1 / 26

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Term variation and communicative channel A contrastive analysis of specialized oral and written texts on linguistics Natalia Seghezzi natalia.seghezzi@upf.edu IULATERM Research Group Institute for Applied Linguistics (IULA) Pompeu Fabra University (Spain) EAFT-AET 2012

shanae
Download Presentation

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Term variation and communicative channelA contrastive analysis of specialized oral and written texts on linguistics Natalia Seghezzi natalia.seghezzi@upf.edu IULATERM Research Group Institute for Applied Linguistics (IULA) Pompeu Fabra University (Spain) EAFT-AET 2012 6th Terminology Summit Oslo, 11th and 12th October 2012

  2. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS • M. Teresa Cabré (Head of IULATERM) • Mercè Lorente (Director of IULA) • Judit Freixa (Thesis supervisor) • Fundingfrom: • FI-IQUC pre-doctoral scholarshipbytheGovernment of Catalonia • ResearchProjects of IULATERM: • TEXTERM 3 (HUM2006-09458) • RICOTERM 3 (HUM2007-65966-C02-01/FILO) Full text publicly available at: http://www.tdx.cat/handle/10803/52066

  3. INTRODUCTION • Theoretical framework • Communicative Theory of Terminology (Cabré 1999) • Main objectives • To study the communicative channel (oral/written) as a cause of term variation (specifically denominative variation). • To open a new line of oral-corpus based research in terminology. • General hypothesis • Term variation in oral and written specialized texts is influenced by the communicative channel. • Specific hypotheses • This influence can be observed at the quantitative, formal and textual-discursive level.

  4. THESIS OUTLINE PART I. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Chapter 1. On variation in Terminology Chapter 2. Speech and writing in specialized texts PART II. EMPIRICAL STUDY Chapter 3. Methodology Chapter 4. Analysis (I). Quantitative level Chapter 5. Analysis (II). Formal level Chapter 6. Analysis (III). Textual-discursive level Chapter 7. Conclusions Main focus and contribution: first research into oral terminology

  5. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 1. ON VARIATION IN TERMINOLOGY (I) • Approaches to term variation • Collet (1997); Faulstich (1998/1999); Temmerman (2000); Gaudin (2003); Diki-Kidiri (2008) • Our approach • Communicative Theory of Terminology (Cabré 1999) • Term variation is a main principle • Freixa (2002): the first systematic study of variation in the field of terminology • Term variation • Conceptual variation (content of terms) • Denominative variation (form of terms): • The same concept receives different denominations

  6. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 1. ON VARIATION IN TERMINOLOGY (II) • State of the art • Growing interest in research on variation in terminology • Many studies on term variation, from different perspectives and covering a wide range of fields, from aeronautics to football Causes of term variation (Freixa 2002, 2006) Dialectal, linguistic, discursive, cognitive and functional causes Functional causes: parameters of the communicative situation or register (Halliday 1964): field, tone, tenor and channel

  7. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 1. ON VARIATION IN TERMINOLOGY (III) Functional causes of term variation Factor Influence on term variation Tone (degree of specialization) +++ Field (subject area) ++ Tenor (communicative function) ? Communicative channel (oral/written) ? Recent studies: complex interplay of causes of term variation and overlap with cognitive factors. Term variation is a cognitive strategy (Fernández Silva 2010).

  8. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 2. SPEECH AND WRITING IN SPECIALIZED TEXTS (I) • Spoken language has not been studied from the terminological perspective • Data about speech and writing from general literature applied to the field of terminology • Communicative mode (Halliday 1964) • - a broad and gradual notion • - goes beyond the simple dichotomy of graphic vs. acoustic channel; also includes the factors from the contexts of production and reception of texts and genre conventions • The oral/written continuum allows for intermediate stages, such as formal oral language, the type of language used by experts

  9. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 2. SPEECH AND WRITING IN SPECIALIZED TEXTS (II) • Methodological implications • The same level of formality increases validity but neutralizes the differences (Akinnaso 1982, 1985). • Like writing, formal speech is prepared; but unless the text is read aloud, real speech will never sound like written discourse (Tannen 1982). • Important aspects to take into account in the comparison of speech and writing from the terminological point of view.

  10. METHODOLOGY TEXTUAL CORPUS COMPILATION • To find comparable written and oral specialized texts was not an easy task! • Source: IULA’s audiovisual and publication repository • Oral/Written text, main difference: the communicative channel (oral vs. written) • Language: Spanish • Field: applied linguistics

  11. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS (I) 1. QUANTITATIVE RELATION BETWEEN TERM VARIATION AND COMMUNICATIVE MODE (I) • Is there more term variation in speech or in writing? • Two main theoretical premises: • Spoken and written specialized texts are highly similar, because formal speech is very similar to written language. • The main differences between speech and writing are brought about by the particular characteristics of the textual genre. • Hypothesis: at the quantitative level, the communicative channel does not exert a significant influence on the term variation, except when different textual genres are involved.

  12. Quantitative analysis TE: written texts TO: oral texts CONF: conferences COM: communications • b) Written and oral texts separated by genre: • Written texts: no difference • Oral texts: more variation in conferences than in communications a) All written and oral texts together: no difference

  13. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 1. QUANTITATIVE RELATION BETWEEN TERM VARIATION AND COMMUNICATIVE MODE (II) • Explanation • The contextual conditions of each genre influence the amount of variation • Conferences: produced before a real audience, visual interaction, enough time (about 1 hour) to resort to different strategies to explain the concepts, including term variation • Communications: online production under strict conditions (a lot of information to be presented in a very short time (about 20 minutes)) • Conclusion: the amount of term variation in oral and written specialized texts does not depend on the communicative channel itself, but on other more determining factors, such as the textual genre and the conditions of production.

  14. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 2. FORMAL CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF WRITTEN AND ORAL DENOMINATIONS (I) • Are written and oral denominations different? How do they differ? • Hypothesis: the production conditions of each communicative mode influence the form of terminological denominations, which will result more lexicalized in writing, and more analytical and discursive in speech. • Theoretical assumptions: • Depending on the situation, the same content can be expressed in various ways, from prototypical terminological structures to analytical units (Cabré 1999). • Lexicalization is a gradual process influenced by many factors (Brinton and Traugot 2005); the degree of lexicalization of terms can be observed in their syntactic structure through the presence of certain elements (articles, the head of the prepositional phrase, etc. ). • Speech and writing have their own characteristics (e.g. nominal vs. verbal style). Thus, typical lexical features (such as adjectives in writing and verbs in speech) will be reflected in the terminological denominations produced in each mode.

  15. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 2. FORMAL CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF WRITTEN AND ORAL DENOMINATIONS (II) • Two contrastive analyses of the oral and written denominations: • Focus on the formal denominative changes observed in pairs of term variants • Focus on the degree of lexicalization of the syntactic structure of written and oral denominations as a whole • Main results • 1. Extensive use of the most frequent and prototypical terminological structures: NA and NPP(N) in both, speech and writing, but a preference for more compact structures in the written mode, e.g. NAA, and more analytical structures in the oral mode, e.g. NAPP(art NA). • 2. Greater structural diversity in writing, indicating a higher level of discourse elaboration in the written mode.

  16. FORMAL ANALYSIS • 3. Denominative contrasts • Written denominations • - highly lexicalized • indicators of discourse elaboration: • abbreviations, acronyms, • elision, coordination, anaphora, • juxtaposition of adjectives, • adverbs , participles, etc. • Oral denominations • more analytical structures • features of speech: • proper names, plural forms, • infinitive verbs, • long structures (two and three PPs), • exclusive use of the preposition for, • inversion of the natural order of elements, etc.

  17. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 2. FORMAL CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF WRITTEN AND ORAL DENOMINATIONS (IV) • Conclusion • The mode of communication determines the form of terminological denominations, which are the result of multiple factors specific to the particular contexts of production of speech and writing: • written denominations are more lexicalized, complex and elaborated • oral denominations are more spontaneous, analytical and transparent

  18. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 3. A DISCOURSE-TEXTUAL APPROACH TO THE ANALYSIS OF THE FUNCTION OF TERM VARIATION IN WRITTEN AND ORAL TEXTS (I) • Aim: to study term variation in speech and writing in deep, taking into account the whole discourse in which term variation takes place. • Does term variation have the same function in speech and writing? • Hypothesis: the function of term variation in written and oral texts is different; it has a primarily stylistic function in written texts, and usually fulfils a cognitive function in oral texts. • Theoretical assumptions: • The motivations behind the term variation are multiple (Fernández Silva 2010) • Term variation as a strategy to achieve different objectives, from a stylistic effect (achieve a more elaborate discourse) to a cognitive function (facilitate the reader’s assimilation of concepts).

  19. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 3. A DISCOURSE-TEXTUAL APPROACH TO THE ANALYSIS OF THE FUNCTION OF TERM VARIATION IN WRITTEN AND ORAL TEXTS (II) • Our proposal • A discursive-textual approach to the analysis of term variation or denominative topography[1], i.e. the study of the denominative process through the distribution of term variants in the texts. • A thorough study of the organization and content of the text is required: • to draw the textual map which will reveal the terminological topography • to be able to explain the patterns of term variation observed: • Why are the denominations for a given concept distributed in this way? • Do they perform a specific function? • [1] Inspired in the work by Thoiron and Serant (1989), Topographie des termes.

  20. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS DISCOURSE-TEXTUAL APPROACH TO TERM VARIATION • Analysis • Systematic study of 100 groups of oral and written term variants. • Results • The distribution of terms is not random; on the contrary, the different topographies indicate different functions of term variation. • Two main topographies or distribution types: • 1. Regular distribution (A…A…A) • Cohesive function in both communicative modes to maintain the discourse thread and develop the topic. • Writing: stylistic function of term variation to avoid exact repetitions and improve text style. • Speech: repetitions are inherent and not avoided but exploited as a useful resource for both, the production and reception of online speech.

  21. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 3. A DISCOURSE-TEXTUAL APPROACH TO THE ANALYSIS OF THE FUNCTION OF TERM VARIATION IN WRITTEN AND ORAL TEXTS (IV) • 2. Block distribution (AAA), i.e. a cluster of two or more term variants appearing very near to each other • a) Pairs of variants • Writing: stylistic cause, minor changes observed in the term variants (e.g. communication model/communicative model). • Speech: repetition-like form, different features of the concept activated in the term variants to explain the concept (e.g. “the general speaker, the common speaker”).

  22. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 3. A DISCOURSE-TEXTUAL APPROACH TO THE ANALYSIS OF THE FUNCTION OF TERM VARIATION IN WRITTEN AND ORAL TEXTS (V) • b) Block groups with several consecutive term variants: • An exclusive trait of speech • The sharpest contrast in the function of term variation in speech and writing: the use of several term variants in a short span of time in speech has a cognitive function to help the audience to assimilate and understand the concept being explained.

  23. Example Term variants for the concept basic predicative scheme in speech and writing 2 written term variants: basic predicative scheme, basic scheme of the predication 10 oral term variants (some are repeated): scheme, semantic predication, basic scheme, semantic construction, pattern, basic scheme of predication

  24. Example of term variation in speech: the cognitive function Oral explanation of the concept basic predicative scheme El primero de los ejemplos que se hace figurar es el de Martina ¿h? que es una niña de tres años y ocho meses. Martina construye, construye el esquema, o lo que es la predicación semántica del verbo “trabajar” como “trabaja en” ¿h? Lo... probablemente el... la frecuencia de manejo de esa predicación o de ese esquema es con la preposición “en” y ella copia, ella imita. De manera que extiende todas las construcciones con el verbo “trabajar” añadiéndole la preposición “en”: “trabaja en las ve- vacas”: “¿Sabías que mi mamá, mi papá...” (bueno, mi mama, mi papa) “trabaja en las vacas?”. Habrá escuchado “mi padre trabaja en la fábrica, mi padre trabaja en Santiago, mi madre trabaja en la escuela”. Se ha quedado con el esquema básico, con lo que es la... la construcción semántica, patrón, de “trabajar” y ha extendido ese esquema básico a todos los casos en los que se maneja “trabajar”. Es un rasgo, es un rasgo singular del lenguaje infantil, pero es regular ¿eh? Es regular. Todos los niños van adquiriendo un esquema básico de predicación, correspondiente a cada elemento verbal y, a partir de ahí, es como si solamente existiera ese esquema básico, y lo construyen para cualquier caso, es el esquema que manejan para cualquier caso. [FER][1] [1] Author’s code.

  25. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS DISCOURSE-TEXTUAL APPROACH TO TERM VARIATION • Conclusion • The textual study of term variation based on real cases indicates that the functions of term variation in speech and writing are different. • In both cases term variation is focused on the addressee, but at different levels, and with different aims: • In writing term variation appeals to the reader’s sight in order to achieve a stylistic effect. • In speech term variation helps the listener to process the information; as Müller (2005) says, the speaker speaks with the eyes “not on the paper, but on the public”. • THANK YOU!

  26. Term variation and communicative channelA contrastive analysis of specialized oral and written texts on linguistics Natalia Seghezzi natalia.seghezzi@upf.edu IULATERM Research Group Institute for Applied Linguistics (IULA) Pompeu Fabra University (Spain) EAFT-AET 2012 6th Terminology Summit Oslo, 11th and 12th October 2012

More Related