Linguistic features of artillery terms in english and vietnamese

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
HANOI OPEN UNIVERSITY

M.A. THESIS
LINGUISTIC FEATURES OF ARTILLERY TERMS IN ENGLISH AND
VIETNAMESE
(Đặc điểm của thuật ngữ chuyên ngành Pháo
binh trong tiếng Anh và tiếng Việt)

VŨ THU HIỀN
Field: English Language
Code: 8.22.02.01

HANOI - 2020


MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
HANOI OPEN UNIVERSITY

M.A. THESIS
LINGUISTIC FEATURES OF ARTILLERY
TERMS IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE
(Đặc điểm của thuật ngữ chuyên ngành Pháo binh
trong tiếng Anh và tiếng Việt)

VŨ THU HIỀN
Field: English Linguistics
Code: 8.22.02.01
Supervisor: Đặng Nguyên Giang, Ph.D

HANOI - 2020

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY
I, the undersigned, hereby certify my authority of the study project report entitled
LINGUISTIC FEATURES OF ARTILLERY TERMS IN ENGLISH AND
VIETNAMESE submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master in English Linguistics. Except where the reference is indicated, no other
person‘s work has been used without due acknowledgement in the text of the thesis.
Hanoi, 2020

Vu Thu Hien

Approved by
SUPERVISOR

Dang Nguyen Giang, Ph.D.
Date: / / 2020

i


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This thesis could not have been completed without the help and support from a
number of people.
First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Mr. Đặng
Nguyên Giang, Ph.D, my supervisor, who has patiently and constantly supported
me through the stages of the study, and whose stimulating ideas, expertise, and
suggestions have inspired me greatly through my growth as an academic researcher.
A special word of thanks goes to all the lecturers at Faculty of Post-graduate
Studies under Hanoi Open University and many others, without whose support and

encouragement it would never have been possible for me to have this thesis
accomplished.
Last but not least, I am greatly indebted to my family, my husband, my
daughter, for the sacrifice they have devoted to the fulfillment of this academic work.

ii


ABSTRACT
An investigation of artillery terms in English and Vietnamese in terms of
structural and semantic features is carried out in the present study. Description and
contrastive analysis are regarded as the main methods used in the thesis. The
findings of the study are concerned with the similarities and differences between
artillery terms in English and Vietnamese in terms of structural and semantic
features as well as suggesting some possible implications for teaching them to the
leaners as well as my cadets at The colleage of artillery oficers‘ training who study
English as a foreign language. Therefore, an initial investigation into structural and
semantic features of the artillery terms in English and Vietnamese would provide
valuable experience to further studies of linguistics.
In the study, the data are collected from different sources such as teaching
materials of artillery specialty, the bilingual dictionaries on artillery specialty. The
study uses a number of methods such as the descriptive, comparative, contrastive,
analytical and synthetic methods to find out the similarities and differences between
the artillery terms in English and Vietnamese in terms of the structural and semantic
features. The findings address the research questions through the data gathered and
analyzed.
Finally, the researcher expects all the readers and cadets to enrich their
knowledge about vocabulary interference as well as artillery terms in both
languages. The author also suggests implication and some points for further
research in my reasearch.

iii


A
AP

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Adjective
Adjective phrase

CA

Compound adjective

CN
CV

Compound noun
Compound verb

E

Element

EFL

English as a Foreign Language

N

NP

Noun
Noun phrase

V

Verb

iv


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
i

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ii

ABSTRACT
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

iii
iv

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

viii

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1. Rationale
1.2. Aims and objectives of the study

1

1.3. Research questions

2

1.4. Research methods
1.5. Scope of the study

2
2

1.6. Significance of the study
1.7. Structure of the study

3
3

Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Review of the previous studies
2.1.1. Previous research works carried out in foreign countries

5
5
5

2.1.2. Previous research works carried out in Vietnam
2.2. Theoretical background
2.2.1. Definitions of terms
2.2.2. Features of terms

7
7
7
8

2.2.3. Term formation
2.2.4. Terms versus terminology
2.3. An over view of artillery terms
2.4. Chapter sumary
Chapter 3: METHODOLOGY
3.1. Research-governing orientations.
3.1.1. Research approach
3.1.2. Research setting

10
13
15
17
18
18
18
18

3.1.3. Principles for data collection and data analysis

3.2. Research methods
3.2.1. Major methods vs.supporting methods
3.2.2. Data collection techniques

18
18
19
19

1
2

v


3.2.3.Data analysis techniques
3.3. Chapter summary

20
23

Chapter 4: STRUCTURAL AND SEMANTIC FEATURES OF
ARTILLERY TERMS IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE

24

4.1. Structural features of artillery terms in English and Vietnamese
4.1.1. Structural features of artillery terms in English
4.1.1.1. Artillery terms as single words

24
24

4.1.1.2. Artillery terms as derivatives

25

4.1.1.3. Artillery terms as compound words
4.1.1.4. Artillery terms as phrases

27
29

4.1.2. Structural features of artillery terms in Vietnamese
4.1.2.1. Artillery terms as single words
4.1.2.2. Artillery terms as compound words

34

4.1.2.3. Artillery terms as phrases

37

24

34
34

4.1.3. A comparison between artillery terms in English and those in
Vietnamese in terms of structural features

4.1.3.1. Structural features found in both languages
4.1.3.2. Structural features unique to English

39
39
40

4.1.3.3. Structural features unique to Vietnamese

41
42
42
42

4.2. Semantic features of artillery terms in English and Vietnamese
4.2.1. Semantic features of artillery terms in English
4.2.1.1. Artillery terms related to order
4.2.1.2. Artillery terms related to tactics
4.2.1.3. Artillery terms related to tactical mission tasks.
4.2.1.4. Artillery terms related to weapons
4.2.1.5. Artillery terms related to inner of artillery
4.2.1.6. Artillery terms related to outer of artillery
4.2.1.7. Artillery terms related to units in the artillery arm
4.2.2. Semantic features of artillery terms in Vietnamese
4.2.2.1. Artillery terms related to order

43
43
43
43

44
44
44
44

4.2.2.2. Artillery terms related to tactics
4.2.2.3. Artillery terms related to tactical mission tasks.
4.2.2.4. Artillery terms related to weapons
4.2.2.5. Artillery terms related to inner of artillery

44
45
45
45

vi


4.2.2.6. Artillery terms related to outer of artillery
4.2.2.7. Artillery terms related to units in the artillery arm
4.2.3. A comparison between artillery terms in English and those in
Vietnamese in terms of semantic features
4.2.3.1. Semantic features found in both languages
4.2.3.2. Semantic features unique to English

46
46
48
48
49

4.2.3.3. Semantic features unique to Vietnamese

49

4.3. Chapter summary

51

Chapter 5: CONCLUSION
5.1. Recapitulation

52
52

5.2. Concluding remarks

53

5.3. Limitations of the research
5.4. Suggestions for further research.

53
54

5.4.1. For teaching artillery terms
5.4.2. For learning artillery terms

55
56

REFERENCES
APPENDIX 1: List of English artillery terms
APPENDIX 2: English artillery terms classified

57
60
65

APPENDIX 3: List of Vietnamese artillery terms
APPENDIX 4: Vietnamese artillery terms classified

77
81

vii


LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 4.1.1.1. Artillery terms as single words in English
Table 4.1.1.2. Artillery terms as derivatives in English

24
27

Table 4.1.1.3. Artillery terms as compound words in English

29

Table 4.1.1.4. Artillery terms as phrases in English

Table 4.1.1.5. Noun phrase in artillery terms in English

30
30

Table 4.1.1.6. Structural characteristics of English artillery terms

33

Table 4.1.2.1. Artillery terms as single words in Vietnamese

34

Table 4.1.2.2 . Artillery terms as compound words in Vietnamese
Table 4.1.2.3 . Artillery terms as phrases in Vietnamese

34
36

Table4.1.2.4. Structural characteristics of English artillery terms

39

Table 4.2.3.3. The number of terms specified in English and Vietnamese

49

viii

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1. Rationale
English is needed for every field such as economics, education, medicine,
trading, teaching, etc. English is also used as a criterion to evaluate the ability of
learners in the exams and at work. People need English for developing their study
and career. Especially in the Army University, learning English are the main tasks
and the mission of cadets.
Since the ancient times, various plans and detailed preparations have been
implemented by commanders to change the flow of the war and become the
ultimate winner. In this fight, artillery has always been an irreplaceable element
after its invention. Today's national defense war has developed in many ways;
Artillery plays a big role in defending the Fatherland, the combat objects of the
Artillery Squadron are enemies with modern weapons, equipment and techniques…
Therefore, training and retraining of officers‘ of the Units should focus on renewing
military thinking, raising the theoretical level of artillery organization and use,
attaching importance to lifting measures. High effectiveness of artillery combat in
conditions of enemy using high-tech weapons.
On the other hand, the research on artillery term - a field of certain influence to
the scientific and technical development of the military is still limited. In fact, the
construction of Artillery terms systems often relies on foreign terminology systems.
In artillery terms, it is generally based on the terms in English and Vietnamese.
In addition, as a teacher of English at The College of Artillery Officers
training, I found that my cadets have faced many problems when they use artillery
terms in English and Vietnamese. They often feel confused to choose the right term
and make errors in using them. Therefore, I have to carry out a study to find out
how to use these terms accurately from the analysis of the artillery terms in English
and Vietnamese.
Luckily, a chance came to me when I was assigned working at The College of
Artillery Officers Training. I approached artillery terms naturally and I actually
don´t know from when I was ―in love‖ with it. This motivates me to do something

to bring artillery terms closer to everyone especially the cadets at The College of
Artillery Officers training and anyone who wants to try something new. For this
reason, I decided to carry a study entitled: “Linguistic features of artillery terms in

1


English and Vietnamese” for my MA thesis with an attempt to support learning
and teaching for the teachers and the cadets.
1.2. Aims and objectives of the study
The aim of the study is clarifying the features of artillery terms in English and
Vietnamese to help the cadets to study and use these terms corectly and effectively.
In order to achieve the aim, the study is expected to reach the following
objectives:
(i) Identifying the structural and semantic features of artillery terms in English
and Vietnamese;
(ii) Investigating the similarities and differences between English and
Vietnamese in terms of artillery terms from structural and semantic features;
(iii) Suggesting some possible implications for teaching and learning English
artillery terms.
1.3. Research questions
In order to gain the aims of the study, the following research questions are posed:
1. What are the structural and semantic features of artillery terms in English
and Vietnamese?
2. What are the similarities and differences between English and Vietnamese
artillery terms in terms of structural and semantic features?
3. What are the possible implications of the study for teaching and learning
English artillery terms?
1.4. Research methods
Due to the main aims and objectives of the study, description and contrastive

exploitation would be mainly carried out throughout the process. Also, the thesis
makes use of the English language as the target and the Vietnamese one as the
source language (the base language).
Descriptive method is used to describe in details the structural and semantic
features of artillery terms in English and Vietnamese.
Contrastive analysis will be used to identify the similarities and differences
between English and Vietnamese in terms artillery terms from structural and
semantic features.
1.5. Scope of the study
The study focuses on studying the structural and semantic features of artillery
terms in English and Vietnamese so as to make crucial contributions to the field of
2


linguistics and improve the efficiency of teaching English terms for the cadets at
The College of Artillery Officers‘ Training. The findings hopefully would bring out
various suggestions for the teachers and researchers to conduct further studies
related to English and Vietnamese terms as well as advance teaching effectiveness
of these terms.
The applications of this work will, hopefully, contribute greatly to find out
appropriate methods to teaching English terms in Vietnam and make changes how
Vietnamese learners of English not only in their study at school as a compulsory
subject but also in their daily use of English as a foreign language in Vietnamese
Army University. As mentioned previously, regarding English lexical terms,
students often learn English words‘ definitions separately with their actual uses. In
fact, teachers and cadets often make their own examples without collecting and
analyzing examples of terminologies indicating how native speakers combine some
words with each other while others are not used frequently.
The data are collected from different sources such as dictionaries, namely, Từ
điển Anh – Việt Quân Sự, Từ điển Pháo Binh, Từ điển Pháo Binh Anh – Việt; some

grammar books. We categorize them into two main aspects: structural and semantic
ones with 506 terms including 286 English terms and 220 Vietnamese terms.
1.6. Significance of the study
Theoretically, the study will provide a comprehensive and overall knowledge
about the syntactic and semantic features of the artillery terms in English and
Vietnamese. Moreover, the similarities and differences between these terms in
English and in Vietnamese are very helpful in contrasting two languages.
Practically, the research results of the study can be used as a reference in
teaching English for artillery in particular. Therefore, this study could help the
cadets at The College of Artillery Officers‘ Training learn artillery terms in English
and Vietnamese better. Moreover, the study could also help learners of English and
Vietnamese as a foreign language have a deeper insight into both English and
Vietnamese terms, and reduce the risk of committing errors when using these terms.
1.7. Structure of the study
In addition to the introduction, this thesis is organized into five chapters:
Chapter 1 – Introduction – gives a brief overview of the research with the
rationale for choosing the topic of the research, aims, objectives, scope, significance
of the thesis and structural organization of the thesis.
3


Chapter 2 – Literature review – presents the previous studies relating to the
research area and theoretical background and theoretical framework employed for
conducting the thesis.
Chapter 3 – Methodology – describes in detail all research-governing
orientations and research methods.
Chapter 4 - Structural and Semantic features off artillery terms in English and
Vietnamese: shows the findings which address the research questions through the
data gathered and analyzed. This section also discusses the results obtained in
relation to the research questions and some previous studies. The research

implications for teaching and learning English as a foreign language can be found as
the last part of this chapter.
Chapter 5 – Conclusion – makes a brief summary of the whole thesis, points
out some limitations and give recommendation as well as suggestions for a further
study. References come at the end of the study.

4


Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Review of the previous studies
2.1.1. Previous research works carried out in foreign countries
Terminology as a scientific discipline is a separate branch of linguistics. It
emerged in the first half of the 20th century, when scientists recognized the need to
systemize different approaches to a term analysis and define the relevant principles
characteristic of modern terminology creation and use, which can help process the
variety of terms. The features of terminology are clearly discussed in the works of
English scholars such as Dubuc (1997), Felber (1984), Sager (1990), Cabré (1991)
and Kageura (2002).
The status of this scientific discipline remained undefined for a long time. The
scientists such as Dubuc (1997) and Sager (1990) believed that terminology was
nothing new but just a different perspective of lexicology and lexicography adapted
to the needs-of the Language for Special Purposes (LSP). In their opinion,
terminology cannot be considered an independent scientific discipline as it has the
same theoretical basis as lexicology. Sager (1990, p.9) argues that there is
nosubstantial body of literature which could support the proclamation of
terminology as a separate discipline and there is not likely to be.
Felber (1984, p.5) provides an overview of world-wide terminological
activities, the general theory of terminology relating to other fields and places
special emphasis on the principles and methods of terminology.

Cabré (1991, p.4) contributed to dealing with terminology and its central role
in society, which was the theme of the international conference terminology and
society; the impact of terminology on everyday life.
Kageura (2002, p.43) provided the theoretical background of his procedure
and gave working definitions of term, terminology, lexical unit, vocabulary,
concept, conceptual structure, and characteristic. He also assessed the traditional
theory of terminology in which he shares. To a certain degree, the attitude of Rita,
Temmerman (2000, p.17) made an important stipulation in the part the theoretical
framework for the study of the dynamics of terminology which implied that term as
empirical objects and functional variants of words from the angle of epistemological
conditions constitute a category. Moreover, he dealt with conceptual patterns of
term formation and aimed at the quantitative patterns of terminological growth by
introducing mathematical and statistical methods.
5


Regardless of disagreements among researchers as to whether or not
terminology is an autonomous academic field (Cabré, 1999, p.35) or rather a set of
methodological tools for processing terminological data (Sager, 2000, p.76), (Dubuc,
1997, p.9), its interdisciplinary characteristic is recognized by all. Not only because
terminology is the intersection of have had various fields of knowledge, but mainly
becabse.it borrowed the fundamental instruments and concepts of several different
disciplines (e.g. logic, ontology, linguistics, information science, and others).
Consequently, the theory of terminology is defined with relation to three
different dimensions (Sager, 1990, p.13):
1. The cognitive dimension, which examines the concept relations and thereby
how the concepts constitute structured sets of knowledge units or concept systems
in every area of human knowledge, as well as the representation of concepts by
definitions and terms;
2. The linguistic dimension, which examines existing linguistic forms as well

as potential linguistic forms that can be created in order to name new concepts;
3. The communicative dimension, which examines the use of terms as a means
of transferring knowledge to different categories of recipients in a variety of
communicative situations and covers the activities of compilation, processing and
dissemination of terminological data in the form of specialized dictionaries
glossaries or terminological databases, etc.
From these points of view, there are various authors who research terminology
such as: Angela, Niederbaumer (2000), Kirsten, Packeiser (2009), Shchu, Eda (2015).
Angela, Niederbaumer (2000) has the research on German terminology of
banking with linguistic methods of description and implementation of a program for
term extraction. She explored the methods and principles of terminology to
investigate the characteristics of terms in respect to non-terms, and to implement a
method for automatic terminology retrieval.
Kirsten, Packeiser (2009) presents the general theory of terminology, the
nature of concepts, conceptual relations, the relationship between terms and
concepts, and the designation of terms to concepts. The sphere of concepts is seen
as independent from the sphere of terms.
Shehu Eda (2015) researches on semantic features in the Albanian lexicon, and
in particular the aspects of poly- semantics and homosemantics in relation to many
other phenomena such as: the root of the meaning, synonymy. She also gives two
6


phenomena which are closely interrelated is both of theoretical and practical value.
2.1.2. Previous research works carried out in Vietnam
In Vietnamese, there are many authors who researched about terminology in
many particular fields: Nguyễn Thị Bích Hà (2000), Nguyễn Thị Bắc (2003), Hoàng
Thị Bảy (2005), Nguyễn Thị Kim Thanh (2005), Nguyễn Phước Vĩnh (2011), Mai
Thị Loan (2015), etc.
Nguyễn Thị Bích Hà (2000) investigates the similarities and differences of

structure between economic and commercial terms in modern Japanese and Vietnamese.
In the work of Nguyễn Thị Bắc (2003) she studies on the English- Vietnamese
translation of terminology in the materials for electronics and electrical engineering.
Hoàng Thị Bảy (2005) investigates the English - Vietnamese translation of
economic terminology in the textbook Business Law. The study provides the
noticeable change in the logical order of the elements of the compound terms from
English into Vietnamese or vice versa.
Nguyễn Thị Kim Thanh (2005) studies on structural and semantic features of
Vietnamese terms in information technology and telecommunications.
Nguyễn Phước Vĩnh (2011) studies on the morphological and cultural
characteristic of financial, accounting, and banking English. He also distinguishes
the difference between British English and American English in the area of finance,
accounting, and banking.
Furthermore, Mai Thị Loan (2015) investigates the morphological and
semantic features of intellectual property law terms in English. She also presents the
comparison to Vietnamese terms in intellectual property law and other fields.
Besides that, there are many other papers which study on terms relating to
education, medicine, insurance, finance, economics and other fields with the various
aspects of terms have been carried out by Vietnamese researchers.
In general, all the researchers collect and analyze semantic, morphological,
historical characteristics of terminology in many different fields except in artillery.
Therefore, the study of linguistic features of artillery terms in English and
Vietnamese is necessary. That is why this topic has been taken into consideration in
my study.
2.2. Theoretical background
2.2.1. Definitions of terms
According to Oxford Advanced Learner Dictionary (2000, p.362), term is a
7

word or phrase which is used as the name of something and connected with a
particular type of language. Similarly, according to Longman Dictionary of
Contemporary English (1991), term is “a word or expression that has a particular
meaning or is used in particular activity, job, profession, etc."
Besides that, Dubuc (1997, p.09) stated that a term or a terminology unit is the
name or designation of a concept in a particular subject field. In specialized
languages, a term is made of a single word or word combination and is usually
associated with the same conventional definition used by speakers of a given
specialized language. A terminological unit can be a word, an expression, a symbol,
a chemical or mathematical formula, a scientific name in Latin or an acronym.
According to Lưu Vân Lăng, Như Ý (1997, p.44) and Đái Xuân Ninh. Nguyễn
Đức Đản, Nguyễn Quang and Vương Toàn (1986, p.64) agree that term is a word
which denotes a specific concept relating a certain specialized science area.
In short, although there are many definitions from many other linguists at
different periods of time, they tend to share a common view that terms deliberately
denote specific concepts within a particular subject of human beings.
2.2.2. Features of terms
It is of common knowledge that most of the layers of vocabularies have their
own features and are used in certain situations by particular groups of people. That
is also applied to terminology. Lotte (1978), Culêbakin and Colimovitxki (1970),
Reformatxki (1978) focus on accuracy, brevity, systematicality and simplicity of
terms. While Vietnamese linguists such as Đỗ Hữu Châu (1981), Nguyễn Thiện
Giáp (1998), Nguyễn Đức Tồn (2010) focus on accuracy, systematicality,
intenationality, nationality, popularity, simplicity of terms.
In this study, basing on the viewpoints of the above linguists, the author
collects the most important characteristics of terms to analyze: accuracy,
systematicality and intenationalily.
• Accuracy
A concept representing a term must be clear and exact. In addition, an accurate
term should not make the reader misunderstand the concept which it expresses with

another. Actually, the accuracy of terminology is well recognized in both its
meaning and form.
With respect to the lexical meaning of words, normal word often bears the
characteristics of polysemy and synonym, whereas terminology must keep away
8


from this. The semantics of ordinary words may change in different usage and
contexts while that of terminology is fixed in specialized fields it is employed in.
For example, a normal and simple noun like ―school‖ in general language has up
to eight shades of meanings when used in different circumstances. However, the
terminology ―pneumonia‖ in medicine is taken for one single meaning ―a serious
illness affecting one or both lungs that makes breathing difficult.‖
As regards the accuracy or terminology in terms of form, terminology has no
other form or outer cover other than its original one. We can hardly add any
factors like prefix, suffix, etc.., to a terminology to refer to the plural form,
antonyms, or any change in word meaning. For example, the above- mentioned
word ―pneumonia‖ does not allow any transformation to its form. However,
considering systematicality (that will be further discussed in the next part), the
form of a terminology could be changed, but in a special way.
In fact, the accuracy of terminology has, to some extent, changed along
periods of history. For instance the term ―consult‖ in Roman time means ―Quan
chấp chính”, however, it is understood in recent modern time as ―tổng đài‖ and in
modern time as ―Lãnh sự‖. Besides, the accuracy of terminology does not require
one- to –one relationship in translation. This means a term in source language
(English) may be equivalent in two (or more) terms in the target language
(Vietnamese). For instance, the term ―tongue‖ in English could be translated as
―lưỡi‖ or ―tiếng‖ in Vietnamese. Thus, it is importance for translators to be
cautioned about the accuracy of terms when doing translating or interpreting job,
especially in tourism field. They should closely observe the principle “each term

represents one concept and vice versa”. Undeniably, homophones and synonyms
may exist in the terminology of various fields; however, they do not degrade the
accuracy of terminology itself.
Systematicality
This is an important characteristic of terminology. In one terminology system,
•

each term is dependent on others. The characteristic helps terms define their positions
in one terminology system. Terms name things, events, phenomena, activities, and
concepts, etc which exist objectively and have relations with other terms in a
particular system with disciplines controlling their existence and development, so
their concepts can be easily comprehended (Nguyễn Thiện Giáp. 1999).
A system of terms not only meets general requirements but also satisfy
9


particular ones posed by certain specialized it reflects. As a matter of fact, each field
of science has its own systems of solid and finite concept expressed by it own
terms. The semantic value of a term is determined by its relation to others in the
same field. Therefore, once isolated, the term may have no or ambiguous meaning.
However, there exist homophones and synonyms among term systems of different
fields. The systematicality also requires a term itself to be systematic in its own
meaning. To this end, terms are usually short in form.
In sum, systematicality makes terms the insiders of a particular field and helps
US understand concepts that terms express.
Internationality
Internationality is one of three most important characteristics of terms. This
•

characteristic seems to be contradictory, but in fact it is very logical. The

vocabulary system of each language brings the typical features of a nation which
uses that language but science is the common fortune of human beings. Theories or
concepts of mathematics, physics, and biology, etc are universally used. It is
impossible that theories on biology in Vietnam are different from that in England,
Japan, etc. As it is stated by Nguyễn Thiện Giáp (1999, p.275), if the content of
terminology is noticed, it is agreed that international characteristic of terminology is
important; it distinguishes terminology with other parts of vocabulary. Terminology
is a special part of vocabulary which denotes common scientific concepts for all
people speaking different languages. Therefore, the unification of terminology
among languages is necessary and useful. This makes terminology bear
international characteristic.
In addition, terminology has other features particularly mono-meaning. Terms
should be fixed words or phrases which have only one meaning. Terminology
should not denote more than one concept simultaneously. Many linguists such as
Đỗ Hữu Châu (1981), Nguyễn Thiện Giáp (1998) agree that there should not be
more than one term which denotes one scientific concept
2.2.3. Term formation
Since terms are to name concepts, so whenever a concept appears, is made in a
culture, or translated to a new culture, it involves the creation of a new term to name
it. When discussing word-formation, it is important to differentiate between the
appearance of new words, i.e. the output of word formation rules, and these abstract
rules themselves. Word-formation rules are both language-specific and subject to
10


diachronic change, especially in regard to their productivity.
Language is a complex, heterogeneous system made up of interrelated
subsystems, each of which can be described at the phonological, morphological,
lexical and discourse levels. Terminology subjects to the same rules for word
formation processes as general linguistics. Therefore term formation in terminology

is technically based mainly on lexicology and common patterns of word-formation
processes, such as new syntactic connections, combination of lexicological units,
their contractions, changes in morphology, etc.
Lexical units become terms when they are clearly defined and undergo a
process of standardization. They have to carry the attributes and satisfy the criteria
described above. Apart from that, they should also be reused in professional texts and
get into the awareness of terminologists and scientific experts. Their official
assignation by terminology institutes is the final stage of the term formation process.
Sager (1997, p.78) defines term formation as the process of naming the
concept required by a particular domain. He adds that term formation differs from
general word formation by its awareness, models, social responsibility and the
transmission of knowledge. By means of the repeated act of creating new terms and
of regulating existing terminology, a certain consistency of designation is achieved.
Terms are on the whole less arbitrary and more consciously motivated and
transparent than general words. These reflections make evident that the wide-spread
opinion that special vocabulary is mostly constituted by Latin, Greek, and nowadays
English based terms is misleading. New terminology is not only created by
importing foreign vocabulary, but new terms are also formed by employing other
methods.
The motivational processes of term formation can be viewed in terms of the
need to express emerging knowledge, both to assist understanding and to ensure
effective specialized communication. This has inspired many terminology
researchers to try to prescribe rules for term formation. Such recommendations have
been drawn up by both national and international standards bodies, and are
proposed in numerous terminology manuals (e.g. Felber (1984, p.179); Pitch and
Draskau (1985, p.113); Rondeau (1984, p.134); Sager (1990, p.88).
According to Dubuc (1997, p.131), he claims that term can be changed into
semantic and morphological rules. The theory of terms and the practice of
terminology lead to different positions.
11

Sager (1990, p.80) differentiates between primary and secondary term
formation. Primary term formation is a monolingual activity, the process of
designating a new concept, while secondary term formation starts from an already
existing term and is either mono- or multilingual. Accordingly, it may have two
aims: the revision of an existing term within one linguistic community (a
monolingual activity) or the transfer of an existing term into another linguistic
community (an inter-lingual activity). This latter process, the transfer of terms into
other linguistic communities, is generally referred to as translation.
Starting with the primary creation of terms, it is important to note that it may
not only be mono- but multilingual as well. In that case, terminology is created in a
parallel way, excluding the need for translation. In other words, multilingual primary
term-creation is not about translation, but a simultaneous, multilingual activity aiming
at the designation of one concept in several languages. In countries and institutions
with more official languages, multilingual term-creation would be the ideal way of
creating terms. In this case, from a conceptual point of view, primary term-creation is
carried out within one conceptual system, but in more languages. However, for most
languages, multilingual primary term-creation generally makes up a two-step process
in practice: (1) primary term-creation in some languages followed by (2) secondary
term-creation (translation) into the other languages.
According to Feber (1984, p.89), turning to secondary term-creation, i.e. the
translation of an existing term, an additional dimension is suggested for
consideration, namely, the existence of one or more conceptual systems.
From this conceptual point of view, we may differentiate two cases in the
translation of terms: term-transfer into another language within the same conceptual
system (intra-conceptual term-transfer) and term-transfer between different
conceptual systems (inter-conceptual term-transfer). In the first case, although terms
have to be translated, the process is carried out within the same conceptual system.
This is characteristic of step (2) in multilingual term-creation in practice, as

discussed in the previous paragraph. In the second case, the difference between
conceptual systems plays a significant role. Here, the process of translation ideally
takes an onomasiological approach, comparing first the two conceptual systems and
then finding or creating the equivalent target term for a source term. The difference
between conceptual systems and the problem of equivalence is especially relevant
in social sciences (different legal, economic systems) but plays a role in natural
12


sciences as well (Muráth, 2002; Arntz, 1994; Schmitt, 1994).
The process of primary and secondary term formation is carried out by three
different methods (arranged in this way by Sager (1990, pp.71-80) and 1997, pp.28-40):
•
•
•

The use of existing resources (secondary term formation)
The modification of existing resources (secondary term formation)
The creation of new linguistic entities (primary term formation)

From these points of view and depending on the motivation for term
formation, it can be distinguished between primary and secondary term formation,
which are exposed to different influences. Primary term formation occurs when a
newly created concept has to be named. Primary creation accompanies the
formation of a concept and is monolingual. Primary term formation results from the
appearance of concepts in various disciplines and is influenced by existing patterns
of term formation in the relevant discipline. In primary term formation, there is no
linguistic precedent, although rules for forming terms usually exist in the given
language. In secondary term formation, there is always a precedent of an existing
term in another language.

2.2.4. Terms versus terminology
Terminology as a scientific discipline is a separate branch of linguistics. It
emerged in the first half of the 20th century, when scientists recognized the need to
systemize different approaches to a term analysis and define the relevant
characteristic of modern terminology creation and use, which can help process the
variety of terms.
Up to now there are various definitions of terminology by many linguists.
According to Temmerman (2000, p.2) terminology as an autonomous scientific
discipline is first defined, perceived. Wilster (1959, p.6) considered terminology to be a
branch of applied linguistics and the general scientific study of terminology is largely
influenced by its relationship to applied linguistics, of which it is a branch. Felber
(1984, p.3 l) stated that terminology was one of the first scientists to claim a separate
status for the science of terminology. Cabré (1999, p.29) suggests that terminology is
applied views of linguistics as a heterogeneous system of dialects and functional
varieties, and allows US to place terminology as one of its branches since it is a part of
one of the functional subsystems determined by subject specialization.
Other senior Vietnamese linguists have also proposed other definition of
terminology as follows:
13


• Terminology is a word or a word-group used in science, technology, politics,
diplomacy, art, etc., which exactly indicates a concept or a title of a particular.
(Nguyễn Văn Tư, 1960, p.176)
• Terminology is a part of special words of language. It consists of certain
words and phrases that are the exact names of a variety of concepts and objects,
which belongs to the professional field.
(Nguyễn Thiện Giáp, 1986, p.223)
In general, although the definitions of terminology are not the same, the
linguists share three similar aspects. With respect to structure, terminology often

manifests itself in word and phrasal form. In terms of semantics, it is a special
linguistic unit that denotes certain unique concept. With reference to usage,
terminology is utilized in a certain specialized field. There is a fact that terminology
as a scientific discipline is based on other related linguistic branches makes the
process of representing a special meaning a social practice. Consequently, next to
other fields such as lexicography, language teaching and computational linguistics,
terminology is placed as one of the branches of applied linguistics. Thus, for a start,
the theoretical principled of linguistics and the application structures of applied
linguistics matter and cannot be ignored by terminology.
Likewise, there are many opinions about the definition of terms by many
linguists and terminologists such as: Akhmanova (1996); Felber 1984; Sager
1990/1998, Cabre (1999); Kageura 2002; Temmerman (2000), etc. There is still no
unified approach to what a term is, and there exist a variety of definitions. They can
be universal or defined for the purposes of the particular research.
According to Akhmanova (1996) a term is a word or expression of special
(scientific, technical, etc.) language, which has been coined (accepted, formed,
borrowed, etc.) in order to express special notion and designate special subject.
Cabre (1999, p.35) defines a term by comparing it with the notion of a word.
She states that a word is described by a set of systematic linguistic characteristic
and has the property of referring to an element in reality. The similar approach has
been adopted by Sager (1990, p.123), who suggests that terms are different from
general vocabulary and declare concepts in technical communities.
Bowker (2009, pp.9-286) states that terms are linguistic designations assigned
to concepts and lexical units consisting of one or more than one word which
represents a concept inside a domain.
14


In general, terms can be understood as a word or phrase which is used to
describe a thing or to express a concept, especially in a particular kind of language

or branch of study.
From the viewpoints of definitions of terminology and terms, it can be
concluded that there are some differences between terminology and terms. In terms
of objectives, the subject of terminology is a term, each term denotes a concept in a
particular field such as economics, biology, chemistry, and so on. In term of
function, terms form a part of the lexicon of a language ((Wilster (1991), Felber
(1984), Cabré (1999)). If terms are of relevance to terminology, then the rules of
inflection and syntax are of relevance, too, as they are of relevance to terms who
form a part of the lexicon. The same illegitimate argumentation is used with respect
to the representation of terms as language units.
It is of common knowledge that most of the layers of vocabularies have their
own features and are used in certain situations by particular groups of people. That
is also applied to terminology. Lotte (1978), Culêbakin and Colimovitxki (1970),
Reformatxki (1978) focus on accuracy, brevity, systematically and simplicity of
terms. While Vietnamese linguists such as Đỗ Hữu Châu (1981), Nguyễn Thiện
Giáp (1998), Nguyễn Đức Tồn (2010) focus on accuracy, systematicality,
intemationality, nationality, popularity, simplicity of terms.
2.3. An over view of artillery terms
(i) The definition of artillery
Artillery refers to large-caliber guns — guns with big barrels — which can be
moved from one place to another for land battles. The artillery is also the name for
the army unit that uses these big guns.
If you're a military commander and you say, "Bring in the heavy artillery,"
you're ordering the artillery to move into place and get ready for action. But if
you're talking to fellow members of your debate team and you say, ―Bring in the
heavy artillery,‖ you mean "bring in our best debaters, our heaviest
hitters." Artillery can refer to one weapon or 100 — the singular and plural are the
same.
According to Bellamy, Christopher (2004), Artillery is a class of heavy
military ranged weapons built to launch munitions far beyond the range and power

of infantry firearms. Early artillery development focused on the ability to
breach defensive walls and fortifications during sieges, and led to heavy, fairly
15