Introduction

When I was first asked to present this paper, the title suggested was "The status of Terminology". It did not take me long to discover that there was not all that much which I could say in this context, no matter how much I racked my brains.

Since the status of terminology is hard to define and varies enormously from country to country, from culture to culture, from organisation to organisation, from company to company and, bearing in mind that very little by way of funds is made available for terminology anywhere, had I stuck to the original title, this paper would have lasted for about three minutes.

In the last two days, you have been treated to discourses by eminent and eloquent speakers dealing with some highly specific aspects of terminology - in particular from the theoretical point of view. The papers involving practical aspects referred to certain individual instances and cannot be generalised. I come from the practical side of terminology where the prevailing circumstances often make application or implementation of the theoretical rules impossible. For this reason, I shall spend more time on practice and less on theory.

In a way, each and every one of the papers presented in these last two days gives some insight into the status of terminology in the various domains, countries and organisations represented. What is absent is a clearly definable status for terminology in general.

Consequently, in view of the fact that it is still relatively early in the morning and that it is abundantly clear that what is lacking here is a general awareness of the value of terminology, I have decided to ask you to join me in a step backwards to try to look at the field of terminology dispassionately and to mull over some reflections of what the current status is and what we would like it to be.

Awareness in this sense is how terminology is perceived by those who have not looked at the "science" of terminology in any serious sense of the word. I would therefore like to take two lines from a very well-known poem by the Scottish national bard, Robert Burns:

"O wid some poo'er the giftie gie us tae see oorsels as ithers see us."

The English equivalent of the original text would be along the lines :

"If only it were possible for some great power to give us the gift of seeing ourselves as others see us."

In other words, how does the rest of the world - which as Chris Cox so appropriately pointed out also includes a great many creators and users of terminology - perceive terminology and the work of terminologists?

I hope our reflections will result in the generation of new ideas on possible courses of action for the future.

1. What do we mean by the word "terminology"?

It is embarrassing to have to admit that the terminology of terminology is not as clear as it should be.

What is a term? It is generally accepted that the term is the basic element of terminology.

The word "terminology" itself has at least three meanings :

One meaning of "terminology" is what is also variously described as "terminology work" or "terminography", i.e. the physical effort of recording, processing and presenting terminological data acquired by terminological research (ISO/DIS 1087). This is the process of compiling a terminology, i.e. a set of terms is recorded in such a way that it can be used for future reference. In so doing, various other - sometimes optional - criteria are recorded (source, definition, synonym, antonym, collocation, etc.) so that the future user of the data can make discerning use of the data being retrieved.

Another meaning of word "terminology" is the management of any collection of terms to form a reference base and this is a misnomer. This is part of what is now known as "terminology management", generally involving IT databases as a rule, and has a book (i.e., paper) variant in what is more accurately named "lexicography". Lexicography is based on the form of the word rather than on its meaning. This is known as the semasiological approach (quoted by Margaret Rogers as 'working from the form and assigning a meaning or meanings to the form'). Terminology in this sense proceeds from the meaning to the form, known as the onomasiological approach, which is always subject-field based. As Margaret Rogers points out, the structure (or conceptual system) is used to work out the relations between the terms of the subject field such as synonymy, polysemy, equivalence, etc.

The third definition of "terminology" can be found in any dictionary :

Special words or expressions used in relation to a particular subject or activity.

(I prefer to call this LSP terminology, i.e. terminology used in language for special purposes)

Encyclopædia Britannica gives a variant of this definition :

Etymologically, the doctrine or scientific study of terms; in use almost always, the system of terms belonging to any science or subject; technical terms collectively; nomenclature.

Nomenclature. This is closer to my personal perception of terminology, but still does not go far enough in my opinion. If we accept that the word "terminology" means a set of terms used in a specific field, I think we are beginning to get close to the heart of the matter.

Terminology - by its very nature - has to be monolingual. The terms for concepts in each and every language depend on a great many factors, some geographical, some historical, others linguistic in nature, etc. There are some terms which are so specific to their language (i.e., culture of origin) that no attempt is usually made to translate them ("pizza" is a good example). It may be necessary to explain what the concept means at some stage, but the original word is most often retained (although it sometimes goes through a metamorphosis to conform to the rules of spelling and pronunciation of the borrowing language, such as the examples "Coffee and "tea"). The same concept can ometimes also be expressed by an equivalent term in another language with complete accuracy, but it can still mislead because the system in which the term or the concept is embedded may very well differ. An example : In any country when, for example, cashing a cheque, you are asked to produce a pièce d'identité (in German Ausweis, Legitimierung), etc. This can be perfectly adequately rendered in English by the term "identity card". Since this situation is unlikely to occur in Britain, a passport is presented by way of identification and the matter is solved. Misunderstandings cannot occur. However, the systems prevailing in the countries used here by way of example differ enormously. In most countries, each citizen is duty bound to carry an identity card or other document to prove his or her identity. British law as it has evolved historically sets the individual higher than the state. Basically, according to British law, no-one need prove his or her identity. It is for those who challenge that person's assertion to prove that he or she is NOT the person he or she claims to be. This reversal of the roles involved shows how important it is to know how the term is embedded in its own culture. The term can be adequately translated, but the connotations and the basic function remain vastly different. One other point worth mentioning here is that the normal identity card (pièce d'identité, Ausweis, etc.) shows the address of the person involved, which is not the case with the passport. If the address is also required, a passport will not be regarded as adequate proof of identity.

In such special fields as anatomy, astronomy, biology, geology, linguistics, mathematics, or zoology, however, the terminology has been set down and scientifically defined for all time. This terminology or, to be more exact, these terminologies, are sets of concepts which have been defined and have international validity by also carrying a Latin or Greek name. They are universal and have a one-to-one equivalence which can be proven by a form of triangulation via the Latin nomenclature. (There are, of course, many other words or terms which are known as "universals": "Man", "woman", "child", etc., are typical examples).

Thus, for example, in the field of zoology, we have the animal we know generically as the bear (Latin "ursus"). It belongs to the family of Ursidae, large carnivores closely related to the dog. "Bear" and "ursus" as abstract concepts do not exist physically. They are one of a number of those belonging to the group, each one of which has its own Latin designation, i.e. its own specific nomenclature.

As already stated, these terms, the internationally agreed nomenclature for certain specific concepts, allow a one-for-one transfer from one language to the other. Without reference to the scientific zoological terminology, there are restrictions. The red squirrel generally found in western Europe has a Russian equivalent. The root of this word signifies "white" because the Russian red squirrel changes the colour of its coat in winter to white. Consequently, this cannot be used in strict sense to translate the English term "red squirrel" but the translation normally suffices in most instances. If we take this a step further to "grey squirrel" - an animal which was not originally native to Europe or Russia - this would produce a contradiction in terms - in Russian at least. It would be like saying "le petit blanc gris". If, however, this is a scientific text on zoology, the correct genus nomenclature would be used and the problem is solved. This terminological panacea is, unfortunately, not available for every text on every subject.

One of my favourite examples is the word "bread". This so-called universal word is anything but universal. The role of bread as a staple part of the diet in Europe, for example, is undeniable, but the form, taste, colour, texture, etc. of the bread varies greatly from country to country. The role of bread is also hard to convey in languages from cultures which do not normally regard bread as a staple, e.g. in the Far East where the staple food is rice. For normal purposes, the dictionary translation of "bread" ("pain",. "Brot", etc.) is perfectly adequate. It would be a disastrous rendering for a bakers' convention.

New discoveries in scientific domains are treated in the same time-hallowed manner as before so that there is continuity for all concerned. The "rules" generally applied to terminology in such sectors follow the same pattern. This also applies to the nomenclature - and even the brand-names - of pharmaceutical products, etc.

In such technical sectors as dynamics, pneumatics, mechanics, etc., each new term is defined and - as a rule - is also presented in visual form (diagram, drawing, photograph, etc.). Here, however, it is more difficult to identify which pattern to follow. In addition, most inventors call their inventions what they like - without even knowing that there are "rules" for coining new terms. When new products are launched on to the market today, the name of the product has to meet certain criteria - none of which, however, are even remotely related to the "rules" of terminology. This has led to many products being given names in one language which make the product a laughing stock in another language. A well-known soap powder in Europe is Persil. In France, however, it is known as "Le Chat" for obvious reasons: users are not likely to expect snow-white washing from a green garden herb which leaves traces of green everywhere it is used. The same applies to the new car launched onto the market some years ago known in Europe as the Nova, something entirely new, a novelty, a modern phenomenon. "No va" in Spanish, however, means that it does not move. That is not a very good name for a modern vehicle and cannot hope to be a hit on any Iberian or South American market.

There is a small problem here, though. A great deal of what is recognised as domain terminology is also part of the general language. We all know what a "pig" is in the zoological and agricultural sense. In metal-making circles, however, it is the term used to describe the product of the blast furnace. Its proper name is "pig iron". In the early days of metal casting, the molten metal was poured from the furnace into a channel or runner leading from the furnace which branched out into side channels called "sows" and then into smaller channels called "pigs" because the whole resembled a sow suckling her little piglets, the pigs. This practice is seldom used nowadays. Casting machines have taken over. Nevertheless, the product is still called "pig" or "pig iron" and the modern processes used to pour the metal known as machine casting have given rise to the product still retaining the metaphor of the sow and the pig by being known as the "motherless pig" or "sandless pig" or "chill-cast pig". This demonstrates that technical terminology and general language overlap to a tremendous degree, even if some of the terms have moved dramatically away from their original meanings ("ladle" in steel-making). It also demonstrates that a lot of terminology is constantly evolving, a fact which also conceals difficulties for the unwary if they do not how the term originated.

Señor Jordi Bover Salvado from Termcat in Barcelona made a point which is often overlooked, namely that terminology should not normally be created by linguists alone but that the subject matter specialists should be included in the process. This is not new. What is new in his proposal was that the specialists involved should also be given some tuition in terminology. This is suggestion is confirmed by the discussion and examples provided by Chris Cox.

The contours between general language on the one hand and specialised scientific and technical terminology on the other hand have become blurred. This has resulted in a wealth of polysemes and these give rise to a great deal of confusion and make communication much less precise.

That expert information can only be successfully communicated when the terminology involved has been thoroughly researched and recorded (and has been generally accepted) is now being recognised as an essential fact. Communication in general, however, also depends on accepted terminology on which the partners in the communication process have agreed. If this is not the case, there are bound to be problems in comprehension of the message.

To make sure that we all know what is meant in this context by "terminology" in the sense of being a set of terms belonging to a specific domain, I would like to give a simple example.

Let us take the little boy called Paul. He is a bright little lad and has just started school. As a rule, he jumps out of bed in the morning, eager to get to school. One morning, however, he lies there apathetically and tells his mother he does not want to go to school that day because he is not feeling very well. Paul's mother does what every other parent in the world would do, she gently questions him to ascertain what pains Paul actually has, feels his forehead - or takes his temperature - and looks for other physical signs. Worried because this is so unlike her son, she rings her husband who is, by now, at work and tells him what has happened. Paul's father shares his wife's concern and advises her to take Paul to the family doctor.

Paul and his mother go to the family doctor, a general practitioner. The doctor examines Paul and asks him and also his mother lots of questions. In the end, he has to admit that he is puzzled by the symptoms and refers them to a specialist. To make things easier for mother and child he himself rings up the specialist and gives him a summary of his findings.

So, Paul and his mother go to the specialist where another examination takes place and more questions are asked and answered. The specialist recognises the symptoms and explains to Paul's mother what is wrong, adding bits of information in more simple terms for Paul. They agree that Paul should be admitted to hospital for some minor surgery to cure the disorder.

The specialist writes a report on his findings for the hospital to pass on to the surgeon who will conduct the operation.

Before the operation, both the surgeon and also the anaesthetist talk to mother and son and explain what they are going to do and why.

The operation goes off successfully. The surgeon and the doctor on duty in the hospital look in on the patient and his mother after the operation and tell them how it had been conducted and what would now happen. They then send in their itemised report to the hospital administration office so that the bill can be made out for the insurance to pay for the treatment received.

Afterwards, Paul recovers and goes back to school, where he regales his classmates with a blow by blow account of his operation. Paul's mother chats with relatives, neighbours and friends, as does her husband at work and in his circle of friends. The insurance company rings up to make an enquiry about the operation and the matter is then settled.

Paul, his illness and the treatment he received form what we may regard as being the matter in hand. This matter in hand and, in essence, the concepts involved were identical. Nevertheless, the terminology used at each level and in each exchange of information and at all the various levels of communication was decidedly different. Yet, there is every reason to suppose that the information came across clearly and no misunderstandings occurred. Naturally, the key words like the official designation of the condition for which Paul was treated would have been used by all.

Let us examine these levels of communication :

I repeat, the interesting point here is that all these conversations refer to the same basic set of facts. What differed was the level and state of specialisation of the persons involved. Or was this just another situation in which terminology was used which Chris Cox referred to as "comfortably irrelevant terminology" which just happened to meet the needs of those in the communication processes and the communication succeeded despite not being scientific?

In these conversations, only those between the specialists involved were using terminology (i.e., LSP terminology) in the strict, dictionary definition of the term. And that is the point I am trying to make. It is my contention that all of these conversations used a set of terminology to accomplish the purpose, i.e. to pass on or elicit information. Accurate information can be obtained at all of the levels seen here, yet only the level of specialist to specialist used the scientific terminology defined for the purpose in hand. The overlap of terminology between the general language and medical terminology/jargon is great but not as great as in many technical fields and the contours may not be as blurred, but the terminologies involved certainly differ.

Yet we contend that accurate transfer of knowledge and flow of information are only possible when the "correct" terminology is used. This is a very simple view and does not stand up to serious argument except in the case of texts specifically designed to avoid misunderstandings (laws, legal contracts, standards, safety instructions, etc.).

That shows us that our basic position is not as sound as it ought to be.

So, let us look at the matter from a different angle:

2. How do we acquire terminology?

Terminology as a discipline is much older than we think. It is generally accepted that it has its roots in ancient philosophy. Yet the fact that it is an old discipline does not really explain how we as human beings actually come to acquire it. One of the greatest general misconceptions is that children are taught their mother tongue in infancy. This cannot be true.

From a very early age onwards, the child learns to identify objects (bottle = food, Mama, Papa, etc.). I am not aware of any child who starts off speaking by using sentences, i.e. language. The child uses the name of the object as given to him or her by whoever is looking after him or her and this name is repeated over and over again. At some stage, the child repeats the name - or tries to do so. For a considerable time, the child acquires an immense knowledge base of concepts with the nomenclature provided by the world around him or her. Practice with the terms learned and linking the words together to form phrases begins at a relatively much later stage. In other words, the human being acquires knowledge by identifying and naming concepts. The human being builds up a data base in this way and it is this data base which that person uses as the basis for other information acquired at any later stage. Language is merely the vehicle used.

One example I have is that of a small girl in Germany who could identify a cat (Miau-Katze) and a dog (Wau-Wau) as well as some other animals she had seen. One day, she saw a lady carrying a very small dog on her shoulder. The little girl looked this animal and then described it with a question mark in her voice. "Wau-Katze?" In her scheme of concepts, she had run into a border-line case but still managed to make her point using the logic and terminology of her two years of life experience.

Acquisition of knowledge in this way is a process which continues for the rest of that child's life. In this chain of events, the child also learns the language in which the knowledge has been imparted and in which the child has acquired that knowledge. The earliest knowledge acquired - and, I contend - the terminology used to name it, forms the basis for everything that child goes on to learn - irrespective of language.

An interesting phenomenon occurred in Austria in the late 1940s. Near Linz was a large camp for persons displaced from their homes in eastern Europe. A UNESCO visitor was intrigued by the language being used by the children playing together in the camp. A linguist was called in to study this language. What transpired was that the children had more or less invented their own language, a sort of lingua franca, a mixture of all the languages they spoke. This language, however, was concept-based. In other words, the children decided on the nomenclature and amalgamated the grammar, syntax, etc., of their various languages to arrive at a consensus lingua franca.

Many years ago, I read an article in which the proposition was made that "words are pegs on which to hang ideas". If we replace the "words" by "terms" and "ideas" by "concepts", we have reached the essential part of what I consider to be terminology.

Terminology is a system of concepts. These concepts may be physically and tangibly present, others may be visual whereas others again may be completely abstract. When these concepts are given names, i.e. when they receive their nomenclature, they can be used in written or spoken form.

Words are indeed pegs on which to hang ideas. As already stated, terminology is by its very nature monolingual. It is possible to find uniformity in the definition of the concept. This does not, however, mean that there is only one possible term to describe the concept. When two separate terminologies are then compared or where a bridge between them is required as is the case when two or more languages are added to the equation, the problems are magnified to the point where they are almost insuperable. The term or terms used for any particular concept may also depend on the purpose for which it is required. This is particularly true when the cultural element is added or where various disciplines are involved. With the exception of neologisms, the creation of terminology is a process of evolution. A name is sought to express a concept (i.e., the peg on which to hang the idea). Concepts also change and/or develop, the term then may or may not change in line with the change in concept, etc. To expect such evolution processes to run absolutely parallel in monolingual terminologies is foolish. It is downright ridiculous to expect this when more than one language is involved. When more than one culture is involved, it is insane.

Since the 1930s there has been a steady build-up of knowledge in the field of terminology. Only when something has been systematically and scientifically analysed can it be taught systematically. At present there are many schools offering training in terminology and some of these have had spectacularly good results. Nevertheless, they are tackling the acquisition of terminology from the same standpoint and in the same way as the acquisition of a second (or additional) language; that is, they do not - cannot - follow the natural system (child acquires knowledge, knowledge base is extended, etc.).

3. What are the uses of terminology?

That expert information can only be successfully communicated when the terminology involved has been thoroughly researched and recorded (and has been generally accepted) is now being recognised as an essential fact. The role of terminology in industry is gradually becoming more and more apparent, as M. Paesmans confirmed in his paper on Monday. The value of solid terminology effort, for example in industry, is also slowly beginning to be appreciated.

Established terminology is a valuable asset in specialist communication because it uses provable, defined terms and there is no need to explain, justify or otherwise describe the concept in question. There are no misunderstandings and knowledge can be transferred without loss, or with only minimal loss.

Where terminology is absent it must be created. This is a difficult field but it can be taught and there are standards and procedures which can be followed.

Speaking of industry : What does terminology mean to industry? Does industry really need terminology? Of course it does. Terminology pins down concepts (in every language) and provides them with an identifying label. In addition to this role, practical applications for terminology in industry can be found in procurement, marketing, sales, contracts management, technical documentation, translation, etc.

Where are the advantages of implementing a terminology strategy in industry? It is provable that good terminology practice (i.e., the strict adherence to consistent terminology for the domain in question within the corporate organisation) can cut the amount of capital tied up in stores by unnecessary maintenance of stocks. It speeds up procedures and prevents confusion and mistakes. This results in more efficiency. It is very often the case that savings of a high order of magnitude can also be obtained through good terminology practice and the implementation of a uniform terminology strategy. The potential costs arising from the absence of Daniel Gouadec's "terminologie vitale" are probably much higher than the costs involved in providing the terminology service of the quality required.

Typical advantages are :

• Standardisation - both statutory, local and works-internal

• Defined stipulations in connection with legal constraints (laws governing the environment, labour, contracts, product liability, etc.)

• Recording monolingual and multilingual product designations specific to the company (important for the corporate identity, corporate image, etc.)

• Correct and immediate identification of items in stock, avoiding unnecessary stockholding (and saving money in the process)

• Translating specialist jargon into a language accessible to the user or consumer (user manuals, technical documentation, advertising, etc. and also in respect of product liability)

• Monolingual and multilingual adaptation of cultural aspects and systems with the aim of assisting in the globalisation, internationalisation and localisation of processes, procedures, documentation, etc. (giving due attention to features specific to the cultures in question, thereby avoiding embarrassing errors)

• Use of graphic and pictorial illustrations instead of text (charts, diagrams, drawings, traffic and other signs, symbols and pictograms) as well as photographs, films, videos and animated representations (e.g. in advertising and in product documentation), etc.

Awareness of the implications of choosing the right terminology and the need to implement a terminology strategy are urgently required, as amply demonstrated by Chris Cox in his paper. When the awareness is there then such problems as the following typical example from industry can be resolved fairly easily.

In all industries, a greater or lesser number of component parts is involved, depending on the products being manufactured. A uniform system of parts identification is essential. Many enterprises use numbers for these parts. These numbers are allocated once and once only. In computer-controlled environments, this is acceptable practice. However, numbers cannot be used in handbooks, operating and safety instructions, etc. A system of naming the parts also has to be in place.

Parts can be divided into three categories as a rule :

1. Standard parts

2. Parts bought in from suppliers

3. Parts internally produced.

1. Standard parts

Standard parts and components are defined in a standard specification, internationally (ISO, EN, etc.), nationally (DIN, AFNOR, BS), by branch of industry (ASME, API), or by company (Esso, in-house standards) amongst others. These normally involve a voluntary statement of compliance and rarely entail statutory obligation. A part quoted as conforming to the German standard specification DIN ?000? is readily identifiable, the definition can be sought there and communication is facilitated in an optimum manner. In any decision related to product liability, conformity of the terminology used with the standard quoted can be a decisive factor.

2. Parts bought in from suppliers

Bought-in parts (e.g. valves, switches, bearings, etc.) which the company either does not wish to or is unable to manufacture for itself) are more problematic. Should the company rename the parts in line with their own terminology practice? Or should they retain the supplier's terminology? If so, what happens when the company changes suppliers - which happens much more often than one would imagine? Would this then entail a change in the terminology used? Can confusion be excluded as a possibility? How can the supplier be identified in the future when the customer needs a spare part or a replacement for a product delivered some time ago? A rigorous terminology policy and/or strategy is essential for success here.

3. Parts internally produced

These parts and components designed and manufactured on the premises have the advantage that the internal workforce can call them anything they like. This has the disadvantage at the same time that only the insider is likely to be able to identify what is actually meant by the terms used. If there is a consistent terminology policy or practice within the company, this can be easily governed and controlled. If not, there is the possibility of terminological anarchy. Where terminology policies have been laid down by management, however, the difficulties here can be avoided to a large extent. Indeed, these aspects can be included at the documentation planning stage, for example. Such clearly defined policies are, unfortunately, the rare exception.

The amount of time and, therefore, money spent looking for something inaccurately described or wrongly labelled can be avoided if there is a consistent policy in position. Mistakes occur less often. The same terms are used by all, including the technical writers and translators who have to provide the product documentation. The people who write the invoices, those who maintain stocks and inventories, and those who assemble the machines will all be speaking the same language because they will all be using the same terminology. This language is a means of communication and, where the terminology effort is effectively planned and executed, the communication will succeed - and thereby improve efficiency as well as saving time and money.

These are only a few examples from the very wide spectrum encountered in communication and documentation where the application of good terminology practice can considerably enhance the efficiency and accuracy of specialised communication at all levels, within the company and without, because terminology does indeed provide the basis for glitch-free specialist communication.

And this can be extended to cover almost any other organisation or field of human endeavour.

The terminology chosen sometimes becomes an identifying feature of a product or process. This is especially true when it is the name of a product. Terminology may be chosen to present something in a more pleasant light, to awaken interest or generate demand.

In certain circumstances the choice of terminology can even become a tool, an instrument - almost a weapon. It can be used to indicate the undesirability of the matter in hand and thus even manipulate or otherwise influence the information being presented.

Politicians thrive on sets of terminology. The vocabulary they use identifies their party affiliation, their stance in many situations and very often demonises the opposite side, or the enemy or others who are of a different opinion.

Germany was reunified in 1989 and is still trying to reconcile the differences in terminology between the parts that were previously east and west of the iron curtain. I sincerely doubt whether it will ever be possible to completely reconcile the German terminology in many domains as used in Germany, Switzerland and Austria. They are seldom a major problem but they certainly have nuisance value at least.

The choice of terminology used can also depersonalise an issue. The best-known example at present is probably the term currently being given a lot of media coverage : "collateral damage". In weaponry and in the scientific examination of ballistics, the aim is to hit the target every time. "Collateral damage" is an undesirable side effect. That this undesirable side effect means death, suffering and injury to human beings is of no consequence when studying ballistics. Another term in this category is "ethnic cleansing". Under totalitarian regimes such as Nazi Germany, even the most barbaric policies were banalised by the terminology chosen, "the final solution" being probably the best-known example. It is when the ethical and moral aspects are introduced that problems occur. (I read in Friday's issue of Le Figaro an article by Albert Memmi on the subject of war : "Pour défendre la morale, (la guerre) utilise le mensonge, parce que le langage est une arme." The author obviously meant "terminology" when he wrote "langage". Winston Churchill's euphemism for a lie was a "terminological inexactitude".

This depersonalising usage of terminology, on the other hand, is not always cynical or cold-hearted. When a patient dies in hospital, it is not unusual for this to be described as an "exitus". Indeed many hospital staff refer to their patients not by name or number but by illness or complaint. "Can you give gall bladder his injection, I have to look after the dialysis." This helps the hospital staff involved to gain some distance from the distress of other human beings and enables them to address their professional duties first and foremost and concentrate on the task in hand - cruel though that may seem at first glance.

We all know the proposition that such revered national heroes as William Tell or Robin Hood, were they to return to us today, would suffer the same treatment. By definition, they would be classed as "terrorists" by the authorities and pursued and prosecuted as such. There are even those who are convinced that Christ, if he were to return to this earth again, would be rejected by the church authorities and possibly even be subjected to the modern equivalent of crucifixion for questioning the existing authority.

For some, Nelson Mandela was a praiseworthy freedom fighter; for others, he was a downright terrorist. Propaganda thrives on terminology. The terminology used in such situations defines our stance with respect to the matter in hand and divides it into at least two camps. In many cases, the word used to describe the two camps is the same. It is the word which can just as easily include as exclude. It is the simple word "we". In one sense, it includes the person or persons being addressed. In the other sense, it excludes them.

Modern marketing methods which use such tools as demotics, demographic surveys, etc. have given rise to some interesting terminology for categories of the population : "dinks" (double income, no kids), "yuppies" (young urban professionals) and "NIMBY" (not in my back yard). Such colourful terms catch on very quickly, others disappear almost as quickly as they appeared. But they liven up the language.

Imaginative use of terminology can be exciting and refreshing. Can you imagine the advertising industry without playing on words or the implication of words or imputing new dimensions or qualities to existing terms? This is an active - and creative - example of the use of terminology. Terminology, its use and its creation add vital qualities to the living language and to the society using that language.

4. Concluding remarks

Whether or not we accept it, terminology and the strategies surrounding its use are so widespread nowadays that no-one can possibly escape the implications. Why is it then, that terminologists have so many problems trying to explain to the rest of the world why terminology is important?

Terminology is underrated as a working aid and no-one wants to know about the costs or the problems. In contrast to translation and interpreting, however, the importance of terminology is beginning to be recognised. However, there is still a long way to go before industry or society as a whole realises the value of consistent terminology efforts.

Yet, despite all this progress, the political powers and the captains of industry are still reluctant to accept that funds should be set aside for the terminology effort even though the savings which can be achieved by good terminology practice are great.

If we, who have come to recognise the significant role that terminology can play, could only convert the others to our point of view, life would be much easier for all of us. And communication would improve. Knowledge transfer would also be easier. Misunderstandings would be fewer. Awareness of the advantages of good terminology practice and usage is of great importance in our lives and in our society in this Age of Information. I am not saying that terminology is a central issue for world peace, but is it still a very important contributor to that peace - or the absence thereof.