This article presents an ongoing project in which terminological variation is studied in the context of specialised translation. The project aims to fi nd out whether certain patterns or tendencies can be derived from a comparative analysis of terminological variation in source texts and their translations. New insights about terminological variation in specialised translations could contribute to the development of a new type of specialised translation dictionary which will better account for the different ways in which a given thought is expressed. In this article, I will present the methodology that was set up in this project to carry out the comparative analysis. Currently, the analysis is carried out on English, Dutch and French texts related to biodiversity issues (including climate change, air pollution, invasive species, etc.).
The concept – which is the starting-point of the terminological analysis – is identifi ed by means of an original term and its meaning is explained in a definition.Koen Kerremans
The view that terms should be used unambiguously to refer to clearly defi ned concepts (see e.g. Wüster 1979 or Felber 1981) has dominated terminology research for quite some years. To a large extent, it has determined what information should be taken up in specialised dictionaries and how this information should ideally be presented to the dictionary users.
This article presents a research project which looks at specialised dictionaries from the perspective of the translator, one of the most important users of these dictionaries (Collet 2004a). Translators who need to translate a domain-specifi c text, consult specialised dictionaries to acquire a better understanding of particular concepts or the subject fi eld, to familiarise themselves with the terminology and to look up possible translation equivalents of terms they encountered in their source text. Previous studies have pointed out that specialised dictionaries only partially meet the requirements of translators in this respect because they very often lack a specifi cation of how a term really ‘behaves’ in specialised discourse (e.g. Collet 2004a, Gerzymisch-Arbogast 2008). Questions such as ‘are there any collocational restrictions?’ or ‘what term fi ts best in the context of my translation?’ remain very often unanswered.
Personalization is the buzz word that is seen across all industry domains. Giving the customer more control and flexibility in terms of services is crucial to stay ahead of the race. Some ways to offer more control and flexibility is to offer ‘logistic menu cards’ where the customers select the mode of delivery and the associated price.
Companies need to come clean and eliminate common supply chain offenses to deliver the greatest value to their customers.
The purpose of supply chains is to add value to production and distribution. Depending upon the markets and the value chains they are servicing, supply chains can be differentiated according to criteria such as costs, time reliability and risk.
Competition across all sectors is higher today than ever before. The internet and highly sophisticated supply chains have made the world a smaller place meaning that consumers have more new options, and demands on a daily basis. This continuing trend means that businesses need to find ways to differentiate themselves, and added value remains a top solution to this challenge.
Streamlining all tasks is essential to finding new efficiencies that allow you to meet the consumer demands of speed and price. Imagine if your product could leave the warehouse and go straight a store’s shelf. Price tags, markings, and other display elements added earlier in the supply chain make for a smoother transition to a point-of-sale.
Customization is becoming a bigger staple for a wide number of products. Corporate logos, initials, and other personalized features all appeal to consumers and be the difference between winning and losing a customer.
This continuing trend means that businesses need to find ways to differentiate themselves, and added value remains a top solution to this challenge. This means the supply chain in any organization has an opportunity to become a competitive advantage by including value-added features.
Extracting as much money from supply chain has been the traditional focus for businesses. One of the earliest examples can be seen in Henry Ford’s supply chain management strategy. Ford owned the ships that transported finished goods, the rubber plantations that provided rubber for the tyres, and the foundries that made steel.