An interdisciplinary OR MULTIDISCIPLINARY (???

) cooperation like EU CONNEXUS suggests

that different experts communicate taking into account different perspectives and opening space for
cognitive potential / improvement that can happen in discourse.

The most widely cited definition of interdisciplinarity is that of the Organisation for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (Aboelela et al., 2007; Franks et
al., 2007 p. 169); Klein, 1990 p.36; Klein, 1996; Lattuca, 2002 p. 712;
Lattuca, 2003 p. 2):
Interdisciplinary—an adjective describing the interaction among two or more
different disciplines. This interaction may range from simple communication of ideas
to the mutual integration of organising concepts, methodology, procedures,
epistemology, terminology, data, and organization of research and education in a
fairly large field.
An interdisciplinary group consists of persons trained in different fields of
knowledge (disciplines) with different concepts, methods, and data and terms
organized into a common effort on a common problem with continuous
intercommunication among the participants from different disciplines.

This definition of interdisciplinarity refers to interaction as well as mutual integration

between disciplines.

As will be demonstrated below, both interaction and integration are normally seen
as defining characteristics of interdisciplinarity, where integration indicates the degree of
synthesis along a continuum from the least to the greatest degree of synthesis.
interaction: the informal communication of ideas, such as might occur in a
conversation between colleagues from different disciplines,
mutual integration between disciplines : end is formal collaboration, such as
research or teaching teams comprised of one or more faculty from different disciplines
(Lattuca 2002: 712).
Zhang & Benjamin (2007) do not differentiate between multi- or interdisciplinarity nor
do they differentiate between interaction and integration or relate these concepts to multi- or
interdisciplinarity.

It is argued that a theoretically based distinction between multi-, inter- and

transdisciplinarity is important as a foundation for a discussion of a conceptual framework for
the Information Field.
Aboelela et al. (2007) identify 3 qualitatively different modes of interdisciplinary
research represented by different degrees of synthesis along a continuum from the least
degree of synthesis, proceeding to a moderate degree and finally arriving at the greatest
degree of synthesis.
For the least degree of synthesis, Aboelela et al. 2007 use the term multidisciplinary’,
for the moderate degree ‘interdisciplinary’, and
for the greatest degree of synthesis ‘transdisciplinary’
…… the continuum of integration from multi- to inter- to transdisciplinarity is useful for a
distinction of different degrees of synthesis,

--------- the rationale of interdisciplinarity as a means of solving problems and

answering questions that cannot be satisfactorily addressed using single methods or
approaches (Klein, 1990:196).

---- Klein (2010) offers a synthesis of discussions of “the genus Interdisciplinarity,”

including multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity.
For a general overview of defining characteristics of interdisciplinarity, see Klein
(2010) who provides “A taxonomy of interdisciplinarity”.

From Aboelela et al.'s (2007) overview in table I, we can get an indication of the
conceptual foundations for discussing degrees of integration that might lead to shared
conceptual frameworks.
From Aboelela et al.'s (2007) table I we can see that ‘defining a field’, ‘developing an
overarching synthesis’ and ‘using a shared conceptual framework’ are classified as either
interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary endeavors, between moderate to greatest synthesis.
According to Aboelela et al.'s (2007) literature review, interdisciplinary research may
result in the development of a new field, but at the same time they find that transdisciplinary
endeavors that set out to create synthesis between disciplines, are the most likely to result in
the development of a new field (p. 339).
For the greatest synthesis of approach, transdisciplinarity, they state (2007:339),
“In this mode, teams not only share a common question but also often share and borrow
methods, create a common conceptual framework, and either learn each other's disciplinary
language or create a new common language”
as opposed to modes with a moderate degree of synthesis -interdisciplinarity
where team members will often share a research problem “but still employ their respective
disciplinary methods, conceptual frameworks, and languages.” (p. 339).
if the aim is to develop a shared conceptual framework for the Information Field, and
defining a new field requires transdisciplinarity
In a process towards transdisciplinarity, it is important that we know :
our respective points of departure,
our respective disciplinary approaches,
underlying disciplinary assumptions (Disciplinary assumptions are especially
important if two or more disciplines are involved)
and
conceptual frameworks.
 The continuum of integration may help us create a shared understanding of
where we are,
discuss our disciplinary assumptions and
decide which type of common conceptual framework we are striving for.
which are the theories about the fundamental components that make it possible for
scholars to combine or integrate disciplinary elements and approaches?
And how do the experts in the respective fields construe their objects of inquiry, and
what are their underlying assumptions?
The fundamental components should be seen as embedded in disciplinary
approaches and the disciplines' ways of thinking.
It is the theories about and approaches to the fundamental components that may
provide the ground for interaction or integration.
The fundamental components may be a good starting point for studying the
Information Field, but represent only one level of analysis among many.
We must also study the disciplines, the underlying disciplinary assumptions and
worldviews to be able to forge an integrative framework, drawing from multiple theories,
methods, disciplines and disciplinary perspectives. In such a process, the continuum of
integration from multi- to inter- to transdisciplinarity, may be useful.

A DISCIPLINE
As Klein (1990) points out, a discipline is not a clean-cut category. She states:

The term discipline signifies the tools, methods, procedures, exempla, concepts, and
theories that account coherently for a set of objects or subjects. Over time they are
shaped and reshaped by external contingencies and internal intellectual demands. In
this manner a discipline comes to organize and concentrate experience into a
particular “world view”. (Klein, 1990, p. 104, emphasis in original).

This means that we need at least two different dimensions to describe a discipline, we
need both ‘a set of objects or subjects’ as well as what may ‘account coherently for’
those objects or subjects. And one dimension does not make much sense without the
other. To describe this ‘set of objects’, Klein (1996) uses the notion of material field:

Material field comprises a set of objects that presumably reside within a discrete
domain. Physicists and chemists study material objects, botanists study plants,
anthropologists study humans, and so on. Because material fields overlap, though,
the notion of a field of objects must be supplemented by recourse to how objects are
defined and treated. (p. 46).

Klein (1996:46) states that the simplest way to mark distinctions between disciplines
is by pointing to the different objects that are examined and the subjects that are
studied. However, she concludes on a general level that “boundaries (between
disciplines) are determined more by method, theory and conceptual framework
than by subject matter.”

ZA ČLANAK
UVOD

The multidisciplinarity of the project opens a myriad of terminological issues regarding the
domain, the conceptual system, the choice of corpus and especially the monosemy.

Documentary research is a primary and crucial point in terminology analysis as it determines

the limits of the specialised domain for which a terminological analysis will be executed. In the
contemporary terminology theory it is the socioterminological approach that tackles the question of
the domain as the coherent conceptual system and opens the question of artificial boundaries
between disciplines /domains. Once that the specialised language research took the discourse and
social factors / aspects of communication as the object of the analysis, the traditional wusterian
terminological theory based on the three pillars such as the term, definition and domain needed to
be redefined (Temmermann ) in line with /according to the sociolinguistic approach that questions
the terms as stable, monoreferential units belonging to one domain whose denotation is
independent of the type of discours, its objectifs and its participants. Socioterminological approach
aims to study terminology taking into account the social aspects of language as well as the term’s
function not only to classify but also to conceptualise and communicate (Delavigne, Guespin 1992:
19).

The issue of sustainability comprises a network of disciplines, an exchange of discourses,

heterogenous participants, transformation of knowledge. After determining that sustainability is an
object of study of several different disciplines we can continue to follow and observe the terminology
that develops in various discourses regardless of the fact that some take a political and others
ecological or economic point of view. In this way terminology description will not enable
classification but rather a better conceptualization and more effective communication about the
subject.

Previous research about environmental field suggests the necessity for a multidisciplinary approach.
According to Kotter and Balsiger (1999) „what is absolutely essential is a new integral or holistic
concept of the environment that permits the transgression of disciplinary boundaries“.

Biros (2013: 51) considers that the environmental domain is an interdisciplinary domain by
nature and that “specialists from different disciplinary fields need to build bridges between their
different perspectives, otherwise the means to solve environmental problems will remain beyond
reach”.

In her article about mapping the environmental field with the help of library classification
systems, Biros (2013) concludes that environmental protection dictionaries are not classified as one
section in the Dewey classification but are presented as separate entities as the subject is tackled
from specialists from different disciplinary fields. The analysis of environmental dictionaries in the
BNC library confirmed the development of knowledge on environmental questions into sub domains
like environmental economics, environmental engineering, environmental health… The author
suggests that the traditional classification of the domains such as Dewey classification system has to
be rethinked in the age of the communication development where the interdisciplinary exchange of
information is encouraged.

DISCUSSION

As demonstrated in the analysis our aim was to combine the prescriptive and descriptive
approach. By consulting EU domain corpus we extracted definitions of terms according to their place
inside conceptual system. On the other side the extracted knowledge rich contexts from the X
corpora illustrate term's actualisations inside the specialised discourse and its interactive functioning.

The comparison of definitions and knowledge rich contexts point to the need for taking into
account socioterminological approach that can encompass the heterogenous actors and the
innovative approach to domain as a conceptual system that doesn’t guaranty the monosemy but can
handle the polysemy of meanings. In case where concepts are borrowed from different disciplines
and their definitions are disciplinary oriented it is necessary to consider a transdisciplinary approach
that can offer a synthesis of perspectives. Bearing this in mind we illustrated the importance of
subdomains that are actively participating in the creation of new knowledge around the issue of
sustainability. + PRIKAZ

The examples from our corpus show that one concept's denotations in different disciplines
are semantically connected, for ex. ecosystem denotes one object/referent but is defined from
different points of view depending on the discipline and its conceptual system. This proves that the
extension of the concept depends on the classification systems but also on the communicative and
social factors that are a constitutive part of the specialised communication. As shown in the
examples, the sustainability is subject of EU documents and law regulations, scientific ecological
research but also a wider public of environmental activists. It is therefore an important sociological
issue1 that cannot be limited to one conceptual system.

A cooperation between experts necessarily implies that an existing (abstract) network of

concepts is influenced by other, neighboring disciplines as well as a variety of discourses and
participants. According to the degree of synthesis between disciplines and their level of integration
Aboelela et al (2007) identify the difference between multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary’ and
transdisciplinary’ research. This criteria contribute to our question about the creation of a shared
conceptual system between experts included in the EU Connexus project. While multidisciplinarity
implies the least degree of synthesis, interdisciplinarity implies a moderate degree of synthesis
where team members will often share a research problem “but still employ their respective disciplinary
methods, conceptual frameworks, and languages.” (p. 339). This means that the integration of
disciplinary approaches happens on multiple levels such as the analysis of existing theories, its

1
Biros (2013) found out that 32 environmental dictionaries were categorised as Social Sciences in the British
National Library.
fundamental concepts and underlying disciplinary assumptions. The most complex level of integration
is transdisciplinarity where a new shared conceptual framework is developed.

One of the greatest challenges in our research was to distinguish the disciplinary assumptions
behind the chosen keyterms. One of the reasons is that the results evidenced the frequent crossing
of domain boundaries, and the term’s meaning shift. Depending on the context these terms keep
more or less their original disciplinary meaning which makes terminology management very difficult.
Since many participants approach the issue with different objectives (some measure the impacts,
other try to determine the origins or to calculate the costs, to describe effects, to call up the
responsables) it is difficult to determine one, appropriate definition according to terminological
standards. The heterogeneity of the subject is reason why we frequently deal
with abstracts concepts that are more frequently described that defined.
Term’s definitions are not only disciplinary oriented but also textually
dependent because their use in different textual/discourse types influences
their definition as well. That is why our corpus is not only compiled of expert to
expert communication but also official EU documents.
Another problem is that even inside one single discipline there might be different definitions
of terms depending on the point of view. That is why Delavigne, Guespin (1992) suggest that the
domain should be understood on two levels, first on the level of extern
heterogeneity taking into account the multiplicities of disciplines present inside
one domain and second, on the level of the intern heterogeneity given the
multiples different point of views existing inside one domain. (« La notion de
domaine doit se penser à la fois dans son heterogeneite externe (multiplicité
des disciplines qui traversent un domaine donne) et dans son hétérogénéité
interne (multiplicité des points de vue au sein du dit domaine)»).
CONCLUSION

Starting from the terminological premise where a domain is represented by the stability of its
conceptual system and its classification in coherent sub domains we investigated the possibilities for
developing a shared interdisciplinary integrational framework that tends towards a new
transdisciplinary domain bringing a cognitive development. The results confirmed the need to
consider a multilayered interdisciplinary conceptual system where concepts could be defined more
vastly taking in consideration several disciplinary perspectives.

We tried to determine the shift from multi to inter disciplinary approach of the project, by
mapping the different disciplines involved, but also to detect shared references that could present
representative corpus providing necessary definitions and knowledge rich contexts for the keyterms.

TRANSFER OF TERMS FROM ONE DISCIPLINE TO ANOTHER

 “Many key words pertaining to other disciplinary fields can be identified.

The dynamic terminological processes include the introduction of neologisms, variants and
some terms are replaced by others (for ex. Coastal ….. ???

Terms like ‘environmental economics’ ili ‘environmental engineering’ point to a specific

disciplinary perspective on environmental issues. (Biros 2013)

------

What is a domain? A discipline? The function of a discipline is to classify, to think. But the
domain cannot be a garanty for monosemy.

Delavigne argues if the domains are structured before or after they are separated /cut?

An important issue is also the evolution of science, its “permanent construction and
deconstruction”.

De Besse, B.2000. Le domaine. Le sens en terminologie

Le domaine indique alors la perspective adoptee pour delimiter le concept et le decrire. Il fixe
egalement le cadre de la definition qui est toujours formulee en fonction du domaine. (183)

According to de Besse (2000 :183) domain represents a cognitive system, a conceptual

organization “comme une classe, c-a-d un ensemble d’objets de connaissance qui ont entre eux des
caracteres communs. Le domaine permet de regrouper, de mettre en ordre des concepts et de
construire des systemes cognitifs. »

But even though terms exist inside a conceptual system and not in isolation, they can also be
part of several conceptual systems which consequently implies the existence of several disciplinary
oriented definitions.

their definitions are influenced by disciplinary perspective.

 that are most frequently employed.

In our pilot study we choose 5 key terms….

According to Abuela ….a synthesis of approach, transdisciplinarity, they state

(2007:339), “In this mode, teams not only share a common question but also often share and
borrow methods, create a common conceptual framework, and either learn each other's
disciplinary language or create a new common language”
as opposed to modes with a moderate degree of synthesis -interdisciplinarity
where team members will often share a research problem “but still employ their respective
disciplinary methods, conceptual frameworks, and languages.” (p. 339).

Specialised communication is no longer reserved for specialists and the terminology

management is necessary to describe and regulate the development of terminology taking into
consideration the term’s usage, pošiljatelj I primatelje, who is in charge of innovations- neologisms…

De Besse considers that the number of different domains vary according to particular
classifications, depending on the points of view and practices. He differs between three types of
domains:

domaine de connaissance,

domaine d’activite et

domaine de discours.

 C. De Schaetzen, ed. Terminologie et Interdisciplinarité

 Author(s): Jos De Cort


 Source: Terminology. International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Issues in
Specialized Communication, Volume 4, Issue 2, Jan 1997, p. 357 - 361
 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/term.4.2.11cor
 Guespin (1992:2):« (…) que se passe-t-il quand trois « spécialistes » de trois
de ces « spécialités » entrent en interaction verbale : que parlent-ils ? un méta-LSP ?
un nouveau LSP ? »

Jacques & Soubeillé (2000 : 1) :« Dans le cadre de ce partenariat, une question

concernant la terminologie a surgi assez rapidement: « parlons-nous la même
langue, et sinon, quelle langue parlons-nous chacun ? », car l’une des craintes des
partenaires était d’employer les mêmes formes linguistiques sans s’apercevoir que
chacun les interprète différemment. »

Il existe des contacts entre disciplines :

Guilbert (1965) : sur naissance d’un domaine : emprunt terminologique qui se

réalise selon un double processus :« d’une part, des notions scientifiques se
dissocient de leur sphère primitive pour s’intégrer dans la nouvelle science ; d’autre
part, les notions théoriques tendent à se traduire en applications pratiques et à
passer au stade de la technique. » (Guilbert 1965 : 140).

Losee (1995) : terme migrateur :Terme qui décrit un phénomène général

susceptible de transgresser son domaine d’origineDeux voies de passage :Soit le
scientifique passe d’un domaine à l’autreSoit le scientifique compétent dans deux
domaines, utilise les moyens d’un premier pour résoudre les problèmes de l’autre.

Gentilhomme (1996 : ) : termes transfuges d’une discipline à une autre, dont

le contenu est modifié en fonction des impératifs de la discipline d’accueil

Toma (2003) : terme scientifique migrateur ou interdisciplinaire: résultat d’une

double ou multiples connexions à la même référenceLes sciences décrivent la réalité
donc elles ont forcément des objets d’étude communs

Toma (2003 : 266)Peu de migration totale :Soit changement partiel de sens

(polysémie)Soit nouveau co-texte : ancien terme devient la base d’un nouveau
syntagmePas toujours référence commune, un terme peut renvoyer à des réalités
différentes selon les disciplines

 Interdisciplinarité
 Monique Formarier

 Dans Les concepts en sciences infirmières (2012),

pages 210 à 211

Le mot interdisciplinarité a été construit à partir du mot discipline.

On ne peut comprendre l’interdisciplinarité qu’en maîtrisant le sens du
mot discipline.
Le mot discipline appartient au vocabulaire de l’épistémologie, branche
de la philosophie.
Dictionnaire historique de la langue française, Le Robert : emprunté au
latin (1010) « disciplina dérivé de discipulus qui signifie : action
d’apprendre, de s’instruire et par suite, enseignement, doctrine,
méthode ».
Vocabulaire technique et analytique de l’épistémologie. Nadeau selon
Toulmin : « La nature d’une discipline intellectuelle ou scientifique
implique toujours à la fois ses concepts et les humains qui les emploient, à
la fois son objet d’étude, son champ ou son domaine, et les ambitions
intellectuelles qui rassemblent ceux et celles qui œuvrent à l’intérieur de
la discipline en question ».
Selon Kuhn (1) : « Une discipline scientifique est un ensemble de
connaissances et de compétences construites et standardisées par un
groupe de personnes ayant des intérêts communs en fonction d’un
paradigme, pour répondre à des questionnements. »
Selon Maingain, Dufour, Fourez (2-1) : « La discipline scientifique est une
approche des présupposés, des savoirs (connaissances, compétences)
construits et standardisés, par une communauté scientifique qui, d’une
part se reconnaît comme telle, d’autre part est reconnue comme telle, par
la société ».
Selon Rege Colet (3) : « Les disciplines évoluent autour de connaissances
et de savoirs scientifiques alors que les professions exploitent ces savoirs
pour en déduire des compétences et attitudes »…

As remarks Budin, the fields of human sciences and humanities, unlike natural sciences such
as physics, etc., "do not have any predominant paradigm (in the sense of T. S. Kuhn) but rather a
plurality of theories, hypotheses, schools of thought etc. concerning the sames "objects" This means
that several differing concepts are formed about the same object according to the framework of the
respective theory". Budin, 1991: p. 338.

BUDIN, Gerhard 1991. "The application of terminology-based knowledge data bases in the
humanities and the social sciences and its impact on research methods", dans Conputer in the
humanities and the social sciences achievements of the 1980s , Prospects for the 1990s; Proceedings
of the Cologne Computer Conference 1988, Uses of the Computer in the Humanities and Social
Sciences held at the University of Cologne, September 1988 (ed. par Heinrich Best, Ekkehard
Mochmann et Manfred Thaller), München et al., K. G. Saur, 1991, [337]-342.
 -----

There exist a certain number of homonymes and a great number of synonyms or quasi
synonyms which are frequently confused one with the other.

Many antonymes which express oppositions

Calques

Emprunts

Faux amis

Terms from climatology:

From meteorology:

From mathematics:

From chemistry:

From economy:

Mi smo prikupili korpus od 400 naziva... koji se međusobno razlikuju s obzirom na izvore i
vrste diskursa.

AT the moment several glossaries describe sustainability in English, French,…..