation. 3

Modern Terminology could incorporate the idea that humans do not just  perceive the objective world but have the faculty to create categories in the mind . Many of these categories in the mind have prototype structure.

Prototype-theory finds its origin in the work of psychologist Rosch. Her hypothesis is that the human being has a prototype, a best example for each category, in his mind and that classification happens on that basis. In Women, Fire and Dangerous Things , Lakoff (1987) proves that the categorisation of things does not happen exclusively on the basis of common features. His hypothesis is that human observation is deter- mined by the possibilities and restrictions of the human body and is culturally determined. Rosch studied prototypes via configurations of features, which helped her to understand the structure of the categories in the mind. Exemplars of the category 'bird' can have features like 'is able to fly', 'has feathers', 'has a beak', 'is not a pet', 'lays eggs' etc. There is no need for one or more features which are shared by all the exemplars of a category. Exemplars belong to a category because they show resemblance and share different sets of features. The exemplars can be seen as members of one family. The exemplars of the category have family-resemblance.

3 Note the distinction between on the one hand logical and ontological classification , which in traditional Terminology is supposed to be possible in the mind without considering or using language and before the naming of the concepts takes place, and on the other hand categorisation which is a result of the interaction between language and the mind.

As far as the relationship between the world and language is concerned, language is the medium for expressing human world perception and  human  world  conception.  Language  plays  a  role  in  the  human understanding of the world.

Looking at the relationship between the world and the mind sociocognitive Terminology considers the world to be (partly) in the human mind. When considering language and mind, socio-cognitive Terminology is ready to accept that the understanding of language cannot be separated from the understanding of the world.

Figure 3: The interpretation of the relationships between the world, language and the mind in traditional Terminology and in socio-cognitive Terminology.

<!-- image -->

|                        | traditional Terminology                                                                         | socio-cognitive Terminology                                                              |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| the world and language | the world exists objectively and can be named                                                   | language plays in the understanding of the world                                         |
| the world and the mind | the world can be understood by the human mind thanks to the classificatory capacity of the mind | the world is (partly) in the human mind                                                  |
| language and the mind  | the creative potential of lan- guage is disregarded                                             | the understanding of lan- guage can not be separated from the understanding of the world |

In  conclusion  we  can  say  that  for  socio-cognitive  Terminology  the explanatory power of the full potential of how all three elements of the semantic triangle interact is of importance in studying terminology.

## 3. Distinction  between  types  of  concepts  based  on  differences in interaction between the three elements in the semantic triangle

Geeraerts (1993:58-63) explains how cognitive semantics links up the empiricist  position  that 'experience  determines  conceptuality' (58) and the rationalist idea that 'conceptual knowledge determines experience' (58).

'On the one hand experientialism demonstrates how experiential factors shape the structure of cognition; on the other hand, paradigmatism points out  how  existing  conceptualizations  may  influence  the  interpretation  of new experiences.' (58)

In this analysis, existing concepts have an influence on how we shape new experience. Next experiences are interpreted in terms of and integrated with existing concepts; Geeraerts has proved that the structure of our concepts reflects their epistemological function. He distinguishes between  two  types  of  prototypically  structured  categories:  cognitive categories and ontological categories (Geeraerts, 1989a:74-79)(see also Zawada & Swanepoel, 258-61)

As an example of a cognitive category he gives Dutch ' vers' (= fresh, recent), Dutch 'vogel' (bird) is an ontological category. In the following scheme (figure 4)(Geeraerts, 1989a:78) he compares the two types  of  categories  on  four  parameters:  psychological  status,  typical relationships,  explanatory  factors  for  the  prototype  structure  and  the principle of cohesion.

Figure 4: Geeraert's comparison between ontological and cognitive categories on four parameters.

|                                                | ontological categories     | cognitive categories       |
|------------------------------------------------|----------------------------|----------------------------|
| example                                        | 'vogel'                    | 'vers'                     |
| psychological status                           | not ambiguous              | ambiguous                  |
| typical relationships                          | non-figurative resemblance | all associative relations  |
| explanatory factor for the prototype structure | materialisticfactors       | functional factors         |
| principle of cohesion                          | presumed identity          | interpretative association |

In what follows we want to show first that in the LSP of the life sciences, the structure of concepts reflects their epistemological function and that this could have consequences for the principles and methods of terminological description. We shall give examples of terminological units which are more fit for a description in line with the TC37  4  terminology concept approach for terminology while for others it is better to consider them in line with the experiential category approach. In the second place  we  want  to  show  that  for  prototypically  structured categories the claimed functional advantage of univocity is an delusion.

Geeraerts  comparison  between  two  types  of  prototypically  structured  categories  (cognitive  categories  and  ontological  categories)  in LGP may be of theoretical relevance in studying the vocabulary of LSP as  well  (and  this  contrary  to  the  convictions  of  traditional  Terminology).  In  studying  the  epistemological  function  of  categories  in  the domain of the life sciences, we found out that it makes sense to first of all distinguish between concepts/categories which do not have prototype structure and concepts/categories which do.

Figure 5: The naming history of a prototypically structured concept/category differs from the naming history of a non-prototypically structured concept/ category.

<!-- image -->

Elsewhere  we  showed  (Temmerman,1996c)  how  an  in-depth  contrastive  study  of  the  intension  and  the  extension  of  three  concept/

4 Technical Committee 37 of the International Standardisation Organization is responsible  for  international  standards  concerning  the  principles  and  methods  for  terminological description.

categories 5 occurring in the LSP of the life sciences shows different requirements and possibilities for definitions. A concept/category like intron can be defined in accordance with the traditional terminological principles and methods as it is a logical concept/category. For the concepts/categories of the type techniques (for which we give the example of blotting ) this is less possible and for an umbrella concept/ category like biotechnology not at all. An umbrella concept/category like biotechnology meets all the requirements for intensional and extensional prototypicality as described in cognitive semantics. (Geeraerts, 1989; Taylor,1989; Kleiber, 1990) With reference to Geeraerts classification (figure  4) blotting has  most  of  the  characteristics  of  an  ontological category of the 'vogel' type, while 'biotechnology' bears more resemblance to a cognitive category of the 'vers' type. For details we refer to Temmerman (1996c).

For our present purpose it will suffice to briefly introduce these three concepts/categories and to show figures 7 and 8 from which it will be clear that a comparison of the intension and the extension of the three concepts/categories  in  the  traditional  model  and  in  the  alternative prototype model shows that concept/categories which show prototype structure cannot be adequately defined and described on the basis of the principles and methods of the Vienna school for terminology.

We shall first provisionally introduce the three concepts by quoting a definition from a specialist source.

## · The first concept/category is intron

Gilbert  discovered  in  1978  that  genes  are  split,  i.e.  that  they  have  a structure in which the coding sequences and the non coding sequences interlace

'By the late 1970s, it was clear that the protein-coding sequences in a eukaryotic gene do not necessarily consist of a single continuous stretch of DNA, as they do in a bacterial gene. Instead the coding region is often discontinuous,  being  interrupted  by  stretches  of  noncoding  DNA;  such noncoding DNA segments are called intervening sequences or introns , and the coding segments of genes - those that generally direct polypeptide synthesis - are referred to as exons ' (Berg & Singer,1992:126)

5 As concept is used in traditional Terminology and category in cognitive semantics and as we are comparing the possibilities and limitations of both approaches we prefer not to choose for either one or the other denomination but to refer to the problem as concept/category .

Figure 6: The structure of eukaryotic DNA.

| exon   | intron   | exon   | intron   | exon   | intron   |
|--------|----------|--------|----------|--------|----------|

## · The second concept/category is blotting

For geneticists it is often useful to be able to identify a particular sequence in DNA fragments separated by gel electrophoresis. In 1975 E. M. Southern developed a method for doing so. Later, blotting of RNA and  protein  was  carried  out  and  named  by  (false)  analogy Northern blotting and Western blotting . Methods for identifying both DNA and protein  are  called South-Western blotting ,  for  both  RNA  and  protein North-Western blotting.

The Dictionary of Microbiology and Molecular Biology (1987) has the following entry for blotting :

'Following  ELECTROPHORESIS: the transfer  of  nucleic  acids  and/or proteins from a gel strip to a specialized, chemically reactive paper (or other matrix) on which the nucleic acids etc. may become covalently bound in a pattern similar to that present in the original gel. Transfer may be effected by capillary action - in which case paper (e.g. nitrocellulose, DEAE paper, APT paper) is sandwiched between the gel and a highly absorptive pad;

alternatively, in electro-blotting, transfer is effected by electrophoresis. In the earliest (capillary) blotting, DNA was transferred to nitrocellulose ( in the  so-called  'Southern  blot'  or  SOUTHERN  HYBRIDIZATION  procedure; subsequently, blotting of RNA (Northern blot) and protein (Western blot) was carried out. After blotting, a particular target molecule may be identified  or  assayed  e.g.  by  fluorescence  labelling  or  enzyme  immunoassay techniques.'

## · The third concept is biotechnology

Biotechnology is 'the application of advanced biological techniques in the  manufacture  of  industrial  products,  including  the  production  of antibiotics, insulin and interferon, or for environmental management, such as waste recycling' (Academic Press Dictionary of Science and Technology,1992)

'Biotechnology took on a new meaning and focus with this novel power to use DNA as a tool to make marketable materials. Modern biotechnology can be defined in its most general sense as the scientific manipulation of organisms, particularly at the molecular genetic level, to produce useful products. In a sense, biotechnology is one of the oldest industries in the world. The fermentation of wine or the preparation of bread, both brought about through the metabolic activities of yeast, come under its rubric, as do the centuries of cross-breeding and hybridization of crops and domesticated animals.' (Lee, 1993:16-17)

Figure 7: The feasibility of a definition in line with the principles and methods of traditional terminology for three concepts.

|               | intension                                        | intension                                                                       | extension                                                     |
|---------------|--------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|
|               | superordinateconcept                             | characteristics to deline- ate from other concepts on the same horizontal level | possible to enumerate all species or all indi- vidual objects |
| intron        | yes                                              | yes                                                                             | yes                                                           |
| blotting      | a multitude of pos- sible superordinate concepts | encyclopaedicin- formation is defi- ning the concept/ category                  | yes, but other infor- mation is more rele- vant               |
| biotechnology | no                                               | no                                                                              | no                                                            |

Figure 8: Four characteristics of prototype structure in three types of categories

|               |                 | intensionally                                                  | intensionally                                                              | extensionally                                           | extensionally                           |
|---------------|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
| entity        |                 | clustering of senses into fam- ily resemblance and radial sets | absence of defi- nitions in terms of necessary and sufficient attri- butes | differences of sa- lience among members of the category | fluctuations at the edges of the family |
|               | intron -        | no                                                             | no                                                                         | no                                                      | no                                      |
| technique     | blotting        | no                                                             | yes                                                                        | yes                                                     | no                                      |
| umbrella term | biotech- nology | yes                                                            | yes                                                                        | yes                                                     | yes                                     |

Intron can be defined in a logical concept structure, but blotting and biotechnology cannot.

Based on our insights gained in studying three types of concepts in the vocabulary of the life sciences we believe we can formulate the following propositions:

One, when new phenomena are discovered which can be clearly delineated and defined there is a natural development towards univocity which in that case appears to be in favour of unambiguous and therefore efficient communication (3.1).

Two, univocity as the ideal for unambiguous and therefore efficient reasoning  and  communication  can  not  be  defended  for  the  prototypically structured categories (3.2). This has at least three aspects to it. First polysemy is functional in LSP. It is the consequence of meaning evolution. The constant discussion over how to name and what words mean is in the discourse of a community and implies language evolution. Polysemy is the result. What is univocal at one time may grow into polysemy depending on the type of concept/category and how it is understood (3.2.1). Second (near-) synonymy exists for very good reasons  (3.2.2).  Third,  figurative  language  is  a  motor  which  causes  the thoughts  and  consequently  the  understanding  of  the  world  to  move (3.2.3).

## 3.1. When  new  phenomena  are  discovered  which  can  be clearly delineated and traditionally defined 6 there is a natural development towards univocity which in that case favours unambiguous and therefore efficient communication

An indication that for clear-cut concepts/categories like intron, which do not show characteristics of prototypicality, univocity is indicated is in the natural tendency towards standardisation as it can be observed in the discourse of the scientists at the time of the discoveries. Once the definition is agreed upon, the naming is negotiated and there is a tendency to try and rule out synonymy. The order of things is in accordance with the principles and methods for standardisation.

We can prove this with the example of the birth of the concept/ categories intron-exon. The case of intron-exon is a case of naming negotiation.

We went to the articles which were published in the leading periodicals Nature and Science in 1978 and 1979 when the phenomenon of the intron-exon  structure  of  eukaryotic  genes  was  being  discovered. We consider these articles in chronological order:

6 By traditional definition we mean the type of definition based on logical or ontological  (partitive)  classification,  giving  the  superordinate  term  and  enumerating  the necessary  and  sufficient  characteristics  which  delineate  the  concept  under  consideration from other related concepts on the same horizontal level.

Three  authors  were  publishing  on  the  intron-exon  structure  of eukaryotic genes:

1. Walter Gilbert, who was then American Cancer Society Professor of Molecular Biology at Harvard University, published a short article entitled: 'Why genes in pieces?' Nature , 9 Feb. 1978:501.
2. W. Ford Doolittle, was Associate Professor in the Department of Biochemistry, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, when he published the article 'Genes in pieces: were they ever together?' Nature , 13 April 1978:581-82.
3. Francis  Crick  wrote  the  article  'Split  Genes  and  RNA  Splicing.' Science , 20 April 1979, 264-71, when he was Kieckhefer Research Professor in La Jolla, California.

In their articles they discuss the terminology. First we should make it clear that the facts are agreed upon: there is a consensus that eukaryotic genes have alternating stretches of coding and non-coding DNA. Second, we find evidence in the scientific literature that suggestions are given by the authors for the naming of three concepts/categories ( split genes , intron and exon ).  The  core  definition  for  each  of  these  concepts/categories  is  given  in  figure  9.  We shall first pay attention to Gilbert's terminology.

'Our picture of the organisation of genes in higher organisms has recently undergone a revolution. Analyses of eukaryotic genes in many laboratories 1-10 ,  studies of globin, ovalbumin, immunoglobulin, SV40 and polyoma, suggest that in general the coding sequences on DNA, the regions that will ultimately be translated into amino acid sequence, are not continuous but are interrupted by 'silent' DNA . Even for genes with no protein product such as the tRNA genes of yeast and the rRNA genes in Drosophila, and also for viral messages from adenovirus, Rous sarcoma virus and murine leukaemia  virus,  the  primary  RNA  transcript  contains internal  regions that are excised during maturation, the final tRNA or messenger being a spliced product.

The notion of the cistron, the genetic unit of function that one thought corresponded to a polypeptide chain, now must be replaced by that of a transcription unit containing regions which will be lost from the mature messengerwhich I suggest we call introns (for intragenic regions )-alternating with regions which will be expressed-exons .  The gene is a mosaic: expressed sequences held in a matrix of silent DNA, an intronic matrix. The introns seen so far range from 100 to 10,000 bases in length; I expect the  amount  of  DNA  in introns will  turn  out  to  be  five  to  ten  times  the amount in exons .'  7

In  this  text-fragment  a  conclusion  is  drawn  based  on 'analyses  of eukaryotic  genes  in  many laboratories'. The  author  justifies  the 'many' by enumerating 10 references to publications on the subject at the end of the article.

The studies suggest that the coding sequences on DNA are not continuous but are interrupted by ' ' silent' DNA' . Gilbert suggests to call the 'regions which will be lost from the mature messenger' ' introns (for  intragenic  regions' and 'the  regions  which  will  be  expressed -exons '. This is an example of an attempt at coining new terms in a scientific  article.  It  is  perfect  for  illustrating  the  stimulus-response principle. Gilbert is making reference to 10 other publications, which he has taken into consideration before suggesting names for the newly discovered  phenomena  ('silent'  DNA,  'intron',  'exon',  'introgenic' matrix). His suggested terminology is partly followed by colleagues, like Doolittle and Crick (see further) but what is most interesting is that it is also commented upon and criticised as the fragment from Crick's article shows.(see further).

Figure 9: Synonyms in specialist publications for three clearly delineated concepts.

<!-- image -->

7 The emphasis is mine.

We shall now consider Doolittle's article. Doolittle refers to Gilbert's terminology:

'The recent  discovery  that  many  eukaryotic  structural  genes  are  interrupted  by  stretches  (sometimes  very  long)  of non-informational  'intervening'  DNA 1-7 is  the  latest  and  most  dramatic  demonstration  of  the striking difference between the organisation of prokaryotic and eukaryotic genomes. (...)

Gilbert has proposed that intervening DNA serves to speed evolution; the mature polypeptide chain is translated from a spliced mRNA derived from a primary transcript of both intronic ( non-informational DNA ) and exonic ( coding ) DNA. Occasional imprecise splicing can generate new proteins  assembled  from  parts  of  old  ones  without  sacrificing  the  original genes.

(...)

In such cells a genes-in-pieces organisation (with RNA splicing) could not only have its current (evolutionary) role, but an additional role: to ensure that transcripts of exons ( (sic!: this parenthesis is never closed) reiterated but often incorrectly replicated and transcribed were at least occasionally assembled so as to template functional proteins. As replication, transcription  and  translation  became  more  faithful,  such  insurance  became  less necessary and the replication and transcription of redundant and noninformational DNA became increasingly irrelevant and burdensome.'  8

In line with Gilbert, to whose point of view Doolittle reacts in this article,  Doolittle  uses 'genes-in-pieces' here,  for  what  in  the  literature later on is mostly called 'split genes'. He also uses 'exons' and the adjectival derivations from intron and exon : 'intronic DNA' and 'exonic DNA'. For 'intronic DNA' he uses the synonymous, motivated or selfexplanatory terms ' redundant and non-informational DNA' and 'intervening DNA' .

In Crick's article the most striking new term is ' ' split' genes' (264).

'In the last 2 years there has been a mini-revolution in molecular genetics. When I came to California, in September 1976, I had no idea that a typical gene might be split into several pieces and I doubt if anybody else had.'

Crick refers to Gilbert 's article, and then, he comments on the terminology:

'…in this case there are two fairly long stretches of base sequences along the DNA of the gene which do not appear in the final mRNA. Such sequences are now known as intervening sequences ; An alternative terminology, used by Gilbert and his colleagues refers to the intervening sequences as

8 The emphasis is mine.

' introns ';  those  base  sequences  on  the  DNA  which  do  end  up  in  the mRNA are referred to as ' exons ' since they are the ones which are expressed. At this stage , any terminology is likely to lead, before long, to difficulties and complications.(5) In this article I use the intron-exon terminology, if only for want of a better one.' 9

In his footnote (5) Crick explains why he finds this terminology confusing:

'There are two main difficulties. A stretch of nuclear RNA may be part of an intron if spliced one way but part of an exon if spliced in another way. In addiction, one is tempted to use the two words to describe the parts of the DNA from which the stretches of RNA are transcribed. Nevertheless, used judiciously, the two words are undoubtedly useful. I imagine some committee will eventually decide on a wholly logical terminology.'

Apart from introducing a more general term 'split genes' for ' genes having an intron-exon structure' or ' genes in pieces '(Gilbert), Crick also offers alternative terminology: he talks about 'intervening sequences' (like Doolittle) whereas Gilbert calls these 'intragenic regions' and uses the opposition ''nonsense' stretches of DNA ' 'interspersed within the 'sense' DNA' . Furtherdown Crick introduces another synonym for 'intron' : 'internal stretch' and he links up the concepts of 'split genes' and 'splicing':

'Thus splicing is defined as the mechanism by which a single functional RNA molecule is produced by the removal of one or more internal stretches of RNA during the processing of the primary transcript. Where are split genes found?'. (265)

What Crick presents as if it were a problem of lexicalisation (terminology) causing ambiguity which he suggests could be solved by some terminology committee is actually not a terminology problem at all. The fact that the same stretch can be an 'intron' in one 'context' and an 'exon' in  another,  does  not  make  the  terminology  unclear  as 'intron' and 'exon' are motivated terms because they express that in a specific situation particular stretches of DNA are not coding or are coding for information.

What we see at work here, is a discussion between field specialists about the best term for concepts/categories, the definition of which they agree upon. The order of things is like in a standardisation procedure: first the concept, then several possible names (synonyms) and a trend towards univocity.

9 The emphasis is mine.

We also find that Crick is explicitly imposing his authority, which points at the social factors in choosing the preferred term. As the codiscoverer (together with Watson in 1953) of the double-helix structure of DNA he is likely to be taken seriously in academic circles.

## 3.2. Univocity  as  the  ideal  for  unambiguous  and  therefore efficient reasoning and communication can not be defended for the prototypically structured categories

The  three  reasons  why  univocity  is  not  feasible  nor  desirable  for concepts/categories with prototype structure are represented in figure 10.

Figure  10.  This  table  shows  the  contrastive  stances  of  traditional  Terminology  and socio-cognitive Terminology with regard to three aspects of univocity.

<!-- image -->

| The univocity ideal in traditional Terminology                                                                                              | The alternative view of socio- cognitive Terminology                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Univocity aspect 1: a term is not poly- semous. Terminology takes a synchronic point of view The dynamic nature of language is disregarded. | Polysemy is functional in LSP discourse, it is a consequence of meaning evolution . The constant discussion over how to name and what words mean is in the discourse of a community and has a time aspect. Polysemy is the result. What is univocal at one time may grow into polysemy depending on the type of category and how it is understood. |
| Univocity aspect 2: a concept should be referred to by one term only; a term should not have synonym                                        | Synonymy is functional in LSP discourse; it reflects different perspectives                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |
| Univocity aspect 3: literal language can replace figurative language.                                                                       | Figurative language is a motor to make the thoughts move                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |

## 3.2.1. Polysemy in language is functional. It is the result of the human reflection about the world. From a purely semasiological point of view it is the result of meaning evolution.

We shall illustrate the functionality of polysemy in the progress of the life sciences with the case of molecular cloning . 10 As the case is quite complicated we suggest to formulate the problem in the following two questions. Question one: why are the methods developed in molecular biology for the amplification of a fragment of DNA named cloning or molecular cloning or DNA cloning or gene cloning? Question two: why has cloning recently been threatened to be replaced by its hyperonym amplification ?

The naming of the methods for the amplification of a fragment of DNA cannot  be  separated  from  the  history  of  the  lexeme clone in general nor from the history of the development of the life sciences (biology, medicine, biochemistry, genetics, molecular biology, biotechnology). Figure 10 is a schematic representation of the meaning extension of the lexeme cloning which entered the English language in 1903, both as a substantive clone and as its derived form cloning , indicating the technique.

10 ' molecular cloning - the multiplication of DNA sequences usually involving the isolation  of  appropriate  DNA  fragments  and  their  in  vitro  joining  (insertion  into  a restriction  site)  to  a  cloning  vector  capable  of  replication  when  introduced  into  an appropriate  host.  M.c.  requires:  (1)  DNA  of  interest  (foreign,  passenger,  or  target DNA);  (2)  a  cloning  vector;  (3)  restriction  endonucleases;  (4)  DNA  ligase;  (5)  a prokariotic or eukaryotic cell to serve as the biological host.' (Rieger, 1991:333).

Figure 10: The development of cloning .

| CLONING                                                                                         | CLONING                                     | CLONING                                                     |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|
| since when                                                                                      | what is cloned                              | method                                                      |
| since the beginning of agri- culture; named as such in English in 1903 (Webber) (source Rieger) | plants                                      | cutting grafting                                            |
| 1929 (source: Barnhart)                                                                         | bacterialcells                              | cellcultivation                                             |
| 1939 (Smith:1988)                                                                               | plant cells in order to achieve full plants | cell cloning and regene- ration                             |
| late 1940s (Levine and Suzuki, 1993:183)                                                        | amphibians                                  | enucleation                                                 |
| 1973 (Cohen et al., 1973, source: Rieger)                                                       | DNA                                         | molecular cloning ( gene splicing + bacterial cell cloning) |
| 1985 (by Saikai, according to Rieger; by Karry Mullis according to Watson et al., 1992:79)      | DNA                                         | PCR (polymerase chain reaction)                             |
| 1988 (Hawkes,1991:15)                                                                           | mammals                                     | embryo splitting                                            |
|                                                                                                 | mammals                                     | nuclear transplantation                                     |

The reply to the first question why molecular cloning was named as such has at least the following three aspects:

One, because molecular cloning related to the other types of cloning which had existed for a long time already when molecular cloning was developed

Two, the relevant meaning element which molecular cloning had in common with all the other types of cloning which existed already was 'identical copy' . The new element which was added to the meaning of clone because  of molecular  cloning was 'large  number  of  identical copies' . 11

11 'The cloning of a fragment of DNA allows indefinite amounts to be produced from even a single original molecule. (A clone is defined as a large number of identical cells or molecules, all identical with an original ancestral cell or molecule.) The property that makes cloning of DNA possible is the ability of bacterial plasmids and phages to continue their usual life-style after additional sequences of  DNA  have  been incorporated into their genomes.' (Lewin, 1983:300).

Three, molecular cloning was named as such because it is a next step in the evolution of molecular genetics. This in contrast with PCR (polymerase chain reaction). (see further).

The reply to the second question why cloning threatened to be replaced by amplification is twofold.

One,  a  new  method  for  making  large  numbers  of  exact  copies  is developed, not in the molecular genetics line but in the enzymology or biochemistry line:  polymerase  chain  reaction  (PCR).  Some  writers refer to PCR as a special type of cloning whereas others would rather see it as a method for amplification, the hyponym of both cloning and PCR. (see further);

Two, cloning threatened to be replaced by amplification in the terminology of the life sciences as a consequence of the phenomenon of generic posting. T he further development of language in other domains of life had its repercussions. On the one hand cloning was metaphorically  borrowed  by  LGP.  As  the  lexeme  is  used  in  more  and  more domains of life it may have become overloaded 12 . As a consequence it is likely to become confusing (because of too vague) in its scientific context and since synonyms and hyperonyms exist it will predictably be replaced by one of these. This is the case for cloning in its molecular cloning or gene cloning sense. The term we find it replaced by in the LSP literature is mostly amplification.

The  lexeme clone and cloning not  only  become  overloaded  as  a consequence  of  polysemy,  they  also  start  suffering  from  ambiguity. Gene  cloning ,  which  literally  stands  for  the  procedure  to  produce  a large number of copies of a particular gene, also ends up being used for the totality  of  a  new  discipline  (which  involves  more  and  more new techniques under development as well) and for the aspect of the gene cloning  procedure  which  made  the  procedure  worthwhile  (gene splicing). So the term gene cloning is used at the same time in its literal sense,  as  a  pars  pro  toto  and  as  a  toto  pro  pars,  which  obviously amounts to ambiguity.

We shall look at the twofold reply to question two in more detail. First we describe the coming into existence of the new technique for making  large  numbers  of  exact  copies: polymerase  chain  reaction (PCR), then we shall illustrate the generic posting phenomenon.

12 Overloaded terms or words are used in too many different senses (Meyer,1992:31).

What is PCR? PCR (polymerase chain reaction) is a technique developed  in  1985 'which  enables  selective  amplification  of  DNA  sequences' (Nicholl, 1994:100) , but which is based on different principles and a process very different from molecular cloning.

'The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is an in vitro method for selectively amplifying, or synthesizing millions of copies of a short region of a DNA molecule.  The  reaction  is  carried  out  enzymatically  in  a  test  tube…' (Cooper, 1994:128)

The meaning components 'cloning' and 'PCR' have in common are 'amplification'  and  'identical  copies'.  As  before  the  development  of PCR there was only one technique ( be it in many different procedures or  methods) for amplification of DNA sequences, i.e. 'cloning' with vectors in host cells, the terms 'amplification' and 'cloning' were synonymous  in  most  contexts.  Because  of  the  development  of  a  new means for amplification this is no longer the case, and therefore we see a  possible  shift  from  (near-)synonymy  to  superordination/subordination.

The question is whether 'cloning' is still going to be used as a synonym of 'amplification' after the invention of PCR. Cloning is sometimes found as a synonym of 'amplifying' or 'amplification':,

'Applications of PCR technology are many and diverse. It can be used to clone specific sequences, although in many cases it is in fact not necessary to do this, as enough material for subsequent manipulations may be produced by the PCR process itself. It can be used to clone genes from one organism by using priming sequences from another, if some sequence data are available for the gene in question.' (Nicholl,1994:102)

## but it is at the same time a hyponym , as shown in :

'Amplifying DNA. Most of the techniques currently used to analyze a segment of DNA require the availability of many copies of the segment. Two methods for 'amplifying' a DNA segment are now 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.  So, 'cloning' might extend its meaning and the new technique (PCR) might be classified under 'cloning', referring to a new method (technique) for cloning. But an alternative choice is possible, as we shall see.

The two possible interpretations of how PCR relates to other concepts/categories in the domain which seem to be competing in the discourse of specialists can be visualized as in figures 12 and 13.

Figure  12:  The  first  of  the  two  competing  interpretations  of  the  meaning relationship between molecular cloning and PCR.

<!-- image -->

Figure 13: The second of the two competing interpretations of the meaning relationship between molecular cloning and PCR.

<!-- image -->

| Techniques (methods) for the amplification of DNA fragments   | Techniques (methods) for the amplification of DNA fragments   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|
| a.                                                            | methods molecular cloning methods for molecular cloning       |
| 1.                                                            | plasmid cloning                                               |
| 2.                                                            | phage cloning                                                 |
| 3.                                                            | cosmid cloning                                                |
| 4.                                                            | YAC cloning                                                   |
| 5.                                                            | PCR                                                           |
| b.                                                            | reverse transcription                                         |

In the second interpretation 'cloning' underwent meaning extension as PCR is considered a type of cloning.  For some authors, PCR is described as an alternative way of amplification next to cloning and the use of reverse transcriptase. (figure 12):

## example 1

' DNA Amplification. Suppose we use the same restriction enzyme to cut plasmids and a chromosome. When the chromosomal fragments are cut plasmids are mixed together, they base-pair at random at their sticky ends. By using another enzyme, DNA ligase , the base pairing can be made permanent.

We now have a DNA library - a collection of DNA fragments produced by restriction  enzymes  and  incorporated  into  plasmids.  We  can  insert  the DNA library into bacteria or host cells for amplification. In other words, after repeated replications and divisions of the host cells, we end up with cloned DNA - multiple, identical copies of DNA fragments from the original chromosome.

DNA amplification can occur through other methods besides cloning. For example, single-stranded mRNA can serve as a template for assembling a DNA strand that is identical in sequence to some desired gene. The assembly  requires  a  special  viral  enzyme, reverse  transcriptase .  After  the 'hybrid' DNA/RNA molecule is assembled, the RNA strand is degraded. Other enzymes convert the remaining strand of DNA to double-stranded form. Any DNA molecule 'copied' from mRNA is known as cDNA .

Today, the polymerase chain reaction is the most commonly used method of DNA amplification. With this method, the gene of interest is split into two single strands, which enzymes then copy over and over to produce millions of copies of DNA containing that gene.' (Starr, 1991:165)

'A DNA clone is any DNA sequence that has been amplified in dividing cells. DNA sequences also can be amplified in test tubes by the polymerase chain reaction.' (Starr, 1991:169)

## example 2

'Polymerase chain reaction (PCR), a technique that allows a DNA fragment to be analysed without having to be cloned first.' (Hodson,1992:207)

## example 3

'The polymerase chain reaction technique (PCR) was devised by Kary Mullis in the mid-1980s and, like DNA sequencing, has revolutionarized molecular genetics by making possible a whole new approach to the study and analysis of genes. A major problem in analyzing genes is that they are rare targets in a complex genome that in mammals may contain as many as 100,000  genes.  Many  of  the  techniques  in  molecular  genetics  are  concerned  with  overcoming  this  problem.  These  techniques  are  very  timeconsuming,  involving  cloning and  methods  for  detecting  specific  DNA sequences. The polymerase chain reaction has changed all this by enabling us to produce enormous numbers of copies of a specific DNA sequence without resorting to cloning.' (Watson et al., 1992:79)

## example 4

'The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is an in vitro method for selectively amplifying, or synthesizing millions of copies of a short region of a DNA molecule. The reaction is carried out enzymatically in a test tube and has been successfully applied to regions as small as 100 base pairs and as large as 6000 base pairs. In contrast, DNA clo- ning is a nonselective in vivo method for replicating DNA fragments within bacterial or yeast cells. Cloned fragments range in length from several hundred to a million base pairs.' (Cooper, 1994:128)

In the glossary at the end of Cooper's book it is made clear that the term cloning is only valid for 'the production of many identical copies of a DNA fragment' by means of a cloning vector and a host cell. In the polymerase chain reaction a different process is involved:

'molecular cloning : The production of many identical copies of a DNA fragment by inserting the fragment into a cloning vector and propagating the resulting recombinant vector in a host cell.'(Cooper, 1994:334)

' polymerase  chain  reaction (PCR):  An  in-vitro  process  for  producing many millions of copies of a DNA fragment. The process involves successive repetitions of a series of reactions and, when applied to a sample containing  many  different  DNA  fragments,  can  amplify  one  selected  fragment.' (Cooper, 1994:335)

## Other authors consider PCR to be one possible cloning method (figure 13):

## example 1

'Traditional cloning of small DNA fragments is being supplanted for many purposes  by  PCR,  which  can  be  regarded  as  in  vitro  cloning.' (Green, 1991:876)

## example 2

'PCR can also be used to clone  genes,  if  two  suitable  primers  can  be made, and to select the correct gene construct from a mixture of constructs when making a synthetic gene: the use of PCR in cloning is very widespread.' (Bains, 1993:242)

## example 3

'Applications of PCR technology are many and diverse. It can be used to clone specific sequences, although in many cases it is in fact not necessary to do this, as enough material for subsequent manipulations may be produced by the PCR process itself. It can be used to clone genes from one organism by using priming sequences from another, if some sequence data are available for the gene in question.' (Nicholl, 1994:102)

In  specialised  language cloning became so overloaded that it shifted into the generic or the specific class and was replaced by amplification. This because the emphasis was more and more on the 'large number of copies'-element instead of on the 'identical copy'-element. The 'identical copy'-core was not lost but was shifted in general language usage.

Our data show that the semantic overloadedness seems to get solved in the following ways: generic shifting of clone from an LSP term to a general word and generic posting in LSP ( amplification) .

## First aspect: cloning shifts from a term (LSP) to a word (LGP)

## The metaphorical transfer of cloning

'The word 'clone' has entered the vernacular; it can be found in newspaper articles, in novels and in poems, and it is heard on radio and television. Often it denotes a single, perfect copy of something - a person, an animal, an idea - but, this is not the way in which biologists generally use the word.' ( Berg & Singer, 1992:89)

The figurative extension 'exact duplicate, carbon copy, replica' is first recorded about 1978.'(Barnhart, 1988:181). The lexeme 'clone' got a new sense or meaning extension during the eighties.

'arose during the eighties, as a number of microcomputer manufacturers attempted  to  undercut  the  very  successful  IBM  personal  computer  (and later  its  successor,  the  PS2).' ( The Oxford Dictionary of New Words, 1991:64)

'a computer which deliberately simulates the features and the facilities of a  more  expensive  computer;  especially,  a  copy  of  the  IBM  PC.'  (The Oxford Dictionary of New Words, 1991:64)

## The new sense of clone is described as:

'a specialization of the figurative sense of clone which originated in science fiction: from the early seventies, , a clone was a person or animal that had developed from a single somatic cell of its parent and was therefore genetically an identical copy. The computer clones were designed to be identical in capability to the models that inspired them (and, in particular, to  run  the  same  software)' (The  Oxford  Dictionary  of  New  Words, 1991:64)

In the metaphorising process from the domain of biology to the domain of computer language the new 'value-added' meaning component is the cut price of the computer clones, which in its turn makes a new shifted meaning extension possible, as the lexeme is now also

'widely used for other cut-price copies (for example, of cars and cameras as well as other computers).' (The Oxf. Dict. of New Words, 1991:64)

The criminal activity of providing mobile phones with the stolen number of a paying customer is called phone cloning, and the offending apparatus is called a clone phone. To clone a phone is the action of 'rechipping'  a  mobile  phone  with  another  number  which  belongs  to someone else. This can be done after a suitable mobile phone number has been 'scanned' by some sophisticated electronic device. (Channel 4 News Bulletin 18 April 1995)

Cloning  is  an  interesting  case  when  considered  in  the  semantic triangle system. It is subject to complicated mechanisms which are the result of the changing of the world , the rule system of language and the understanding of both the world and language by the human mind . It is clearly a category which can not be subjected to the rule of univocity.

## Second aspect: generic posting

We are witnessing generic posting. By this we mean that the concept of cloning as a process being applied to a wider range of objects, then becomes generic  for  this  kind  of  process  while  the  more  specific  processes  of  duplicating  plants,  animals,  etc.  for  the  moment  retain  the word but may eventually develop their own. The result is that we have at least temporarily, a broad common concept called 'cloning', which applies to all forms. Next to it we have separate more specific concepts, with their own features, but still called 'cloning'. These concepts have their own partially common and partially distinct subconcepts, which will have distinct names and some names in common. This results in homonomy  which  may  eventually  be  eliminated  when  techniques develop sufficient distinctiveness as their own specialists are working on them. The concept 'cloning' and its parallel 'clone' is then likely to remain  as  a  general  abstraction,  a  superordinate  term,  becoming broader and more vague as more detailed concepts spring up under this umbrella. At the same time, for contexts where precision really matters a different sort of generic posting occurs: amplification can be a generic term for both cloning and PCR.

We suppose that diversification of terminology begins when groups of specialists see the need for clearer differentiation.

Eventually  scientists  discover  that  the  generic  concept  'clone'  no longer serves a useful purpose and then rewrite history, telling us that certain terms were originally wrongly used or wrongly understood and that for the current state of knowledge a new terminology will make the differences clearer. Such work may then lead to further splits, this time between the popular name for a group of processes and the scientific names which signify that these processes have little in common, or not enough, at least, to be united by a superordinate concept.

We  can  conclude  that  there  is  ample  evidence  in  this  story  of molecular cloning and PCR for  the  functionality  of  polysemy  in  the interplay of the three elements of the semantic triangle.

## 3.2.2. (Near-) synonymy exists because the mechanisms for naming can trigger several possible lexicalisations.

Slightly different perspectives results in near-synonyms. The univocity ideal of traditional Terminology consists of trying to eliminate some of the near-synonyms and indicating a preferred term. The underlying idea is  that  to  have  several  terms  for  the  same  concept/category is a bad thing as  it  implies  an  impediment  for  unambiguous  communication. The functional aspect of synonymy in a discourse community is overlooked.

Starting from the example of Southern blotting we can in the first place illustrate the functionality of synonymy and in the second place show that the reason why synonymy is functional may be that the different elements which are at the basis of lexicalisation were present in the initial situation when the technique was being developed.

## The functionality of synonymy.

What is  Southern  blotting  or  Southern  transfer  or  Southern  hybridisation, and second why is this synonymy functional?

'Southern blotting is the commonly used term for the technique developed by  E.  M.  Southern  which  involves  the 'transfer  of  single-stranded,  restricted DNA fragments (=Southern transfer), separated in an agarose gel, to the nitrocellulose filter (or other binding matrix) which is then analyzed by  hybridization  to  radioactive  or  biotinylated  single-stranded  DNA  or RNA  probes.  The  hybrids  are  detected  by  autoradiography  or  a  color change,  respectively.  S.b.  reveals  details  of  sequence  organization.' (Rieger, 1991:454-5)

In  a  paragraph  entitled  ' Probes  to  find  cloned  genes' we  find  the following description of Nucleic Acid Hybridization :

'Nucleic Acid Hybridization. Under the appropriate conditions two complementary  single-stranded  nucleic  acids  will  spontaneously  form  base pairs  and  become  double-stranded.  If  single-stranded,  nonradioactive DNA is fixed tightly to a filter and then incubated in a solution containing single-stranded,  radioactive  DNA,  double-stranded  regions  will  form where the two types of DNA have complementary nucleotide sequences; the radioactive DNA will become indirectly bound to the filter through its attachment to a specific region of nonradioactive DNA. By measuring the amount of radioactivity bound to the filter, one can estimate the relatedness between two DNA's.' (Drlica,1984:68)

In Drlica, the process of what is commonly known as Southern blotting is  described  but  the  term  is  not  introduced,  instead  the hyperonym hybridization is used.

## As Grinsted and Bennett (1988:150) write: '

The general technique to determine homology is hybridization, in which single-stranded  DNA  reanneals  with  complementary  strands.  Singlestranded test DNA is annealed with labelled single-stranded 'probe' DNA and the mixture then assayed for the presence of double-stranded labelled hybrid DNA. The amount and the stability of this will be a measure of the degree of homology between the test and the probe. In the case of fragments in a gel, the aim is to hybridize each of the them to a probe. One could hybridize each of the fragments and then hybridize them separately, but it is simpler to do all of the hybridizations together. This is achieved by denaturing the fragments in the gel (i.e. making them single-stranded) and then transferring them to a filter to which they are irreversibly bound. This is called a Southern transfer , after the inventor of the technique. (It is also called ' blotting ', because of the details of the technique.) The filter is then incubated with labelled  probe  DNA,  which  hybridizes  with  homologous sequences; unhybridized probe is then washed away. Therefore the only label left on the filter should have hybridized to the test fragments. This can be detected by autoradiography and, since the fragments on the filter retain the same relative positions to each other as in the original gel, comparison of the position of the label on the filter and the photograph of the gel shows which fragments have homology with the probe.'

Figure 14: the motivation for the synonymous naming of Southern's technique.

|                        | motivation                                                                                   |
|------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Southern blotting      | the result of the technique is a blot on a filter                                            |
| Southern transfer      | the process of transferring the denatured (single stranded) fragments from a gel to a filter |
| Southern hybridisation | the principle of the technique: single stranded DNAreanneals with complementary strands      |

The naming of Southern's technique is motivated by (at least)  three aspects of the (encyclopaedic) information concerning the technique.

Depending on which of the three elements a language user wants to stress in a particular context the use of one or another of the synonyms can be appropriate for more nuanced communication.

## The reason why synonymy is functional shows in the presence of the elements for alternative motivated names in the original texts on the method.

E.M. Southern described his technique in two articles: 'Detection of Specific Sequences Among DNA Fragments Separated by Gel Electrophoresis.' (1975) and 'Gel Electrophoresis.' (1979).

Southern does not refer to his own technique with 'Southern blotting' . Modesty or 'good manners' must be the explanation. In the 1979volume of Methods in Enzymology, in  which  Southern  publishes  his second well-known article, he does not use the term Southern blotting for  his  own  method  whereas  other  authors  in  the  same  volume  consistently do. e.g.:

Szostak, J. et al. ' Hybridization with Synthetic Oligonucleotides':

'In this chapter we describe procedures for the use of synthetic oligonucleotides  for  Southern  blot  experiments and  gene  bank  screening,  and demonstrate the effect of various mismatches on the efficiency of hybridization.' (420)

'DNA fragments were transferred to nitrocellulose paper (Schleicher and Schuell) by the blotting procedure of Southern (...).' (421)

To refer to one's own method is felt by Southern as 'something which cannot be done', apparently. His modesty also 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).

However, 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)

'(...) DNA may be transferred from the gel to a sheet of cellulose nitrate, retaining the original patterns. The sheet of cellulose nitrate is laid against the gel, and solvent blotted through it by stacking absorbent paper on top. DNA is carried out of the gel by the flow of solvent and trapped in the cel-

lulose nitrate paper, which is subsequently used for hybridization using well-established methods.'

So all the elements for naming Southern's technique Southern blotting , Southern transfer or Southern hybridization were present in his own description of the technique.

## 3.2.3. The third aspect of the univocity ideal for terminology which wants to rule out figurative language and replace it by literal equivalents is untenable as figurative language has a function in the development of LSP.

The objectivist structuralist credo of traditional Terminology offered no tools for dealing with metaphor and metonymy, which were treated as unwanted and belonging to the figurative  language  which  had  to  be replaced by literal equivalents. Figurative language was avoided as it was an impediment for scientific i.e. logical thinking. Experientialism ventures to study the influence of especially metaphorical models on categorisation and understanding.

In contrast with objectivism in which reality and the understanding thereof is seen as objective, independent of language and disembodied, cognitive  semantics  sees  understanding  and  categorisation  as  experiential, i.e. embodied and based on human interpretation.

As Johnson (1987) shows experientialism opens up perspectives for imagination and creative thinking in which language as a medium for cognition and for communication about this cognition has a position. Imaginative and creative thinking is often reflected in the use of metaphors.

Metaphor is not in the first place studied as a language phenomenon, 'a  deviant  form  of  expression  or  a  nonessential  figure  of  speech' (Johnson, 1987:66), but as a fundamental process at the cognitive level, the non-propositional level at which metaphorical projections can be experientially creative. This non-propositional level we have referred to elsewhere as the metaphorical environment (Temmerman, 1995)

Metaphorical thinking in the life sciences shows in the metaphorical environments which appear to exist as non-propositional gestalts in the heads of the specialists. The tangible results of the metaphorical understanding  of  an  environment  are  the  metaphorical  lexicalisations  for many (new) categories in the discipline.

Johnson  and  Lakoff  (1980)  in Metaphors  we  live  by, and  Lakoff (1987) in Women, Fire, and Dangereous Things, showed how metaphor is pervasive in everyday life, not just in language but in thought and action.  Their  thesis  is  that  metaphor  in  language  is  possible  because there are metaphors in the human conceptual system as ' most of our normal conceptual system is metaphorically structured' .

Metaphors are culturally grounded in our physical and cultural experience. Experiential 'gestalts' are multidimensional structured wholes which are the basic dimensions of our experience. We classify particular experiences in terms of experiential gestalts (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980:82).  Understanding  takes  place  in  terms  of  entire  domains  of experience and not in terms of isolated concepts.

A theory of human conceptual systems has to account for how concepts are a) grounded, b) structured, c) related) and d) defined (106). Unclearly structured concepts get structured in metaphor. 'Metaphor is one of our most important tools for trying to comprehend partially what cannot be comprehended totally.' (193)

They argue that our experience is structured holistically in terms of experiential gestalts. These gestalts have structure that is not arbitrary. Instead, the dimensions that characterize the structure of the gestalts emerge naturally from our experience. (224)

'Within the experientialist myth, understanding emerges from interaction, from  constant  negotiation  with  the  environment  and  other  people.  It  emerges in the following way: the nature of our bodies and our physical and cultural environment imposes a structure on our experience, in terms of natural dimensions of the sort we have discussed. Recurrent experience leads to the formation of categories, which are experiential gestalts with those natural dimensions. Such gestalts define coherence in our experience.  We  understand  our  experience  directly  when  we  see  it  as  being structured coherently in terms of gestalts that have emerged directly from interaction with and in our environment. We understand experience metaphorically when we use a gestalt from one domain of experience to structure experience in another domain.' (230)

In studying the language of the life sciences we found ample evidence of gestalts of domains of experience which served to structure experience in the domain of the life sciences. In other words these source gestalts of domains of experience provided the underlying metaphorical environments in which progress was made in understanding and creating more and new aspects of the life sciences.

Their  is  growth  of  understanding  and  knowledge  through  metaphorical reasoning. This metaphorical reasoning amounts to the understanding of a new fact, situation, process, or whatever type of category based on the imagined analogy between what one is trying to come to grips with, to understand, with something one knows and understands already.  This  inventive  or  creative  capacity  is  made  tangible  in  neolexicalisations. These neo-lexicalisations are functional in the process of understanding which is reflected in language.

To replace the denominations based on metaphor by literal language can only be defended by a Terminology which has its roots in objectivism. As soon as Terminology opens up to cognitivism it will show an interest in the function of figurative language like metaphor in the interaction between the world, language and the human mind, an interaction which aims at better understanding, i.e. progress.

The analogical reasoning of which the metaphorical naming of new categories  with  existing  lexemes  is  the  result,  is  rooted  in  human experience.

## Metaphorical environments as non-propositional gestalts give rise to neolexicalisations.

In structuralist linguistics metaphor is treated as a type of neology at the level of the signifié (Tournier, 1985). Traditional terminology has considered metaphor as a figure of speech which has to be avoided in unambiguous scientific terminology .

The disciplines of the life sciences develop in cognitive frames or cognitive image schemata which can be seen as gestalts. In order to develop new ideas practitioners of the discipline of the life sciences will also take over existing cognitive frames or cognitive image schemata from domains of experience outside the life sciences . Whenever this happens a metaphorical environment is brought to life.

The point is that the metaphorical environment as a gestalt plays. This shows when we compare what is lexicalised of the metaphorical gestalt  to  what  can  be  extended  but  is  not  necessarily  giving  rise  to lexicalisation.

Underlying progress in the understanding of the mechanisms of life are a number of analogies which have given rise to lexicalisation and the development of a new lexical field based on specific metaphorical gestalt structures or analogy image schemata, of which the following are examples:.

- Genes  are  messages  written  in  a  language  (the  language  metaphorical environment).
- The language of the genes is information which is programmed and can be processed by the cell (the electronic information processing metaphorical environment).
- Geneticists are explorers or discoverers of unknown territory (the explorers metaphorical environment). 13

We have been treating this more extensively elsewhere (Temmerman, 1995). For our present purpose it should suffice to show that for the terminology which is a consequence of the language metaphorical environment it  is  pointless  if  not  impossible  to  replace  the  metaphorical naming  for  a  number  of  new  concepts/categories  by  'literal  equivalents'. As the metaphor is part of the understanding of the terms in discourse.

In  the  following  description  we  indicated  all  the  lexicalisations which bear on the metaphorical environment in bold.

As Shapiro describes it (1991:4), the idea that our genetic plan is stored in letters has been around for a little more than a generation.

Before that, our ancestors were inspired by other imagined analogies which left their traces in language.

Remnants of a much older idea are still preserved in language as a type of verbal fossil: that heredity is preserved and transmitted by our blood. The thought has become so familiar that we do not even pause when we see such phrases as royal blood , bad blood , blood relative , blue blood ,  and mixed blood .  The  blood  theory  was  first  devised  by Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) and others of that era.

For those who believed this idea, inheritance involved a blending of parental qualities, as in the mixture of two different liquids.

Linear text is different. It can be spliced but not blended. The child receives  a  selection  of  components  from  both  parents.  Some  remain intact, while other traits from a parent may be lost entirely.

13 There  are  more  metaphor  catalysts  we  could  concentrate  on  like  the  'genetic manipulation is designing genes' analogy or the 'war analogy' in the application of genetic engineering methods in the 'fight' against disease. (see Liebert, 1993).

We summarize the story of inheritance and indicate the lexicalisations  which  bear  on  the  underlying  language  analogy  in  bold  face (Hodson, 1992 & Berg & Singer, 1992).

The mechanisms of inheritance were discovered in 1866 by Gregor Mendel.  For  Mendel  the  'factors'  of  inheritance  (we  now  call  them genes) were entirely abstract entities. Microscopes were by that time operating at magnifications of x 1000 or more. Structures in the cell nucleus were seen that were like coloured threads; they were named chromosomes (from the Greek for 'coloured bodies'). It was immediately realized that here was the reality behind Mendel's 'factors'.

Chromosome research became the focus of genetics. It was obvious that the chromosomes provided the physical basis for Mendel's mechanisms of inheritance, they could not be the same as Mendel's factors (genes) for the simple reason that there were not enough of them.

Although  the  behaviour  of  genes  was  becoming  better  and  better understood, there was no information about their physical behaviour beyond the fact that they were located in a row along the chromosomes. It was clear that the genes were in some way carrying messages, and that in order to be self-perpetuating through cell divisions, the genes must  be  able  to duplicate themselves  accurately.  But  there  was  no theory about what chromosomes could be made of to give them these remarkable  properties.  Later  experiments  pointed  out  that  the  secret was  in  the  DNA  (deoxyribonucleic  acid).  Francis  Crick  and  James Watson tackled the problem of DNA's double helical structure by building a scale model of wire and pieces of cardboard. The molecule was like a spiral staircase, with the steps made of pairs of bases (A (adenine) always joined to T (thymine), C (cytosine) always joined to G (guanine)) and the banisters made of sugar-phosphate chains.

What Crick and Watson had discovered was that DNA had a structure which allowed it to copy itself. Since A must be paired with T, and C with G, it follows that, if a DNA molecule is split down the middle lengthwise, all the information is there to reconstitute the whole molecule again.

Crick and Watson's proposed structure for DNA also provided the explanation for how a gene works, in chemical terms. It was already known that a gene controls the production of a single protein. What the Crick-Watson model showed was how the gene could contain a mes- sage encoded in the sequence of letters which was the specification of which protein is to be made.

The coding structure of DNA does two things:

- It ensures that DNA is replicated to produce more DNA.
- It  ensures  that  DNA  is transcribed into  RNA,  which  is  then translated into protein.

## Transcription and translation

When DNA makes a protein, it does so via an intermediate molecule called ribonucleic acid (RNA) which is very similar to DNA. RNA is usually in the form of a single strand. A molecule of RNA can be made to an exact and repeatable pattern by reading off the base sequence of a stretch of DNA; this process is called transcription .  The strand of RNA produced in this way is known as messenger RNA , or mRNA, since it carries the message telling that protein is to be made from the particular stretch of DNA that was copied.

Sydney Brenner worked with Crick on deciphering the DNA code , and they discovered that it is written in 'words' of three letters . As there are four possible bases occurring in groups of three there are 64 (i.e.4x4x4) possible combinations, but only 20 amino acids to be coded for . It turned out that most amino acids are coded for by more than one codon, and that there are three codons which do not represent any amino acid but are 'stop' signals where the protein-coding message ends.

The code sequence of the DNA gene is used to build a molecule of messenger RNA ;  this  is  assembled by an enzyme called RNA polymerase, and this part of the process is called transcription.

There are also many molecules of a different kind of RNA known as transfer  RNA  (tRNA).  Each  tRNA  molecule  consists  of  only  three bases. These three bases form an anticodon, and each of these matches on to the codon in the mRNA. This part of the process, known as translation, takes place on the ribosomes, which act as a sort of assembly frame for building proteins. The tRNA molecules form a line, and the amino acids join up in the specifies order to form the protein chain.

Once  the  analogy  between  genes  and  language  is  recognised  the image schema or cognitive frame or gestalt of language is opened up for metaphorical transfer to the new understanding and naming of the scientific field of genetics. The language metaphorical environment starts showing its impact on thought and language. When dealing with the message in DNA writers rely on the existing vocabulary of everything which has to do with language and language processing . The analogy is also going to give rise to explicit lexicalisations:

- Genes are carrying messages.
- Genes must be able to duplicate. To duplicate is part of the image schema of language , in its aspect of writing.
- The structure of DNA allowed it to copy itself which results in a lexicalisation: 'DNA copying'.
- The message in the gene is determined by the sequence of letters. This results in the lexicalisations: to determine the sequence of the letters is a technique called sequencing.
- DNA is transcribed into RNA, which results in the lexicalisation: transcription.
- RNA is translated into protein, which results in the lexicalisation: translation.
- In the process called transcription the base sequence of a stretch of DNA is read off. The strand of RNA ... is lexicalised as messenger RNA since it carries the message telling that protein is to be made from the particular stretch of DNA that was to be copied.
- The DNA code is deciphered and written in words of three letters : codons.

## Two types of lexicalisations and inconsistencies.

The 'lexicalisations' in the domain under construction, i.e. the domain of the structure of DNA are of two types:

- Existing words from the metaphorical environment frame get a new meaning, giving rise to polysemy as seen from the point of view of the  word,  or  to  metaphorical  naming  or  metaphorisation  as  seen from the point of view of the new concept which is being named. e.g. transcription , translation, DNA copying, message.
- The source field of the analogy is used as a source of inspiration for creating  new  words  which  did  not  exist  before  and  which  were necessary to name a new phenomenon or concept in the target field. Codon is an example of this.

The equivalent of a codon in the image schema or cognitive frame of 'language' is, word, which raises the question why the new term codon was coined?

Apparently, word was too vague and too general and imprecise to become a term. A codon is a word or a code consisting of 3 letters only. In order to be more precise word would have had to be specified like in 'three-letter word'.

Codon sounds more scientific in analogy with lots of other scientific words (also in the physical sciences) ending in '-on': electron, transposon, exon, intron, etc.., and codon is reminiscent of code ( DNA code, amino acids to be coded for , etc.) and codon is shorter.

According to Rieger (1991:98) codon goes back to Crick (1963). He defines codon as

'any triplet of nucleotides (coding unit) in DNA or RNA (if RNA is the carrier of primary genetic information as in some viruses) that codes for a particular amino acid or signals the beginning or end of the message (anticodon) (...) Of the 64 possible codons in the genetic code, the mRNA triplets  UAA  'ochre),  UAG  (amber),  and  UGA  (opal),  serve  as  terminator codons, AUG and GUG are initiator codons.

Synonymous (=degenerate)  codons  are  different  codons  for  the  same amino acid (...). There are indications that reading of a given context may be  influenced  by  mRNA  sequences  external  to  this  codon  (effect  of  the reading context on translation ). Any base triplet which can encode any of two  or  more  amino  acids  is  called  an ambiguou s  codon.'  (Rieger, 1991:98) 14

In this fragment the metaphorical gestalt or environment is worked out further: whatever can be ascribed to word is metaphorically transferred to codon : a word can be synonymous , so can a codon, a word can be ambiguous ,  so  can  a  codon,  there  may  be  an  effect  of  the  reading context on the translation of a word, the same is true for a codon.

In other sources ( The New Penguin Dictionary. of Biology , 1990) the terminator codons are named nonsense codons , a denomination which can also be explained from the metaphorical environment, based on the language analogy.

This  is  strong  evidence  for  the  hypothesis  that  the  metaphorical environment is an underlying image schema which is not necessarily fully expressed propositionally. The proof is that if one lexicalisation (codon)  is  not  in  line  with  the  image  schema  which  provides  the analogy (language) this does not really disturb the analogy as the word codon is  further expanded on as if it were a synonym of word ,  as  is shown  in  the  lexicalisations synonymous and ambiguous codons (analogy with synonymous and ambiguous words).

14 The emphasis is mine.

## 4. Conclusion. The consequences for terminography

We realised that it is possible to distinguish between two types of concepts: those which are fit for a description in accordance with the univocity  principle  of  traditional  Terminology  and  those  which  are  not. Concepts  of  the  first  type  appeared  to  be  clear-cut  and  not  to  show characteristics  of  prototype  structure.  For  categories  which  do  show prototype structure  the  principle  of  univocity  is  impossible  to  apply. The reason is that the principle is not at all in accordance with the facts of conceptualisation, categorisation and naming in LSP. For several of the categories we studied, the principle of univocity appeared to be useless as polysemy, synonymy and figurative language showed to have their function in the coming into existence and the further development of  these  categories.  Therefore  we  propose  a  diversification  in  the methodology of terminography. First one has to distinguish between different types of concepts/categories In case of a clear-cut concept the univocity  principle  of  traditional  Terminology  may  be  applied  in terminography. in case of a category showing characteristics of prototype structure methods and principles have to be developed for incorporating  polysemy,  synonymy,  and  figurative  language  in  meaning  description. In order to make this possible a revaluation of what is traditionally referred to as encyclopaedic information is essential.

The impossibility to apply the univocity principle for a number of concepts/categories is just one example of how the principles and methods of  traditional  Terminology  are  an  impediment  for  a  diversified  and realistic description of categories in LSP.

## References

Bains, W. (1993): Biotechnology from A to Z . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

The Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology (1988). W. Wilson.

Berg, P./Singer, M. (1992): The Language of Heredity. California: Blackwell Scientific Publications.

Cooper, N. (1994): The Human Genome Project . California: University Science books.

Crick, F. 1(979): Split Genes and RNA Splicing. In: Science 204, 264-271.

Dictionary of Microbiology and Molecular Biology . 1987. New York: J. Wiley & Sons.

- Doolittle, W. (1978): Genes in Pieces: were they ever together? In: Nature , 272, 581582.
- Drlica, K. (1984): Understanding DNA and Gene Cloning . New York: John Willey and Sons.
- Felber, H. (1984): Terminology Manual . Vienna: Infoterm.
- Geeraerts, D. (1989a): Wat er in een woord zit. Leuven: Peeters.
- Geeraerts, D. (1989b): Prospects and Problems of Prototype Theory. In: Linguistics , 274 (302), 587-661
- Geeraerts,  D.  (1993):  Cognitive  Semantics  and  the  History  of  Philosophical  Epistemology. In: Geiger, R./Rudzka-Ostyn, B. (eds.): Conceptualizations and Mental Processing in Language . Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
- Gilbert, W. (1978): Why Genes in Pieces? In: Nature , 271, 501.
- Green, P. (1991): Genome, Human. In: Encyclopedia of Human Biology , vol. 3, 869897.
- Grinsted,  J./Bennett,  P.  (1988):  Analysis  of  Plasmid  DNA  with  Restriction  Endonucleases. In: Grinsted, J./Bennett, P. (eds.): Methods in Microbiology , Vol. 21.
- Halliday, M.A.K. (1985): An Introduction to Functional Grammar .  London: Edward Arnold.
- Hawkes, N. (1991): Genetic Engineering . London: Franklin Watts.
- Hodson, A. (1992): Essential Genetics . London: Bloomsbury.
- Johnson,  M.  (1987): The  Body  in  the  Mind .  Chicago/London:  The  University  of Chicago Press.
- Kleiber, G. (1990): La sémantique du prototype. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.
- Lakoff, G./Johnson, M. (1980): Metaphors we Live By . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Lakoff, G. (1987): Women, Fire and Dangerous Things . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Laurén, C./Picht, H. (1993) (Hrsg.): Ausgewählte Texte zur Terminologie . Wien: Termnet. IITF Infoterm.
- Lee, T. (1993): Gene Future. The Promise and Perils of the New Biology . New York: Plenum Press.
- Lewin, B. (1983): Genes . New York: John Wiley and Sons.
- Liebert, W.A. (1993): Reflecting Your Own Cognitive Models. The Lexicon of Metaphor-Models of a Science Team of AIDS-Research .  Paper  presented  at  the  Third International Cognitive Linguistics Conference in Leuven, 18 to 23 July 1993.
- Meyer,  I.  (1992):  Knowledge  Management  for  Terminology-Intensive  Applications: Needs  and  Tools.  In:  Pustejovsky,  J./Bergler,  S.  (eds.): Lexical  Semantics  and Knowledge Representation . Berlin: Springer Verlag, 21-37.
- Nicholl, D. (1994): An Introduction to Genetic Engineering . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

- The Oxford Dictionary of New Words . A Popular Guide to Words in the News .  1991 Oxford/NewYork: Oxford University Press.
- Rieger, R./Michaelis, A./Green, M. (1991): Glossary of Genetics. Classical and Molecular . New Dehli: Narosa Publishing House.
- Shapiro,  R.  (1991): The  Human  Blueprint:  the  Race  to  Unlock  the  Secrets  of  our Genetic Script. New York: St. Martin's Press.
- Southern, E. (1975): Detection of Specific Sequences among DNA Fragments Separated by Gel Electrophoresis. In: Journal of Molecular Biology , 98, 503-517.
- Southern, E. (1979): Gel Electrophoresis. In: Methods in Enzymology , 68, 152-176.
- Starr, C. (1991): Biotechnology: Concepts and Applications . Belmont CA: Wordsworth Inc.
- Taylor, J. (1989): Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Claredon Press.
- Temmerman, R. (1995): The Process of Revitalisation of Old Words: 'Splicing', a case study in the extension of reference. In: Terminology 2:1, 107-128
- Temmerman, R. (1995): Meaning Relationships and How to Detect Them: the Case of Biotechnology. In: Proceedings Maastricht Conference on Translation and Meaning. 1995.
- Temmerman, R. (1996a):  The  Process  of  (Neo-)lexicalisation:  the  Case  of  the  Life Sciences.  In: Proceedings  Third  International  Terminology  Meeting  19-20  April 1996 . Centre de Terminologie de Bruxelles.
- Temmerman, R. (1996b): Retrospect Lexicalisation: A Recurrent Phenomenon in the Lexicalisation Process of the Life Sciences. In: Euralex 96 Proceedings , 825-835.
- Temmerman,  R.  (1996c):  Why  some  Terms  are  more  Fit  for  Standardisation  than others. From Standardisation to Optimisation of Understanding. In: Steurs, F. (ed.): Terminology and Terminography in Relation to Translation. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
- Temmerman,  R.  (1996d):  Terminology:  the  Structuralist  Tradition  and  the  SocioCognitivist Future. In: Terminology. 3(2).
- Temmerman, R./Simonis, F./Luyten, L. (1990): Terminologie: een methode .  Leuven: Acco.
- Tournier, J. (1985): Introduction descriptive à la lexicogénétique de l'anglais contemporain . Paris-Genève: Champion -Slatkine.
- Watson, J. e.a. (1992): Recombinant DNA . 2nd ed., New York: W.H. Freeman & Co.
- Wüster,  E.  (1991): Einführung  in  die  allgemeine  Terminologielehre  und  terminologische Lexikographie . 3. Aufl. Bonn: Romanistischer Verlag.
- Zawada,  B./Swanepoel,  P.  (1994):  On  the  Empirical  Adequacy  of  Terminological Concept Theories. The Case for Prototype Theory. In: Terminology 1(2), 253-275.