Introduction

The formation of the European Association for Terminology (EAFT) is one of the recent initiatives which is aiming to raise the profile of 'terminology' and to stimulate interest in its economic, political and social importance. Among academics, professionals and managers, there is little awareness of what 'terminology' as a subject is. The popular understanding (and possibly the earliest sense) is of a collection of terms in a particular subject area such as 'the terminology of laser physics'. Terminologists - if the designation is even known - are commonly regarded as list makers, not even on a par with lexicographers. Even in neighbouring disciplines such as translation, it is often assumed that 'technical terminology' is more straightforward from a cross-linguistic perspective than general-language vocabulary. And any discussion with colleagues of 'teaching terminology' usually elicits the question: 'in which subject'? In companies, the role of terminology at all levels of communication is barely recognised and is consequently not favoured with financial resources. As Sue Ellen Wright has noted, there is no budget line for terminology (Wright 1996a), as there is for capital and labour.

It is a long way from these commonly-held views to a situation where we can begin to talk of terminology training on a par with training in professions which are fully established and whose social and economic role is acknowledged, such as law, medicine and engineering, and where there are clear, even prescribed, career paths and codes of practice. In this paper, I would like to examine the current situation with regard to terminology training and propose a possible way forward, based on previous work, including an earlier presentation given in October 1996 by my colleague Khurshid Ahmad and myself at the University of Mons (Ahmad & Rogers 1996) arising out of the POINTER Project (cf. Ahmad et al. 1995).

Some views on terminology training gathered from the national and regional surveys in the POINTER Report (1997) (http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Research/CS/AI/PROFILE/projs_term_pointer.html) indicate the following:

• Access to training is problematic (France)

• Translators lack formal training unless recently qualified (Germany)

• Vocational training is a key issue (Germany)

• Some provision is available in universities, schools of translation/interpretation, professional associations, institutions (Finland; Germany; Italy; Spain; UK)

• There is a lack of training (*at academic level) (*Iceland; Norway; Portugal; *Sweden; Basque country; UK)

• There is no recognition of terminology syllabuses (Italy)

• Translators are reluctant to make an expensive commitment to training in computerised methods (Netherlands)

While the attempt was made to collect data on the European terminological landscape in a systematic way, through questionnaires and interviews, the difficulties of defining the target group coupled with the relatively low response rate meant that the results were inevitably patchy and not comprehensive. Nevertheless, it seems clear that the European picture is fragmented, varied and unbalanced in a number of respects. This is our starting point. On the other hand, this very diversity offers rich opportunities on which to build.

Why is terminology different?

Terminology activity is carried out in a wide range of environments and for a range of purposes, including: standardisation, language planning, translation, terminology consultancy, information science, subject disciplines and branches of computing science. The diverse goals of these applications leads to an apparent lack of coherence, which in turn works against the recognition due to terminology as a primary constituent of specialist communication. Terminology as a subject (on which there are differing views) is cross-disciplinary, and is still defining its legitimate concerns and boundaries. Its academic roots, i.e. its beginnings as an academic discipline, are usually traced to central and eastern Europe in the 1930s, followed by developments in northern Europe and Canada some three or four decades later (Laurén & Picht 1993), but build on centuries of practical experience in emerging sciences and technologies. Indeed, the priority of practice and experience over theory is not unusual in the development of a profession, but it is certainly a factor which needs to be taken into account in any plans for professional training.

A further consideration in the lack of recognition generally afforded terminology activity is the lack of clarity on the professional profile of a terminologist: terminology management is often carried out as a part of another job, for which there is usually no training in terminology. For instance, bi- or multilingual terminology management is often carried out by a translator, monolingual work by a technical writer, and standardising work by subject experts. In one case, the job of compiling a 'glossary' of terms for new graduate recruits in a large company was undertaken by the Personnel Department. In many cases, terminology activity is hidden in jobs which are not normally included in the lists of application areas usually associated with terminology. A recent trawl of the WWW, for instance, revealed a number of jobs which incorporated terminology activity, usually as a requirement for 'familiarity with' or 'knowledge of' a particular terminology (http://jobsearch.monster.ca). Some examples are shown here:

Table 1: Examples of jobs in which domain-specific terminology plays a part

Such requirements are indicative of the need for subject knowledge, as well as the knowledge of how to use terminology appropriately. The question then arises, how do companies which clearly place some value on the use of terminology support this use? The answer is, as far as we can tell from anecdotal evidence, that they do not.

While much terminology activity remains hidden and often un-managed, exceptions can be found - often in large supranational organisations - where the job title 'terminologist' is explicit and where the need to manage terminology is acknowledged. A recent advertisement from WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) in Geneva illustrates this.

Table 2: A profile of skills needed and tasks to be performed as a 'terminologist' in a multilingual environment

* A formal qualification is required in either modern languages or computational linguistics

Between these two types of job profile (terminology in a supporting role, linked to subject knowledge and hidden, versus terminology in a leading role, meta-domain and explicit), a range of activities and perspectives are indicated, all of which are areas for training.

In what follows, we will consider the possible scope of terminology training needs, as well as provision, from a number of perspectives: who needs training, who provides training, and how it is delivered, before considering a possible training model for the future, as well as other developments which could shape decisions.

Who needs training?

A number of attempts have been made to classify the various groups requiring terminology training. A common division is between those with a linguistic training and those with a subject-specific training; another is between monolingual and multilingual terminology activity (Picht & Partal 1997). A further distinction, targeted on the environment in which the training is delivered, is between training in an academic environment and training in a professional environment.

The most common groups for which training in various aspects of terminology is needed include:

• language planners

• standardisers

• subject experts

• technical writers

• translators/localisers

We could also add: administrators, managers, novice subject experts (both practice-oriented and theory-oriented), communications specialists such as journalists, LSP teachers, researchers, subject field teachers, term bank employees, and so on. We have also seen from our WWW research that knowledge and use of terminology is needed across a range of very different professions in a subsidiary but essential role. While the subject-specific aspect of this kind of terminology activity is emphasised (i.e. knowledge of a particular terminology), the meta-skills of terminology management are usually lacking.

How can we begin to structure these needs in order to gain an overview of training needs and to match these with provision? Attempts to represent these in a hierarchical system fall foul of partial sets and overlaps and cross-dependencies. For instance, both monolingual training for technical writers and bilingual training for technical translators may be given in a university environment (the latter more commonly) or in a professional environment. A more promising approach is one in which subsets of sets of tasks and skills - rather than particular applications or delivery environments - can be identified and selected on a modular basis according to the target group and the particular purpose of the training. In fact, Picht & Partal (1997) already employ a system of this kind when they propose model syllabuses for different target groups on the basis of 20 components: 1 - 10 are described as compulsory in any terminology course, although with varying emphases, whereas 11 - 20 are said to be optional and may be combined in different sub-sets according to need:

In the POINTER project, a different approach to the compulsory/optional model was pursued in an attempt to incorporate further dimensions beyond the clearly central one of target group, namely, level of training and type of training (formal or experiential) in common with certain other professions. Using a cell-based matrix system of tasks and sub-tasks, target groups can then be differentiated by varying the combinations of cells according to level and task/sub-task. The model aims in particular to incorporate and acknowledge not only a range of tasks but experience as well as formal training. We return to this below.

Who provides training?

While the original work on building a coherent theory of terminology dates back 70 years, training in terminology is much newer. Discussions of syllabuses for the teaching of terminology, particularly in the context of specialised translation, began to appear in the literature in the late 1970s (cf. for instance, Auger 1979; Sager 1979; Sager 1981; Arntz 1981; Picht 1981; Picht & Draskau 1985; Bühler 1987; Sager 1992; Arntz & Picht 1995). One of the first courses in terminology to be offered was at the University of Vienna by Eugen Wüster in the early 1970s (Picht & Draskau 1985:248). Another early course was given at the University of Saarbrücken in 1979 (Arntz 1981). In the francophone world, courses were first offered during the 1970s to students of translation at the Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières and the Université de Laval. Early courses in francophone Europe were reported in Belgium, and in Nanterre, France (Auger 1979).

During the 1980s, the number of institutions involved in terminological training began to increase. Terminology training now features regularly in translator training in the Dutch-speaking world (the Nederlandse Taalunie supports a group in this area: SaNT, Samenwerkingsverband Nederlandstalige Terminologie); it is well established in the Francophone world, particularly in Canada, but also in France, most notably at the University of Rennes II and the Université de Paris-Nord; it is also slowly becoming a recognised component of translation courses in the UK and is well established in Spain at the University of Pompeu Fabra in Barcelona and TermCat. A useful retrospective view of courses in terminology for translators up to the 1990s is provided in Sager (1992). Outside the higher education sector, the International Information Centre for Terminology (Infoterm) in Vienna and its associated organisations TermNet and the IITF (International Institute for Terminology Research) are active in providing training in terminology for a range of different groups: the summer course - now in its 16th year - is well established. The 1999 programme includes three modules, indicating an increasingly broad coverage: Training the Trainers; Computer-Based Terminology Management; Terminology Standardisation and Project Management. Professional associations are also providing training through seminars. In Germany, the Deutscher Terminologie-Tag e.V. has been particularly active. A further source of training, often customised, is provided by terminology centres such as TNC (Tekniska nomenclaturcentralen) in Stockholm and TSK (Tekniikan Sanastokeskus) in Helsinki. The Union Latine, as an umbrella organisation, covers 34 Romance-language countries through its Direction de Terminologie et Industries de la Langue (DTIL).

A phenomenon of the mid- to late-1990s is the emerging provision of training with particular tools by software companies, sometimes organised by professional associations, sometimes as part of a marketing initiative and sometimes as part of after-sales service. Companies which are users of such tools may also provide training to, say, groups of students, as on-site training, as well as to their own employees. An extension of this idea is the so-called 'corporate university' which is 'the strategist for developing learning solutions linked to business needs' (Tracy Feick in a recent article in Language International quoting Jeanne Meister, president of Corporate University Xchange). One branch of Language Management International (LMI), for instance, recently ran a two-week course for freelance editors, including terminology management (Feick 1999). The range of training providers identified to date is presented in Table 3.

Table 3: Training providers

Once again, we have a picture of diversity which suggests that our model of training must incorporate a wide range of training providers from universities to software producers to international and professional organisations to users.

How is training delivered?

The methods and modes of delivery for terminology training are changing quickly. As we have seen from our survey of the beginnings of terminology training, early courses were held in universities on a face-to-face basis in lectures and seminars, the terminology course or module usually being part of a wider curriculum, typically for translator education. At the millennium, the picture has diversified. The increased range of providers is matched by a much wider range of delivery modes. It is now possible to obtain training by correspondence course (currently in domain-specific terminology) and/or via the WWW; to attend seminars and workshops offered by software and training companies, either on-site or locally; to commission training from a terminology consultant or a terminology centre on a customised basis; to participate in one-day workshops offered by professional organisations; and so on.

All these different types of training fill a need, but it is hard to get an overview. Hence, there may be gaps in training provision on the one hand, and duplications on the other hand. Another possibility is that access to particular training is problematic for certain groups.

One factor which normally distinguishes established educational institutions such as universities or schools of translation/interpretation is the requirement to assess the performance of those who participate in their courses. It is part of the regular business of educational institutions to assess performance; they also have the authority, usually through the state or sometimes through professional organisations, to accredit courses. In the terminology world, there are to my knowledge no universally recognised accreditation bodies outside institutions of higher education. Even within universities, academic recognition of terminology as a subject may be problematic, and the exchange of credits under the European Credit Transfer System is only just beginning, with all its real and potential problems of equivalence in the context of culturally-diverse education systems. A summary of these factors follows in Table 4.

Table 4: Modes of delivery for terminology training

*see: Co-operation in terminology teaching and research for PhD programmes in Europe (this volume)
- indicates no assessment of performance
± indicates that practice varies

The POINTER matrix model for training

The POINTER consortium regarded the training of terminologists and the promotion of the profession as an important aspect of terminology infrastructure in Europe. To this end, the POINTER consortium investigated a career development model for the training of terminologists such that the experience they gain at work can be accredited together with their academic qualifications. This accreditation takes into account the various aspects of terminology management, illustrated by terminology acquisition, organisation, application, and terminology education and research (Ahmad et al. 1997). The result is a matrix model for terminology training that specifies the entry requirements to the profession in terms of both formal and experiential training and suggests how a terminologist may progress from a novice terminologist to an expert terminologist and on to senior management positions. In other words, the model has two dimensions:

• Tasks and Sub-tasks (activity-focused dimension)

• Actors according to level of training and experience (person-focused dimension).

According to the POINTER report, the current situation in terminology training is as follows: (1) there are a large number of terminology courses (often as an annex to translation or other types of courses) together with some in-house training (especially large corporations); (2) many different types of organisations undertake terminology activities; (3) there is a degree of consistency of approach across different countries; (4) there is informal accreditation across corporations (in same sectors, across sectors in large corporations) and by professional bodies in some European countries and UN/large organisations; and (5) there are a number of EU-funded initiatives which are currently funding research into terminology training problems directly or indirectly; for instance, the LEONARDO, ERASMUS, DELTA and COPERNICUS programmes fund technology transfer and teaching and learning projects that envisage training in terminology and the use of terminology.

Amongst the principal problems identified were:

• a lack of coherence in training: variation across institutions as well as nationally;

• the absence of a career development path for terminologists;

• a neglect of mobility - movement is neither cross-sectoral nor multilingual nor transnational.

An illustration of the way a matrix model of terminology training might work is shown below, starting with the activities dimension (Table 5) and moving on to the person-focused dimension Table 6).

Table 5: Tasks and sub-tasks illustrating the activities dimension of a matrix-based approach to terminology training

The POINTER model recognises eight levels of professional development, each of which would be described in terms of previous training, qualifications and experience.

Table 6: The person-focused dimension of a matrix-based approach to terminology training

The Basic Entry criteria could be described, for instance, as follows:

The model of professional development can be illustrated by reference to two Core Tasks, Terminology Acquisition and Terminology Organisation, sketched against the eight professional levels mentioned above. Table 7 shows the progression of a hypothetical terminologist from a trainee (Levels 0, 1) to a practising terminologist (Levels 2, 3, 4 and 5) and finally to a managerial level terminologist (Levels 6, 7). Each Core Task is split into named sub-tasks.

Table 7: An illustration of the interaction of the activity-focused dimension and the person-focused dimension of matrix model of training

Each of these cells can be further elaborated to describe the qualifications and/or experience which is assumed, typical duties and on-going training.

Future developments

The solutions suggested in POINTER fall into the following categories:

• A model for training accreditation, taking into account career development and facilitating mobility;

• Use of distance learning;

• Definition of levels of professional development;

• Definition of core tasks in terminology training;

• Training of trainers.

One of the biggest needs at the moment, if the professional profile of the terminologist and the profile of terminology management in general are to be defined and raised, is for co-ordination in terms of mutual recognition of training. Accreditation is a core consideration here, as a means of adding coherence, value and quality control. However, at present it is not clear what kind of body could act in this capacity, since, as we have seen, the range of training providers is wide and disparate. At present, for instance, it seems likely that many organisations offering subject-specific terminology training in particular may not be aware of the principles, methods and tools developed over the last 70 years.

In the universities we face a different set of challenges. I would like to focus on just three of these. The first concerns the issue of 'who trains the trainers?' The typical university teacher is not directly involved in the marketplace, except as a consumer. Yet we are preparing students to enter that marketplace to sell their labour and/or services. And it is a marketplace in which knowledge and skills quickly become obsolete, particularly in the area of tools. One approach is to teach generalisable or 'transferable' skills. This involves teaching principles (e.g., of terminology management), possibly using one or two exemplars (e.g., terminology management systems), but with a view to preparing the student to evaluate different systems and adapting their specific knowledge to a new environment as required in the future. The focus is then on the differences between working on paper and working electronically. But even then, university teachers do not typically have the time, energy or professional incentives to keep fully up to date with the range of tools in terminology, let alone in the general field of computer-assisted translation. Furthermore, they do not have the professional experience. Another approach is therefore to bring in professionals as associate lecturers. However, apart from the financial issues of tight budgets, recent European employment legislation is making such part-time employment more complex for universities, since the commitment is considerable.

The second issue which faces universities is a related one, namely, the problem of equipment and software. Teachers aiming to integrate practical terminology management into the curriculum, which today unavoidably means using computers, face many non-trivial problems. These include:

• the initial financial investment in software and in some cases hardware;

• the need for constant up-grades of both hardware and software;

• technical support for extended character sets;

• integration of terminology- and translation-related software into open access laboratories, as well as their maintenance and up-date;

• availability of informed technical support to aid trouble shooting.

Greater and more systematic co-operation between software providers in particular and universities - at present largely ad hoc - would help to improve the situation. Sue Ellen Wright (1996b:344) has pointed out, for instance, how business has subsidised programmes in business administration, as well as science and engineering. It is up to universities to make the case for terminology. More imaginative schemes for co-operation between software users and universities, such as mutually-beneficial projects and fair exchange of training for consultancy, are also of interest. As far as university administrations are concerned, we need to argue the case for languages needing technical as well as human resources. In most European countries, language departments are in the lowest band of funding. There is little if any recognition that terminology/translation/technical writing are now part of a 'language industry' with all the changes which this implies.

The third issue is again related to the increased use of tools in terminology management, including not only TMSs, but also terminology extraction software. There is a danger that we become so focussed on solving some of the problems associated with the introduction and full integration of these tools into the curriculum, and on training technical skills, that we neglect terminological issues. I am thinking of the need to be able to match tools and the strategies for using these tools to the type of information which is required, as well as knowing which materials to use and where and how to get them. In using term extraction software, for instance, I need to be able to access relevant electronically-available texts and then to decide which type of operation is needed to identify multiword terms, definitions, preferred terms, deprecated terms, neologisms, and so on. I also need to be able to interpret the output of these operations. If building a termbase, I need to be able to represent data in an appropriate way, moving from word forms to lexemes, from language use to language system.

Conclusion

In the field of terminology, we face the particular challenge of a subject whose status as a discipline is not necessarily accepted by academics or academic institutions, and whose practical applications are often hidden or naively executed. With regard to terminology training, our starting point is on the one hand a lack of training or lack of access to training, and on the other hand a diversity of training opportunities offered by a very wide range of providers in a range of modes. As a first step we need to start mapping one onto the other, recognising the inherent diversity and range of purposes and the different levels of knowledge which are appropriate to this variation. Terminology training has moved a long way beyond the early courses mainly for specialist translators in a few universities, although the growth has been mainly outside the university sector. The apparent 'democratisation' of terminology also needs to be taken into account. It is now possible for an increasing number of people not only to access terminology resources through the WWW, including commercial and 'public' sites, but also to build resources themselves and to make them available. Another development which has been noted is the mode of delivery for training: we are now moving to a situation where training can be delivered electronically, as well as in more traditional face-to-face seminars, workshops and lectures. Time frames have also changed: courses are now available in intensive formats lasting from one-day to two weeks, contrasting with the traditional university pattern of drip feed over several months or even years.

In all this diversity, a hierarchical model of training in which all participants move through increasingly more complex parcelled chunks of knowledge and skills seems inappropriate. For this reason, the matrix model proposed in the POINTER report seems particularly suited, since it can potentially accommodate multiple target groups at different levels of expertise for a variety of purposes. The POINTER project included a preliminary survey of training provision in the mid-1990s, but this was neither comprehensive nor far-reaching. Key issues for the millennium include mapping training provision in the European landscape and tackling the question of accreditation. This might even include the establishment of a 'terminological Euro' which could act as an international exchange unit in a move towards establishing greater coherence in training.

References

Ahmad, K., Arntz, R., Cabré, T., Engel, G., Humbley, J., Meyer, F., Rogers, M., Sonneveld, H. & Tebé, C. (1995) A Model for the Training and Accreditation of Terminologists in the European Union. POINTER (Proposals for an operational infrastructure for terminology in Europe, LRE-63090).

Ahmad, K. & Rogers, M. (1996) 'Establishing Coherence in Terminology Training: An Integrative Model'. Paper presented at a conference held at the Université de Mons-Hainaut, 24-25 October 1996: Au comencement était le terme: La terminologie au service des entreprises.

Arntz, R. (1981) 'Terminology as a Discipline in the Training of Translators and Interpreters in Languages for Special Purposes'. In: M. Krommer-Benz (ed.) Theoretical and methodological problems of terminology (Infoterm Series 6. Proceedings of an International Symposium Moscow, November 1979). München: Saur, pp.524-30.

Arntz, R. & Picht, H. (1995) Einführung in die Terminologiearbeit. Hildesheim etc.: Olms Verlag, 3. Auflage.

Auger, P. (1979) 'L'enseignement de la terminologie (aspects théoriques et pratiques) dans le cadre des études en traduction et en linguistique', Actes du 6e colloque international de terminologie. Pointe-au-Pic (Québec), 2 au 6 octobre1977, Gouvernement du Québec, Office de la langue française, 445-84.

Bühler (1987)'Terminologieseminar für zukünftige Sprachmittler - das Wiener Modell', Lebende Sprachen 1987/2.52-6.

Feick, T. (1999) 'Head of the Class', Language International, April 1999.

Laurén, C. & Picht, H. (1993) 'Vergleich der terminologischen Schulen'. In: C. Laurén & H. Picht (eds.) Ausgewählte Texte zur Terminologie. Wien: TermNet 1993, pp.493-539.

Picht, H. (1981) 'La Section de terminologie de l'École des hautes études commerciales de Copenhague', Terminogramme, Bulletin de la Direction de la terminologie, Office de la language française, Gouvernement du Québec, 9.1-4.

Picht, H. & Draskau, J. (1985) Terminology: an Introduction. Guildford: University of Surrey

Picht, H. & Partal, C.A. (1997) 'Aspects of Terminology Training'. In: S.E. Wright & G. Budin (eds.) Handbook of Terminology Management. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, pp.305-21.

Sager (1979) 'Training in Terminology: Needs, achievements and prospectives in the world'. In: H. Felber, F. Lang & G. Wersig (eds.) Terminologie als angewandte Sprachwissenschaft. München: Saur, pp.149-63.

Sager, J. (1981) 'Approaches to Terminology and the Teaching of Terminology', Fachsprache, 3/3-4.98-106.

Sager, J. (1992) 'The translator as terminologist'. In: C. Dollerup & A. Loddegaard (eds.) Teaching Translation and Interpreting. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp.107-22.

Wright, Sue Ellen (1996a) 'Economic Issues of Terminology Management', TermNet News, No.54/55:4-10.

Wright, Sue Ellen (1996b) 'Translator Training 2000: Market-oriented Content in a Political Context'. In: A. Lauer, H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast, J. Haller & E. Steiner (eds.) Übersetzungswissenschaft im Umbruch. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, pp.343-55.