When are science and technology (in)accessible? A diachronic study of the popularisation of new terms in physics and information technology

In terminology, two types of term formation are usually mentioned. Primary term formation is the coinage of new terms on the basis of the resources and prevailing trends in a given language. Secondary term formation consists in finding an equivalent for a concept already named in another language - usually English as the international lingua franca of science and technology. Finally, another form of term formation is term variation, a process whereby terms are formed on the basis of variation of existing terms (Humbley 2005). Though terminology has often been studied in a synchronic perspective and has therefore focused on primary term formation and on the issue of motivation from the point of view of the decoder of the message, a number of scholars – Cabré, Temmerman, Humbley and Kageura among others – have shown that research in term formation greatly benefits from a diachronic perspective. The main advantages are the possibility to account for processes of term consolidation and term change, in particular in languages other than English, where new terminology is often the result of secondary term formation processes or of term variation, and specifically in domains like information technology, characterised by a fast and marked evolution of concepts and designations over time and by a high degree of indeterminacy in primary term formation (Schmitz 2007). Investigation of term formation in a diachronic perspective has been enhanced by corpus-based and corpus-driven terminography which enables investigators to compile diachronic corpora for the study of terms from their first appearance to consolidation, possible variation and disappearance. Even within a diachronic perspective, however, a number of issues remain open-ended. First and foremost, given the English origin of many terms, to what extent are coiners of new terms in a target language aware of problems of accessibility to field-specific knowledge for non-experts? Second, how is term variation accounted for in popularised accounts of science and technology? In other words, if the public understanding and communication of scientific and technological innovation are relevant enterprises to secure support and funds for research, or to contribute to the commercial success of a software product, are there strategies in place that ensure a smooth flow of information? In this paper we first analyse a diachronic corpus of popular science articles on particle physics in English and Italian to study development of term formation processes and to investigate what strategies are used to introduce new terminology while at the same time ensuring that it is understandable to the target readers. Ahmad and Musacchio (2003) found that, as nuclear physics increasingly became an international rather than a national enterprise, patterns of term formation in Italian changed and typically Italian morphological processes partly modified to accommodate a growing number of terms from English in the form of adapted loan words or loan translations. However, the corpus used to research Fermi’s language consisted of journal articles and different types of texts for students of physics at university level, so it could not provide data on popular science physics and how it tackles problems of accessibility or inaccessibility of new terminology such as the English loan term spin. Second, we compare processes of term formation and strategies for popularisation in particle physics with data from a corpus of information technology (IT) in order to detect similarities and differences in patterns of term formation, terminologisation and determinologisation with reference to information technology. In IT, nowadays one of more alternative terms produced directly in the market and available to experts / power users and the general public at the same time (popularisation by early adopters and influencers), often before they are standardised by commercial enterprises, that are left with limited term creation options, and might have to adopt what has been popularised by the market even if not the best choice. Until recently, enterprises involved subject matter experts only in term formation, then SMEs and selected end users, while nowadays crowdsourcing. Differences between “official” terminology and “power user” jargon, as reported by Adamo in 1996, have been largely reduced, thanks to much higher computer literacy. In IT terminology the evolution of concepts and designations over time is probably faster and more marked than in other domains, due not only to rapid technological developments but also to a higher degree of indeterminacy in primary term formation, partly caused by inadequate terminology awareness by developers (Schmitz 2007). As Sager (1997) put it, “The coexistence of several methods of secondary term formation in the target language which may be used simultaneously or sequentially, provides the occasion for several alternative or competing new terms”, a complexity that has become more marked in times of easier and faster access to new concepts and higher computer literacy. Understanding the patterns of secondary term formation and term variation in a diachronic perspective is therefore a crucial factor in the language of particle physics and in the standardization of IT terminology that is both acceptable to experts and accessible to non-experts, and that contributes to communication and understanding of particle physics and to the commercial success of a product without requiring any subsequent expensive term changes. References ADAMO, G. (1996), “La terminologia tecnico-scientifica in lingua italiana: alcune osservazioni sulla terminologia dell’informatica”, Réflexions Séminaire Realiter, Nice, 1er et 2 juillet 1996, "Réflexions méthodologiques sur le travail en terminologie et en terminotique dans les langues latines", Nice http://www.realiter.net/spip.php?article665 AHMAD K., MUSACCHIO M.T. (2003) “Enrico Fermi and the making of the language of nuclear physics”, Fachsprache, vol. 3-4, pp. 120-140. CABRÉ M.T. (1999) Terminology. Theory, Methods, and Applications, Amsterdam, Benjamins. HUMBLEY J. (2005) “Accounting for term formation”, Terminology Science and Research. Journal of the International Institute for Terminology Research IITF, Vol. 16, http://lipas.uwasa.fi/svenska/iitf/tsr2005/vol20/vol20_humbley.php. SAGER, J.C. (1990) A Practical Course in Terminology Processing, Amsterdam, Benjamins. SAGER, J.C. (1997) “Term Formation”, Handbook of Terminology Management (Volume I), S. E. Wright and G. Budin (eds), Amsterdam, Benjamins. SCHMITZ, K.-D. (2007), “Indeterminacy of terms and icons in software localization”, Indeterminacy in Terminology and LSP: Studies in Honour of Heribert Picht, H. Picht, B. E. Antia, Amsterdam, Benjamins. TEMMERMAN R. (2000) Towards New Ways of Terminology Description, Amsterdam, Benjamins.