Cover not available
Article published In:
Terminology
Vol. 29:1 (2023) ► pp.133–161

From “three doors” to “one revolving door”

Extending the Theory of Doors for a cross-lingual study of the concept of violence in English and Chinese language and culture

ORCID logo | Nanjing University | Binzhou Medical University
ORCID logo | Nanjing University | The China Center for Linguistic and Strategic Studies

The Theory of Doors (Cabré 2003) has been well established in the academia of terminology worldwide. Many follow-up terminology studies draw on the analytical framework of this theory, namely the linguistic, cognitive, and communicative dimensions of a terminological unit. This theory provides a comprehensive approach to the observation of terminology, which helps with the better understanding and description of terminology in real use. With this paradigm, a terminological unit can be investigated from any of the three dimensions, or “three doors”. However, the interrelationships among the three dimensions have not been further elaborated, which may fail to account for the complexity of actual terminology use, in cross-lingual settings particularly. The authors of the present study aim for an extension of the theory to cope with the research on cross-lingual and cross-cultural terminology use by focusing on the concept of “domestic violence” in the English and Chinese languages and cultures. To extend the Theory of Doors, the interrelatedness of the three descriptive dimensions is demonstrated based on a new metaphorical image of “a revolving door”, and more precisely a “three-wing revolving door”.

Keywords: Theory of Doors , cross-lingual terminology use, linguistic, cognitive and communicative interrelatedness, concept of domestic violence, English, Chinese
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Revisiting the Theory of Doors
    • 2.1A true step forward in the evolution of Terminology
    • 2.2Past tendencies to separate the three dimensions
    • 2.3Current tendencies to combine two or three dimensions
    • 2.4Pushing the Theory of Doors further
  • 3.Peculiarity and complexity of terminology use in the cross-lingual setting
    • 3.1Integrality initiated by the linguistic dimension
    • 3.2Interactivity restricted by the linguistic dimension
    • 3.3Dynamism manifested in the linguistic dimension
  • 4.Further consideration of the extension of the Theory of Doors
    • 4.1The proposal of a new framework for cross-lingual terminology use
    • 4.2The interactive mechanism of the three dimensions
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 20 January 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/term.22013.liu
References
Al Harazi, Antar
2020 “A Proposed Model for Achieving Equivalence in Bilingual Dictionaries.” Journal of Global Scientific Research 81: 776–790.Google Scholar
Andersen, Kurt, and Dolan, Barbara B.
1983 “Private Violence”. Time 122(10): 19–22.Google Scholar
Antia, Bassey E., Gerhard Budin, Heribert Picht, Margaret Rogers, Klaus-Dirk Schmitz, and Sue Ellen Wright
2005 “Shaping Translation: A View from Terminology Research.” Meta 50 (4). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bakó, Alexandra Vivien
2014 “Capacity to Handle Complexity – The Importance of Contextual Awareness in Healthcare Communication in English as a Lingua Franca.” Economica 7 (4): 131–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bastos, Maria do Céu Henriques de
2018 “Terminology for Translators: A Term base in the Domain of Company Law.” [URL]
Budin, Gerhard
2001 “A Critical Evaluation of the State-of-the-art of Terminology Theory.” ITTF Journal 12 (1–2): 7–23.Google Scholar
Cabré, M. Teresa
1999 Terminology: Theory, Methods and Applications. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003 “Theories of Terminology: Their Description, Prescription and Explanation.” Terminology 9 (2): 163–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 “Terminology and Translation.” In Handbook of Translation Studies (Volume 1), ed. by Yves Gambier and Luc van Doorslaer, 356–365. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Centerwall, Brandon S.
1984 “Race, socioeconomic status, and domestic homicide, Atlanta, 1971–72.” American Journal of Public Health, 74(8): 813–815. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew
1997 Memes of Translation: The Spread of Ideas in Translation Theory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Condamines, Anne
2021 “How Can One Explain “deviant” Linguistic Functioning in Terminology?” Terminology 27(2): 322–343. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, Richard
1976 The Selfish Gene. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Faber, Pamela
2009 “The Cognitive Shift in Terminology and Specialized Translation.” MonTI – Monografías de Traducción e Interpretación, no. 1: 107–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faber, Pamela, and M. Carmen África Vidal Claramonte
2017 “Food Terminology as a System of Cultural Communication.” Terminology 23 (1): 155–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faber, Pamela, and Marie-Claude L’Homme
2022 “Theoretical Perspectives on Terminology: An introduction.”. In Theoretical Perspectives on Terminology: Explaining terms, concepts and specialized knowledge, ed. by Pamela Faber and Marie-Claude L’Homme, 1–11. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faber, Pamela, Pilar León, and Juan A. Prieto
2009 “Semantic Relations, Dynamicity, and Terminological Knowledge Bases.” Current Issues in Language Studies 11: 1–23.Google Scholar
Fernández-Silva, Sabela, Judit Freixa, and M. Teresa Cabré Castellví
2011 “A Proposed Method for Analysing the Dynamics of Cognition through Term Variation.” Terminology 17 (1): 49–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Hannah, Georgia E. Garrard, Libby Rumpff, Cindy E. Hauser, and Michael A. McCarthy
2015 “Consequences of Inconsistently Classifying Woodland Birds.” Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 31: 1–8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ge, Shili, Jingchao Zhang, and Xiaoxiao Chen
2017 “Corpus-Based Correlational Study of Terms and Quality in Business English Writing.” In Lecture Notes in Computer Science vol 101081, ed. by Wu, TT., Gennari, R., Huang, YM., Xie, H., Cao, Y., 349–58. Springer: Cham. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gil-Berrozpe, Juan Carlos
2017 “Corpus-Based Identification of Hyponymy Subtypes and Knowledge Patterns in the Environmental Domain.” DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoey, Michael
2005 Lexical Priming: A New Theory of Words and Language. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hrydzhuk, Oksana
2019 “The Taxonomy of Forestry Terms in the Modern Ukrainian Language.” Advanced Education 6 (12): 196–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huang, Manzhen
2015 “Further Discussion on the Scope of the Subject of the Anti-Domestic Violence Law.” Business 4(13): 222.Google Scholar
Jaffe, P., Wolfe, D., Wilson, S. K., & Zak, L.
1986 “Family violence and child adjustment: A comparative analysis of girls’ and boys’ behavioral symptoms.” The American Journal of Psychiatry, 143(1), 74–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jiang, Na, and Xiangqing Wei
2020 “Multidimensionality, Dynamicity, and Complexity: A Reconsideration of the Functions of Metaphorical Terms.” Terminology 26 (2): 237–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kageura, Kyo, and Marie-Claude L’Homme
2008 “Reflecting on Fifteen Years of Research and Development in Terminology”. Terminology 14(2): 153–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kharmandar, Mohammad Ali, Shaghayegh Ahmadi, and Alireza Bozorgi
2017 “Can Equivalence Theoretically Explain Terminology Translation? The Case of Vinay and Darbelnet.” First National Conference on Innovative Multidisciplinary Research in the Humanities. Shiraz, Iran. [URL]
Kristiansen, Marita
2014 “Concept Change, Term Dynamics and Culture-Boundness in Economic-Administrative Domains.” In Dynamics and Terminology, ed. by Rita Temmerman and Marc Van Campenhoudt, 235–256. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liu, Lydia He
1995 Translingual Practice: Literature, National Culture, and Translated Modernity―China, 1900–1937. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liu, Xun
2018 “A Study on the Subject Scope of Domestic Violence in China.” Suzhou: Suzhou University.Google Scholar
L’Homme, Marie-Claude
2004 “A Lexico-Semantic Approach to the Structuring of Terminology.” Proceedings of CompuTerm 2004: 3rd International Workshop on Computational Terminology, 7–14.Google Scholar
2015 Terminologies and Taxonomies. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020 Lexical Semantics for Terminology: An Introduction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marzá, Nuria Edo
2008 “The Communicative Theory of Terminology (CTT) Applied to the Development of a Corpus-Based Specialised Dictionary of the Ceramics Industry.” [URL]
Matamala, Anna
2010 “Terminological Challenges in the Translation of Science Documentaries: A Case-Study.” Across Languages and Cultures 11 (2): 255–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moghadam, Masoumeh Yazdani, and Mansureh Delarami Far
2015 “Translation of Technical Terms: A Case of Law Terms.” Journal of Language Teaching and Research 61: 830–835. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oeser, Erhard, and Gerhard Budin
1995 “Controlled Conceptual Dynamics: From Ordinary Language to Scientific Terminology and back.” Terminology Science and Research 6 (2): 3–17.Google Scholar
Ostroški Anić, Ana, and Sanja Kiš Žuvela
2020 “Reproducibility of Figurative Terms in Musical Discourse.” In Reproducibility and Variation of Figurative Expressions: Theoretical Aspects and Applications, ed. by Marija Omazic and Jelena Parizoska, 69–85. Bialystok: University of Bialystok Publishing House.Google Scholar
O’Reilly, Jane, Dolan, Barabara B., and Taylor, Elizabeth
1983 “Wife Beating: The Silent Crime.” Time 122 (10): 23–26.Google Scholar
Peng, Yi
2019 “The Event-Domain Cognitive Model Perspective on Terminology: A Case Study of Atmospheric Environment Terms.” Lexicography ASIALEX 6 (1): 43–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Polcz, Károly
2015 “Terminological Competence in ESP.” In Innováció és kreativitás az oktatásban és a tudományban (Innovation and creativity in education and science), ed. by György Juhász, Kinga Horváth, Zuzana Árki, József Keserű, Attila Lévai, Šeben Zoltán, 350–362. Komárno: Selye János Egyetem.Google Scholar
Reimerink, Ariane, Mercedes García de Quesada, and Silvia Montero-Martínez
2010 “Contextual Information in Terminological Knowledge Bases: A Multimodal Approach.” Journal of Pragmatics 42 (7): 1928–1950. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sager, Juan
1990 A Practical Course in Terminology Processing. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sibtain, Masroor, Hafiz Muhammad Qasim, and Nazia Suleman
2017 “Process of Terminography of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) for Students in the Urdu Language.” Pakistan Journal of Language Studies 1 (1): 39–49.Google Scholar
2000 Towards New Ways of Terminology Description: The Sociocognitive Approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Temmerman, Rita, and Marc Van Campenhoudt
2014 “Dynamics and Terminology: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on Monolingual and Multilingual Culture-bound Communication.” In Dynamics and Terminology, ed. by Rita Temmerman and Marc Van Campenhoudt, 1–13. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tercedor, Maribel
2011 “The Cognitive Dynamics of Terminological Variation.” Terminology 17 (2): 181–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tercedor, Maribel, and Clara López-Rodríguez
2008 “Integrating Corpus Data in Dynamic Knowledge Bases: The Puertoterm Project.” Terminology 14 (2): 159–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wright, Sue Ellen
2003 “From the Semiotic Triangle to the Semantic Web.” Journal of the International Institute for Terminology Research 141: 111–135.Google Scholar
Wuster, Eugen
(1931, 1966) 1970 Internationale Sprachnormung in der Technik, besonders in Elektrotechnik (Die nationale Sprachnormung und ihre Verallgemeinerung), rev. ed. Bonn: Bouvier.Google Scholar
Zheng, Jingfang
2013 “Ex-spouse Should be the Subject of Domestic Violence.” Journal of Minjiang University, 34(01): 60–64.Google Scholar
Zhu, Yan, and Guang Yang
2015 “On the Subject of Domestic Violence.” Legal System and Society 4(15): 295–296.Google Scholar