37.1479, Reviews: Terminology throughout History: Kara Warburton; John Humbley (eds.) (2025)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-37-1479. Fri Apr 17 2026. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 37.1479, Reviews: Terminology throughout History: Kara Warburton; John Humbley (eds.) (2025)

Moderator: Steven Moran (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Managing Editor: Valeriia Vyshnevetska
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Mara Baccaro, Daniel Swanson
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Editor for this issue: Helen Aristar-Dry <hdry at linguistlist.org>

================================================================


Date: 17-Apr-2026
From: Pius Ten Hacken [pius.ten-hacken at uibk.ac.at]
Subject: Kara Warburton; John Humbley (eds.) (2025)


Book announced at https://linguistlist.org/issues/36-2298

Title: Terminology throughout History
Subtitle: A discipline in the making
Series Title: Terminology and Lexicography Research and Practice
Publication Year: 2025

Publisher: John Benjamins
           http://www.benjamins.com/
Book URL: https://benjamins.com/catalog/tlrp.24

Editor(s): Kara Warburton; John Humbley

Reviewer: Pius Ten Hacken

This edited volume has the aim of “trac[ing] the evolution of the
practice and the discipline of what is now known as ‘terminology’.”
[1] It consists of 31 chapters and an introduction, together
accounting for 661 pages. The bibliography is distributed among the
chapters, so that each chapter is autonomous in this respect. The
publisher gives a detailed table of contents at
https://benjamins.com/catalog/tlrp.24. In this review, references to
pages in the volume will be given in [square brackets] and references
to chapters in {curly brackets}.
SUMMARY
In the introduction, the editors start by giving a motivation for the
volume [1-6]. It can be seen as a reaction to Sager’s (1990: 1) claim
that “[e]verything of importance that can be said about terminology is
more appropriately said in the context of linguistics or information
science or computational linguistics.” The editors compare terminology
with two other branches of language-based studies that established
themselves only relatively recently, translation studies and
lexicography. The bulk of the introduction is devoted to an overview
of the chapters [6-20]. At the end of their introduction, six
statements are made that can be seen as a way to sum up the results of
the chapters to come [20-22]:
·       Thought on terminology goes back much further than generally
acknowledged.
·       There are different conceptions of what exactly terminology
is.
·       Institutionally, terminology seems to follow a similar
trajectory to the ones observed for translation studies and
lexicography.
·       Some terminology projects succeed, but other fail to live up
to expectations.
·       Although the founders of terminology studies were largely
male, a gradual correction of the gender balance can be observed.
·       Many questions remain and more research into the history of
terminology is needed.
The chapters are organized in three parts. Part I “Early history”
covers the history of terminology before Eugen Wüster. It has chapters
on Latin terminology in antiquity {1}, medieval terminology in France
{2}, 17th and 18th century terminology in France and Italy,
particularly in chemistry {3}, and 19th century terminology in the
domain of cloud classification {4}. They are followed by chapters on
C.S. Peirce’s terminology of philosophy {5} and Heinrich Paasch’s
terminology of ship building {6}.
Part II “Developments in theory and methodology” consists of twelve
chapters. It starts with two chapters about Eugen Wüster (1898-1977),
who is generally seen as the founder of terminology studies. One
relates Wüster’s ideas to the emergence of international auxiliary
languages {7}, the other to his views of language and linguistics {8}.
Then, there are a number of chapters that have a geographic focus.
This focus is specified in the chapter titles for the Soviet Union and
Russia {10}, Canada {12}, Spain {13}, Mexico {14}, the Nordic
countries {15}, Lithuania {16} and Africa {18}. The chapter on the
Prague School is largely devoted to terminology work in Czechoslovakia
and for Czech {9} and the one on socioterminology and textual
terminology covers theoretical developments in Québec and in France
{11}. Only the chapter on standardization has a truly international
focus, much of it being devoted to work in international organizations
such as ISO {17}.
Part III “Terminology the world over” offers thirteen chapters about
countries and other geographic units, ordered alphabetically. They are
devoted to the Arab world {19}, the EU {20}, France {21}, Germany
{22}, Greece {23}, Hungary {24}, Indonesia {25}, Italy {26}, North
Macedonia {27}, Slovakia {28}, South Africa {29}, Switzerland {30},
and Wales {31}.
EVALUATION
Warburton and Humbley produced a volume of a type that can be read in
two ways. On one hand, it is a collection of 31 chapters that can each
be read separately; on the other it is a collective effort to advance
the discussion of a general point. The distribution of the
bibliography over the chapters facilitates the use of individual
chapters, which may be the main reason for many academic libraries to
buy this book. Individual researchers who buy it will rather do this
on the basis of the second perspective.
As a collective volume on terminology, the book under review competes
with at least two other recent volumes also published by John
Benjamins, Faber & L’Homme (2022) and Resi & Steurs (2025). All three
are of a similar size. I will refer to them as WH, FH and RS, taking
the first letters of the editors’ surnames.
FH and RS each have a clear orientation. FH gives an overview of
theoretical issues and RS gives an overview of how terminology has
been established in European languages. For WH, it is more difficult
to characterize the main topic. History is very general as a topic.
The establishment of terminology as a discipline brings up a range of
questions concerning what it means for a field of studies to be
established as a discipline. The answers to these questions will
definitely involve the development of discipline-specific theories and
institutions. As such, some overlap with FH and RS is to be expected.
As for the theory, FH starts with Eugen Wüster’s General Theory of
Terminology, to which WH adds the historical context in Part I.
Wüster’s work is generally seen as founding terminology in its modern
sense and by describing the initiatives preceding his theory, the
different chapters in Part I show which aspects of Wüster’s theory are
actually innovative. The central aspect is that Wüster’s theory is
intended to be general and was in fact applied to a wide range of
domains. This was in part due to the emergence of standardization
institutions such as ISO, in part by Wüster’s energetic initiative and
organizational talent. Humbley’s (2022) chapter in FH gives a good
overview of this. In WH, {8} by Mitja Trojar and {17} by Christian
Galinski describe this strand of terminological theory. Trojar does
not hide his admiration for Wüster and Galinski clearly shows his
perspective from within international standardizing institutions, but
these are both very useful chapters.
As noted, most of the chapters in Part II have a geographical basis.
This is not to say that they do not treat theory, but, for instance,
{12} on Canada starts with a map of Canadian provinces and territories
and the geographic distribution of English and French speakers and
{13} on Spain starts with the role of the Real Academia Española. The
role of theory in these chapters is rather different. In {12}, theory
emerges from the reflection on planning efforts undertaken in Canada,
so that it is rather a locally developed practical solution that is
presented as an example that might be useful elsewhere, too. Spain is
the country where two modern general theories of terminology have
emerged, Teresa Cabré’s Communicative Theory of Terminology and Pamela
Faber’s Frame-Based Terminology. In {13}, Cabré’s and Faber’s work is
described mainly in terms of their institutional activity. The reader
does not get a real impression of the nature of the way their theories
work. FH offers chapters by L’Homme on terminology and lexical
semantics, theorizing the approach developed in Canada, and by Faber
on Frame-Based Terminology, but there is no chapter devoted to Cabré’s
theory.
Theories that influenced terminology work were developed in the Prague
School and in the Soviet Union. In {9} and {10}, they are treated
quite differently. For the Prague School, {9} devotes just three pages
to the theory in connection with the Prague Linguistic Circle. The
rest of the chapter presents the development of terminology for Czech
and in Czechoslovakia. By contrast, in {10}, Tatiana Orel gives a very
good overview of the development of terminological theory (or, as she
calls it, “terminology science”) in the Soviet Union and Russia,
relating theoretical views and schools to the historical and political
developments from the 1930s to the present.
The only theories that are directly mentioned in the chapter titles
are socioterminology and textual terminology in {11}. The four authors
are the same as the two authors each who wrote the respective chapters
in FH. In line with the aim of WH, {11} describes for each theory the
basic starting points and the history of its development and
institutionalization. Despite a certain overlap with the chapters in
FH, this focus results in a clear distribution of tasks, so that each
chapter has its use.
The image that comes across from the treatment of theories in WH is
that the theoretical basis of terminology is an aspect of the
establishment, but it is not the most prominent one. For an overview
of the discussion of theoretical issues and frameworks, the reader
should rather turn to FH.
Let us now consider the question of how terminology became established
in a range of languages and countries. Here there is a big overlap in
scope between WH and RS. In RS, apart from the introduction and the
conclusion, each chapter ends with “the X case” or “the case of X”,
where X can be a language or a geographical designation (in most cases
X is ambiguous in this respect). In WH the 13 chapters in Part III,
but also four of the chapters in Part II have a title starting with
“Terminology in X”, where X is a geographical designation. Variants
are used in two other chapters. Together, these 19 chapters make up
the largest part of the book. The criteria for placing these chapters
in Part II or Part III are not always easy to follow. Apparently, the
chapters in Part II should have stronger theoretical orientation, but
for instance {14} on Mexico focuses on the methodology of the
“Diccionario del español de México” and the training programmes
available in the country. The dictionary is a dictionary of general
language and the methodology is typical of such general dictionaries.
Therefore, {14} hardly contributes to the theory and methodology of
terminology and may be read as going counter to establishing
terminology as an independent discipline.
The main difference between WH and RS is the selection of languages
and geographical areas for which the development of terminology is
described. Whereas RS is restricted to Europe, WH has no such
restriction. With chapters on Canada, Mexico, the Arab world, South
Africa and Indonesia, different continents are represented, but most
of the chapters in WH are devoted to Europe. In some cases, for
instance Lithuania, North Macedonia, and Wales, the same authors wrote
the chapters in WH and RS.
One consequence of the restricted scope in RS is that there is an
inherent motivation in the selection of the areas and languages to be
covered. RS has the ambition to cover all of Europe, whereas for WH it
would be impossible to cover all of the world. It is legitimate to
ask, then, why particular areas were chosen in WH. In their
introduction, the editors devote a large part to motivating the
selection of case studies. For the non-European ones, the result is a
set of interesting cases that represent different areas. As the
editors note [15], it would have been good to have a chapter on the
United States as well. They do not mention any reasons for selecting
the Arab world and Indonesia as the only examples in Asia. It would
have been interesting to read about terminology in China, Japan, and
India. China currently holds the secretariat for ISO/TC37, the
technical committee on “Language and Terminology” at the main
international standards organization. Japan is a country with a rich
industrial and research history and a distinct pride in its national
language. India is a highly multilingual country with an increasing
role in many internationally oriented areas of activity. For the
European countries, the editors regret that there is no chapter on the
United Kingdom and none on Belgium [15-16].
Another question that can be asked in comparing WH and RS is how
individual chapters are set up. In RS, the structure of each chapter
follows a clear pattern. In WH, the instructions for the authors seem
to have been much less specific. Several chapters focus on
institutions and organizations that determine terminology. Another
focus is on the place of terminology in higher education. Some
chapters also address available resources. For obvious reasons, the
balance between these topics and the way they are elaborated depends
on the particular situation in each country (or area). Still, there is
a large difference between chapters in the way the country-specific
situation is made relevant more generally.
A good example of a chapter devoted to a major language and country is
the one on Germany {22} by Klaus-Dirk Schmitz. After a brief note on
early history, it gives an overview of organizations involved in
standardization and term formation, university programmes and
resources. The chapter is just 12 pages but manages to give an
overview that puts the German situation in a global context. The
chapter on Greek {23} has eight authors. It covers similar topics, but
uses twenty pages. As Greek is a smaller language, more space is
needed to highlight how the special situation of Greek is of a more
general interest. In other chapters, these efforts are somewhat less
successful. The chapter on North Macedonia {27} does not contextualize
Macedonian as a language and does not demonstrate why the position and
treatment of terminology in North Macedonia is interesting beyond the
boundaries of this country.
A special challenge arises when for a particular area the authors of
the chapter are also the main terminologists. For Switzerland, {30}
focuses on the role of one institution, the École de Traduction et
d’Interprétation (ETI), later integrated into the University of Geneva
as the Faculté de Traduction et d’Interprétation. It is written by
three authors from ETI and gives a detailed description of their
efforts in curriculum development and the personnel involved. There is
no question that ETI is of great importance for terminology in
Switzerland, but the chapter comes across as too narrowly focussed.
Not much is said, for instance, on the way the Swiss language
situation makes terminology management in Switzerland special. For
Wales, {31} deals with a similar situation in a much better way.
Delyth Prys, Tegau Andrews and Gruffudd Prys focus on Welsh and on
Wales rather than on their own work. In doing so, they highlight
issues that are of a more general interest, for instance how minority
languages deal with terminology, how the bilingualism of Welsh
speakers affects the attitude to loanwords and how educational
contexts and Open Access can be used to make terminology management a
tool for preserving the language.
Compared to FH and RS, the volume under review has a much less clear
focus. The issue of the establishment of terminology as a discipline
has components reaching into the history of the use and
standardization of terms, the institutions involved in
standardization, the theories used as a background, the resources
available and the channels for spreading standardized terminology, the
educational institutions where courses on terminology are taught, the
legal framework in which terminology is developed and the social
context involving language choice and multilingualism. Chapters are
not devoted to these issues, but to geographic areas. The selection
criteria for the geographic areas are not set out clearly. The
selection of factors determining the establishment of terminology as a
discipline addressed in each chapter is partly determined by the
situation in the relevant area, but the chapters are very unequal in
the degree to which they show the wider relevance of the specific
information they give.
The volume does not have a conclusion. As mentioned above, the
introduction ends with two pages listing six general statements
emerging from the chapters that follow. However, most of these
statements are so general that they can hardly be seen as an
interesting answer to the question of how and to what extent
terminology has become a discipline of its own. The only exception is
the one on the similarity in the development of terminology,
lexicography and translation studies. Without any elaboration of how
the material in the 31 chapters supports this claim, it remains an
impressionistic observation rather than a genuine conclusion.
Two decisions that may be due to the publisher or to the editors
detract from the general value of the volume. One concerns the
presentation of quotations from languages other than English. With few
exceptions, all such quotations are only given in the authors’
translation. This makes it impossible to verify the claims in the
original formulation without going to the original sources. Another
point is the index. For a volume of this type, few index entries are
given. For instance, Juan Sager, whose ideas figure prominently in the
introduction, does not have an index entry. Many index entries have
more than ten page indications without any structure or highlighting.
Apparently it was assumed that the electronic version is the
predominant one for this volume and that electronic search makes a
more detailed and more structured index superfluous.
Volumes of this type are bought mainly by libraries, and many users
will read an individual chapter with no regard of its position in the
volume. The inclusion of the bibliography with each chapter
facilitates this. It would lead too far afield to evaluate each
individual chapter, although some evaluative remarks for selected
chapters were given in the discussion. How good a particular chapter
is in isolation depends to a large extent on the reader’s purpose, so
that it is more difficult to arrive at a general evaluation.
For an evaluation of the volume as a whole, the starting point should
be the aim of tracing the establishment of terminology as a
discipline, as formulated in the introduction. Terminology is a field
in which there is a lot of controversy. Much of it relates to the
question of whether Wüster’s theory is an adequate basis for a general
treatment of terminology or not. In Part I, the volume presents the
early history of terminology so that it is possible to see the extent
of Wüster’s original contribution. Part II and Part III present
aspects of the elaboration of his theory and of critical reactions to
it, both from a theoretical and from a more practical perspective.
Most of the chapters are devoted to geographically determined case
studies. The selection of these case studies remains only partially
motivated and in the absence of a concluding chapter, the volume
cannot be said to reach the aim it sets. However, it provides a broad
spectrum of interesting and relevant pieces of information in pursuing
this aim.
REFERENCES
Faber, Pamela & L’Homme, Marie-Claude (eds.) (2022), Theoretical
Perspectives on Terminology, Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Humbley, John (2022), ‘The reception of Wüster’s General Theory of
Terminology’, in Faber & L’Homme (eds.), pp. 15-35.
Resi, Rossella & Steurs, Frieda (eds.) (2025), Handbook of Terminology
Volume 4: Terminology planning in Europe, Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Sager, Juan Carlos (1990), A Practical Course in Terminology
Processing, Amsterdam: Benjamins.
ABOUT THE REVIEWER
Pius ten Hacken is a professor at the Department of Translation
Studies of the University of Innsbruck (Austria). His research
interests include terminology, word formation, lexicography and the
philosophy of linguistics. His latest monograph, co-authored with
Renáta Panocová, is “Word formation as a Naming Device” (Edinburgh
University Press, 2024).



------------------------------------------------------------------------------

********************** LINGUIST List Support ***********************
Please consider donating to the Linguist List, a U.S. 501(c)(3) not for profit organization:

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=87C2AXTVC4PP8

LINGUIST List is supported by the following publishers:

Bloomsbury Publishing http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/

Cambridge University Press http://www.cambridge.org/linguistics

Cascadilla Press http://www.cascadilla.com/

De Gruyter Brill https://www.degruyterbrill.com/?changeLang=en

Edinburgh University Press http://www.edinburghuniversitypress.com

European Language Resources Association (ELRA) http://www.elra.info

John Benjamins http://www.benjamins.com/

Language Science Press http://langsci-press.org

Lincom GmbH https://lincom-shop.eu/

MDPI Languages https://www.mdpi.com/journal/languages

MIT Press http://mitpress.mit.edu/

Multilingual Matters http://www.multilingual-matters.com/

Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH + Co. KG http://www.narr.de/

Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics / Landelijke (LOT) http://www.lotpublications.nl/

Peter Lang AG http://www.peterlang.com

SIL International Publications http://www.sil.org/resources/publications


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-37-1479
----------------------------------------------------------