Show Summary Details

Page of

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Linguistics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 26 November 2022

The Language of Science and Technology in the Romance Languagesfree

The Language of Science and Technology in the Romance Languagesfree

  • Anne Weber, Anne WeberInstitut für Übersetzen und Dolmetschen (IÜD), Heidelberg University
  • Bettina FetzerBettina FetzerInstitut für Übersetzen und Dolmetschen (IÜD), Heidelberg University
  •  and Vahram AtayanVahram AtayanInstitut für Übersetzen und Dolmetschen (IÜD), Heidelberg University


Discussing the language of science and technology in the Romance languages is highly complex and challenging for several reasons. On the one hand, there are different fields to be included, namely computer sciences, engineering, mathematics, as well as physics and astronomy. On the other hand, English has become (or even has always been in the case of computer sciences) the lingua franca in all these fields, so there seems to be rather little to analyze from a synchronic perspective as far as the Romance languages are concerned, and accordingly there is rather little up-to-date linguistic research on it. In the beginning, that is, during the late 1980s, the focus was on specific phenomena, while modern research often deals with didactic aspects and language teaching.

When it comes to the state of research in the different Romance languages, it turns out that it is mainly Canadians who are noted for playing a major role in the analysis of French technolectes. Numerous studies, some of which were conducted by German Romanists, center on the lexis and terminology of specific fields in French. As for Portuguese, most works have been published in Brazil, and lately the focal point seems to have primarily been placed on computer science and mathematics. Studies regarding Italian typically reveal a major interest in the general structure of terminology and its relation to everyday language use. Moreover, special emphasis is often placed on historical matters, especially the role of Galileo. Finally, the influence of specific text types as well as didactic aspects of special languages at different levels of education is also a subject of interest. With regard to Spanish, it should first be pointed out that, due to diatopic variation, it is hardly possible to talk about one single concept of the language of science and technology. Only a few comprehensive works on this area of research exist, yet many individual studies have been published in the last few decades, primarily on information science, especially the influence of English on Spanish, as well as on terminology in different fields. In Catalan, specialized languages emerged rather early, and their development has been systematically encouraged since the 20th century; the center of interest in current research is mainly on information science.


  • Applied Linguistics

1. Languages for Special Purposes in Romance Studies

The present article will try to give a mainly synchronic overview of scholarly research on the language of science and technology in the Romance languages, taking into consideration the fields of computer science and engineering, as well as mathematics, physics, and astronomy. In contrast, language use will not be considered here. Moreover, medicine and chemistry as well as economics will not be included in this article because they are covered in separate articles (see “The Language of Medicine in the Romance Languages,” forthcoming; “The Language of Chemistry in the Romance Languages,” and “The Language of Economy and Business in the Romance Languages.” As Atayan et al. (2014, p. 413) pointed out, looking at mathematics, technology, and the sciences together can be very useful because these fields have a lot in common with regard to the representation of knowledge. Moreover, since the end of the 20th century, linguistic interest in specialized communication as well as popularization has continually increased, which is partly due to the increasing internationalization of politics, economics, and science (cf. Calvi & Chierichetti, 2006, p. 15). Yet this also creates a specific challenge: although toward the end of the 1980s, Kalverkämper (1988, p. 14) deemed languages for special purposes (LSPs) an established field of research within Romance studies, many researchers underline the role of English as an international lingua franca in the fields of technology and the sciences (cf. Röntgen, 2006, p. 2230).

The field of terminology is often considered separately from LSPs in general, yet it will be included here (as in Reinart & Pöckl, 2015, for instance) because it constitutes an important element of both linguistic and professional competence. Although purely terminological works will not be considered in this article, it should nevertheless be pointed out that such compilations (sometimes monolingual, sometimes comparative) can often be found in pertinent journals, such as the French Banque des mots, Canadian Meta, or German Lebende Sprachen, Debate Terminológico mainly for Spanish and Portuguese, and Terminàlia for Catalan as well as Babel, published for the International Federation of Translators (FIT).

The main focus of this article will be on French, Spanish, and Italian, yet Portuguese, Catalan, and Romanian will also be included wherever possible, following a comparative thematic approach (cf. Elwert, 1989).

As for the countries/varieties that would have to be included in any comprehensive presentation, apart from France and Canada for French, Luxembourg, Belgium, and Switzerland as well as former colonies in Africa and elsewhere should be taken into account (for different “categories” of francophonia cf. Reboullet, 1976, p. 7; cf. also the information given by the Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie). However, it should be pointed out from the outset that not much pertinent literature can be found with regard to the different varieties of French. Pöckl (1998, p. 822) pointed out that even though the use of French is probably most uniform in the sciences with a clear preference for the Paris standard, some studies suggest that scientific discourse in French is not truly standardized. In fact, communication between experts is hardly ever the object of critical linguistic analysis (cf. Pöckl, 1998, p. 823).

For Spanish, a global language, the LSPs are particularly heterogeneous (cf. Arntz & Arranz, 1998, p. 1514; Flierenbaum, 2011, p. 4). García Delgado et al. (2013, p. 101) highlighted the close relation between language and science and postulated that just as much importance should be attributed to the languages of science and technology as to literature both by the general public and by scholars. The languages of science and technology developed rather slowly on the Iberian Peninsula due to slow technological progress and an anti-scientific clergy that forced the Real Academia Española to pursue a purist language policy. Some of the fields dealt with in this article emerged only in the late 20th century and have been strongly influenced by English. During the 20th century, vocabularies were expanded, and more and more specialist dictionaries/terminologies were published (cf. Röntgen, 2006, p. 2226). In Latin America, the technical languages have also developed sluggishly: even after the end of colonial rule, these countries have remained heavily dependent on foreign technologies. Many scientists are trained and educated abroad, which means that most experts even within these countries communicate in a foreign language, mostly English, and research on LSPs has been rather neglected (cf. Arntz & Arranz, 1998, p. 1514; for a focus on Mexico, cf. Fernando Lara, 1986).

With regard to Italian, the situation is probably least complicated: the countries that should theoretically be taken into account comprise only Italy and Switzerland, and the question of diatopic variation is deemed largely irrelevant. Incidentally, the situation of the Italian Accademia Della Crusca was similar to that of its Spanish equivalent, and scientific language was largely neglected in the first two editions of the Vocabolario (cf. Della Valle, 1993, p. 56).

The majority of more than 200 million native speakers of Portuguese are to be found in Brazil and some African and Asian countries (cf. Greenfield, 2005, p. 289; cf. also the information given by the Comunidade dos Países de Língua Portuguesa). Most scholarly publications come either from Portugal or from Brazil, and in spite of the general predominance of English, in Portugal most scholarly publications, irrespective of the subject, are written in Portuguese, except for the proceedings of conferences held in English (cf. Greenfield, 2005, p. 294).

As for Catalan, the LSPs emerged from the Middle Ages and thus far earlier than in other Romance languages (cf. Duarte i Montserrat, 1991, p. 185). After political transformations in the 18th and 19th centuries, where Catalan lost its official status, it was systematically promoted again in the 20th century. This process was interrupted during the Franco dictatorship, which again denied the language an official status. The LSPs have been fostered with a standardizing approach since the 1970s (Anglicisms are rigidly Catalanized), and in Catalonia all disciplines must use Catalan. Since the beginning of the 1990s, TERMCAT has published dictionaries covering all areas of knowledge (cf. Schönberger, 1998, pp. 1521–1522).

Even though this article will focus on modern research, pertinent earlier works will also be taken into account (or at least pointed out).

2. General Works on the Language of Science and Technology

This section presents general works on LSPs in the Romance languages that cannot be attributed to either of the thematic sections 3, 4, and 5 and will therefore be grouped according to language.

2.1 French

Research on LSPs has so far mainly been carried out in Canada, while in France there seems to be a general focus on the humanities in general and literary studies in particular (cf. Laszlo, 1993, p. 35). Frequently, the phenomenon of technolectes is not even mentioned in linguistic dictionaries, and many of the existing works were produced not by scholars in the field of linguistics, but by practitioners such as interpreters, translators, or terminologists (cf. Pöckl, 1999, p. 1492). Consequently, the best-known comprehensive publication stems from Canada (Kocourek, 1982). Nevertheless, there are also works from France worthy of mention, such as Vigner and Martin (1976), who provided a general description of “technical French” aimed at teachers, or Lerat (1995), who, despite highlighting the importance of terminology, discussed the French LSPs from different perspectives and also considered morphology, syntax, and style. Moreover, Pöckl (1990) provided a broad overview of LSPs in French and, among other things, discussed standardization, the history of LSPs, as well as the relation to common language and specialized translation. As Flinzner (2006, pp. 2218–2219) pointed out, the industrial predominance of the United States from the middle of the 19th century onward brought about the use of Anglo-American terminology in almost all scientific and technological sectors. In addition to Latin as the traditional language of the sciences, Germany also played its part, providing German terms as well as creating and propagating new terms using Latin or Greek bases. Gablot (1978) investigated the role of the English language in the sciences and technology in France and found that, especially in physics and engineering, many researchers need to publish their results in English to reach an international public (cf. for the sciences in general Pöckl, 1998, p. 1492). Nevertheless, established scholars at the time were expected to publish in French to ensure the perpetuation of French in the sciences (cf. Gablot, 1978, p. 178).

Other works take a more abstract perspective: Mortureux (1995) aimed to define and demarcate scientific and technical vocabularies as well as to identify their characteristics and functions in different kinds of discourse. Bouveret (1998) discussed the creation of terminology, taking as an example the fields of biotechnology and biocomputing, and stated that it is the specialized context that transforms a linguistic sign into a term in the proper sense (cf. Bouveret, 1998, p. 11). Even more generally, Messaoudi (2010, pp. 129–131 and 132–134, respectively) discussed, among other things, the differentiation between “domaines scientifiques, techniques, technologiques” as well as the characteristic features of LSPs. With regard to word-formation processes, Clas (1988) analyzed juxtaposed N+N compounds in both common and specialized language, discussing the possible semantic relations between the constituents A and B in particular.

2.2 Spanish

Spanish research in this field was originally focused on lexis and word formation, but today also comprises semantics, syntax, as well as pragmatics and text linguistics (cf. Röntgen, 2006, p. 2226). There are also studies on how to handle neologisms (cf. López Facal, 1982) and on specialized vocabulary with numerous small compilations (such as Abreu, 1992; Crespo Jiménez, 1997; Korneliussen, 2005; Larsen, 1998; Montero Fleta, 1996, 1999; Nunan, 2012) (on the dependency of Spanish terminology on English, cf. García Palacios & Humbley, 2012; regarding tecnicismos universales, cf. the remarks in Delgado et al., 2013, pp. 107–108).

The scientific and corresponding linguistic exchange between Spain and Latin America in general is discussed in Acosta et al. (2003) and Acosta and Cuvi (2005), while Irazazábal Nerpell (1992) compared different standardization processes for terminology.

In research on LSPs in Spanish, only the language of computer science has been dealt with frequently, and older studies are mostly descriptive, providing qualitative analyses of individual examples or no analysis at all, while more recent publications have begun to include empirical studies and corpus-linguistic approaches.

Some researchers focus on questions of terminology in Spanish, such as Gil (1992) on standardization in Spain and Latin America, or Pöll (2002) with a chapter on the formation of specialized vocabulary. Most significant are probably the works by Cabré (1993, 2005, and numerous papers and essays).

In contrast, other scholars provide more comprehensive works. García Gavín (2003) focused on lexis, yet also discussed pragmatic and semantic aspects; Mapelli (2009) first delineated the development of LSPs and relevant disciplines before describing their characteristics and the formation of terms, finally concluding her paper with a description of specialized text types. Forés López (2010) aimed to single out user information as a specific text type.

A few studies on specific characteristics of technical texts in general are also worth mentioning: Emsel (1990) analyzed the internal semantic structure of complex derived Spanish verbs in technical LSP. She supposed that the semantics greatly depend on the context, yet did not provide conclusive results. Vivanco Cervero (2001) focused on metaphors in Spanish and English technical vocabulary, finding that Spanish prefers references to animals, while metaphors relating to colors are more frequent in English. Marinkovich (2005) investigated nominalizations in Chilean schoolbooks regarding commerce, industry, and seafaring, focusing on their frequency, determinants, and textual function; her results showed that nominalizations mostly combine with adjectives and articles to form nominal groups, that they usually have an anaphoric function and that, in all three areas, they act as generalizing nouns. Finally, Herwartz (2002) analyzed the word-formation processes used for Spanish technical terms.

2.3 Italian

There are rather few comprehensive studies on the language of science and technology in Italian, though some monographs such as Gualdo and Telve (2011) or papers such as Cavagnoli (1999, 2022) take several fields of research into consideration.

Many studies focus on the relation between LSPs and common language. Thus, De Mauro (2012, pp. 15–16, 19) pointed out that the development and diversification of modern sciences and mathematics during the last few centuries has led to a rift between natural languages and the language of the sciences, where a continuum of linguistic means can be found. Due to great efforts to integrate scientific/technical terms into the Italian language, their role has become ever more important after the unification of Italy: 40% of the entries in major monolingual dictionaries stem from 11 scientific/technical disciplines (cf. De Mauro, 2012, p. 21; cf. also Lavinio, 2012, p. 142). Other researchers aim to classify terminology with regard to specific characteristics; from a historical perspective, for example, Vanvolsem (2012, pp. 46–47) pointed out the increasing abstractness in the definitions of scientific/technical terms in modern encyclopedias. The relation between knowledge and language is investigated in Altieri Biagi (2012), Gangemi (1994, p. 123), and many others.

The emergence of specialized lexis is discussed in numerous studies, many of which trace the LSPs back to the beginnings of modern science and especially highlight the role of Galileo (cf. Altieri Biagi, 1965; Gualdo & Telve, 2011, p. 217, who also address the roles of Ristoro d’Arezzo, Dante, and Tartaglia; Heller, 2012, p. 21). From a general theoretical perspective, De Mauro (2012, p. 25) described the three possible phases of the emergence of terminology: (a) development of specific words and/or uses; (b) cataloguing, coordination, elimination of synonymy and polysemy, use of symbols; (c) final determination of nomenclatures, explicit definition. He deemed the second and third phases typical for the hard sciences. Apart from etymology (cf. Marinelli, 1991), several authors discussed the mechanisms of terminologization, for example, Lavinio (2012, pp. 139–140) and in detail Gualdo and Telve (2011, p. 19; cf. also Cavagnoli, 1999, p. 1510), though no specifically Italian mechanisms can be identified. Another relevant aspect is the use of terminology in expert-lay communication: Gangemi (1994) and Taranto (1994) discussed the difficulty of specialized texts mainly regarding lexis, while Piemontese and Saponaro Cioffi (1994) analyzed the use of simplified language in popular science. Gualdo and Telve (2011, p. 242) also addressed the terminological transparency and readability of specialized texts. Several studies regarding the transmission of scientific and technological knowledge at school level can be found in Guerriero (1988).

2.4 Portuguese, Catalan, Romanian, and Other Romance Languages

Verdelho (1994) provided an overview of LSPs in Portuguese, talking about diachronic aspects, the relation between specialized and common language as well as standardization. He highlighted the interlinguistic dimension of LSPs in particular, yet claimed that Portuguese is not adequately represented in the key international organizations and that the Lusophone countries do not cooperate sufficiently with one another (cf. Verdelho, 1994, p. 353). In recent decades, there seem to have been two focuses with regard to LSPs: computer science and mathematics, the latter particularly in the context of school teaching (e.g., Florenço Junior, 2014). It may catch the interested reader’s eye that there is no article on Portuguese in Hoffmann et al. (2008).

The first Catalan manual on the languages of science and technology dates back to the early 1990s (Riera i Fonts, 1992) and mainly deals with lexicological, morphological, and terminological questions as well as neologisms (cf. Schönberger, 1998, p. 1524). The Fundació Torrens Ibern (1992) discussed the characteristics of Catalan LSP, while Cantallops (1996) provided an overview of works on the language of the sciences, and Brumme (1988) reviewed lexicographic works regarding neologisms in the sciences and technology. Terminological works are summarized in Cabré (1989), and the development of Catalan in an ever more technological world is discussed in Partal (2004).

With regard to Romanian, Schweickard (1989, p. 217) stated that there is a major focus on lexis and lexicography as well as on the influence of other languages (Greek, Latin, English, French, German, and Russian) and functional stylistics; he provided a general overview of lexis and word-formation processes and, based on a mathematical text, briefly discussed the syntactic/textual characteristics of LSPs (Schweickard, 1989, p. 220). General overviews of terminological aspects are provided by Bidu-Vrănceanu (1989, 1995) as well as Coteanu (1987, 1990), whereas Manea and Pruneau (2007) focused on specialized vocabulary, its relation to common language, as well as historical influences, semantic change, and metaphorization. The historical development toward modern language with special regard to terminology is discussed in Oprea (2006), who in addition analyzed the influence of French, English, and German on Romanian. More generally, Pleșca (2017) discussed aspects of standardization, lexis, morphology, and syntax, as well as textual structure.

Becker (2011) provided mainly statistical data on the use of Galician, Friulian, and Corsican in academic discourse, discussing language policy in Spain, Italy, and France before analyzing the role of those three languages in scientific and popular science media.

3. The Language of Computer Science

Due to the fast-paced development of recent years, computer science has become a specific area of attention for research on LSPs in the Romance languages, with its main focus being on the sources of specialized vocabulary and more specifically on the influence of English. However, it should be pointed out that there is not always a clear differentiation between the language of computer science used in expert-expert/expert-lay communication and the language used on the Internet (cf. Sp. lengua informática, lenguaje del internet or Fr. cyberlangue).

3.1 Terminology and Word-Formation Processes

Taylor (1988) investigated French “‘informatique’-related ‘ique’ terms” and found that “[t]he possibilities for linguistic investigation in this field are indeed legion” (Taylor, 1988, p. 558). This proves true given the numerous analyses of lexis and terminology in information technology. Raus (2001), for instance, aimed to investigate the productivity of the Greek morphemes hyper- and cyber- in the formation of French neologisms and concluded that the existence of such Greek (and also some Latin) elements in both French and English facilitates the calquing of English terms (Raus, 2001, p. 86) (cf. section 3.2).

Ahronian (2005) described compound nouns in specialized texts in the field of computer science in English, French, and Spanish with regard to their morphosyntactic and semantic characteristics before discussing the translation of such words from English into French and Spanish. Similarly, English and Spanish nominal groups are analyzed in Montero Fleta (1997), particularly with regard to the order of the constituents as well as the parts of speech they represent; she found that the default English construction Adj+N (e.g., theoretical understanding) is mostly rendered as N+Adj in Spanish (e.g., comprensión teórica), while N+N compounds are usually rendered by an N+de+N structure (e.g., input systemsistema de entrada). Finally, Fernández and Montero Fleta (2003) studied the modification of complex nominal compounds in the context of computer science. With regard to Catalan, De Yzaguirre i Maura (1996), De Yzaguirre i Maura et al. (2001), and Montesinos López (2013, 2018) focused on terminology in general (in some cases including Spanish as well), while Ebner (2002) compared Catalan data-processing vocabulary with the corresponding French, Spanish, and German terms, finding that the other Romance languages are often used as a model, while English is generally avoided. This finding is in line with the aforementioned standardizing approach involving the strict Catalanization of terms. With regard to Italian, apart from generic presentations of the words used in this field such as Bassi et al. (2012), there are also discussions of specific terminologization processes; apart from lexical borrowing, Sosnowski (2000, p. 363) also found examples of semantic redefinition and morphological word formation as well as abbreviations/acronyms as the main sources of new vocabulary (cf. also Cappuzzo, 2005, p. 58). Rodrigues (2017) presented a comprehensive study of terminology in Portuguese computer language, focusing, among other things, on divergences between the Brazilian and the European variety as well as between the officially recommended terms and spontaneous use; she also outlined modern language policy, which aims to harmonize the different varieties worldwide (cf. Rodrigues, 2017, pp. 99–103). For Romanian, the formation and use of abbreviations is investigated in Diaconu (2008), and Cherata (2005) provided a contrastive study of term formation in English, French, and Romanian. Even though Sholkamy (2015, p. 51; cf. also Sosnowski, 1999) provided a characterization of the Italian language of computer science that goes beyond lexis, the morphosyntactic specificities identified (such as nominal style, impersonal formulations, syntactic metonymy, etc.) seem to be typical for the language of the sciences and especially of technology in general.

With regard to lexicography, Sosa Mayor (2001) took a closer look at monolingual Spanish and German–Spanish general-language dictionaries; he is particularly interested in the criteria for incorporating selected words and for marking entries as specialized terms and found that the bilingual dictionaries in particular are not always up to date. Dota (1991) analyzed the titles of entries as well as the definitions, translations, and information provided in bilingual computer science dictionaries (Portuguese and English) in order to give users an overview of the works’ methodologies and usability. Combining traditional terminology with modern tools, L’Homme and San Martín (2016) investigated the (semi-)automatic generation of definitions for semantically related terms (French and English) in the fields of information technology and the environment.

3.2 The Influence of English in the Context of Language Policy

Naturally, the influence of the English language as well as potential ways of reducing such influence by means of language policy is a frequent subject of investigation. In a very short discussion of “French computer technology” and more specifically the role of English, Gray (1985, p. 807; emphasis added) stated, rather dramatically, that “[i]n conclusion it seems clear that the French language, in the face of incredible pressure from English, is managing to maintain its individuality and Gallic flavor. The battle, however, is far from won.” Seewald (1992) focused on word formation in the language of data processing in French and concluded that the influence of English is far less obvious in French than in German (cf. Seewald, 1992, p. 11). Jansen (2005) investigated the existence of loanwords in French and Spanish Internet terminology, laying particular emphasis on the official French replacement terms for Anglicisms. Similarly, Ahlers and Holtus (1999) analyzed the use of Anglicisms in computer-related news articles in France, finding among other things that replacement terms that are significantly longer than the original English term are unlikely to be accepted (cf. Ahlers & Holtus, 1999, p. 308). Molitor (2004) investigated the terminological preferences—English loanword versus French replacement—of computer scientists in France, Belgium, and Switzerland, thus providing one of the scarce studies in which different varieties of French are taken into consideration. By means of an Internet survey, she found that while there is no clear preference in France, computer scientists from Belgium tend to prefer the English terms, while those from Switzerland hardly ever use the French terms, possibly because the use of English facilitates communication in a multilingual nation (cf. Molitor, 2004, pp. 504–505). Blank (1995) aimed to analyze borrowings from English in French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, and German computer terminology and found a clear preference for semantic borrowing (Lehnprägung) in French, while German and Italian prefer simple loanwords, and Spanish as well as Portuguese show just a slight preference for semantic borrowing (cf. Blank, 1995, p. 63).

The influence of English on Spanish (el ciberspanglish) is a particularly frequent subject of analysis (beyond the works discussed here, also in Gómez Font, 1999; Sampedro Losada, 2000), and this is also true for the terminology of information science and for Internet terminology in general (such as Clavería et al., 2001). Miotti (2008) focused on the pronunciation of Anglicisms, whereas Morin (2006) examined grammatical gender assignment in the language of computing and the Internet. From a corpus made up of newspapers from eight Latin American countries and Spain, she extracted different loanwords and one loanblend and found that, in most cases, the synonymic gender is used, that is, the gender of the corresponding Spanish term (e.g., e-mail ~ correo electrónico, m). De la Cruz Cabanillas et al. (2007) provided a corpus-based study of English loanwords from computer magazines, aiming to find out how these terms are adapted to Spanish grammar (gender and formation of plurals). In most cases no gender is assigned, but if gendered, words are usually masculine (cf. De la Cruz Cabanillas et al., 2007, p. 65). An even more detailed approach was chosen by Ciro and Vila Rubio (2015), who classified English borrowings into different categories (préstamos crudos, e.g., spam; préstamos adaptados, e.g., bloggear; calco semántico, e.g., hipertexto) and analyzed their morphological characteristics, all while taking into consideration the origin of their examples. Spinnato (2014) also analyzed Anglicisms, but in this case with a focus on the general instability of computer-related language and a discussion of terminological standardization as a means of providing linguistic reliability. In numerous publications on the Spanish language of information technology and new technologies since the 1990s, Aguado de Cea (e.g., 1993, 1994, 2006) has offered discussions of specific terms (comando, instrucción, and sentencia) as well as synonymy and polysemy, the influence of English, and communication in forums and chat rooms. Montero Fleta (2005) described borrowings and neologisms from English, differentiating between préstamos puros, calcos, and neologismos and finding that, while the English terms are often directly borrowed, they originally stem from other languages such as French (router, ensamblar). Flierenbaum (2011) gave a general overview of Spanish LSPs and the shortcomings of research and then provided an analysis of terms from business informatics. Besides loanwords proper, she also found loan translations (ratón, pantalla) as well as semantic borrowing. Montero Fleta and Labrador Piquer (2012) investigated the use of prefixes in Spanish and English computer science and technology and found that generally the same prefixes are used, though in Spanish, an English term may be altered by adding a Spanish prefix (des-conectar).

Although Bassi et al. (2012, p. 67) pointed out that Italian native speakers sometimes have a rather critical attitude toward borrowing, the English language remains an important source of terminology. Indeed, Sholkamy (2015, p. 13) found that approximately half of the computer science-related terms included in GRADIT are of English origin (675/1,336), while Sosnowski (2000, p. 364) stated that the share of morphosyntactically non-integrated borrowings is around 15%. Sholkamy (2015, p. 41) also analyzed different linguistic characteristics of borrowings from English, taking into consideration different aspects of morphosyntactic integration such as plurals, spelling, and word order. Using the example masterizzatore versus writer/burner, Cappuzzo (2005) discussed the semantic features of Italian versus English terms that become apparent in verbalization. Regarding the status of lexical borrowings, the frequency of Italian and English terms is also of interest; sometimes both words are equally common (display vs. schermo), yet in many cases the English term is generally preferred (sharing vs. condivisione) or only an English term exists (server) (cf. Cappuzzo, 2005, p. 67).

Miranda (1989, 1992) focused on the terminology of information technology in both Brazil and Portugal and especially on the assimilation of terms of English origin, pointing out some intra-linguistic differences and also addressing standardization tendencies in both countries. In contrast, Endruschat (1998) discussed the influence of English terminology on Portuguese from a German perspective and with regard to translation within this language pair (cf. section 6) and recommended the comparison of pertinent parallel texts in order to identify specific differences, the use of Anglicisms being more frequent in German (cf. Endruschat, 1998, p. 51). For Romanian, there are studies on Anglicisms (Pârlog, 2005–2008), Americanisms (Popa, 2005), and the influence of French (Diaconu, 2009). Diaconu (2011) analyzed semantic loan translations in information technology, while Dima (2005) discussed the difficulties that neologisms can pose for translation. As for Catalan, the work by Sempere Martínez (2001) on technical Anglicisms deserves mention.

Walter (1997) carried out a study of French and English IT vocabulary (albeit based on a limited number of items) and found that 80% of the English words are actually of Latin origin and thus can easily be adopted by the Romance languages (cf. Walter, 1997, p. 53). Focusing on Anglicisms in Portuguese, Schmitt (2005) highlighted in particular the common Greek and Latin bases of numerous terms in international LSPs (cf. also Raus, 2001). Similarly, Nicoletti (2005) stated that Spanish, Italian, and French loan translations from English are often not recognized as such due to the common Latin and/or Greek roots. In contrast, Schmitt (1993) provided a morphological description of the most important terms from Spanish computer-related LSP, finding that most of them stem from English or French, and thus show no trace of genuine Spanish.

3.3 Metaphors, Internet Language, and Popularization

The use of metaphors in information technology is often based on everyday vocabulary and somehow underlines the close relation between general and specialized language (cf. Pirogowska, 2003, p. 141). Jansen (2002) found that in French and Spanish Internet terminology, originally English metaphors are most frequently rendered by loan translations instead of loanwords or independent formations (80% and 74%, respectively; cf. Jansen, 2002, p. 57) and attributed this fact to their cognitive, mnemonic, and aesthetical advantages. Sabban (1998 and 1999) analyzed metaphors in French, Spanish, and German texts on computer viruses. She stated that in all three languages the central metaphor ‘virus’ is based either on biological (focusing on a neutral description of their properties) or medical (with a focus on their harmful consequences for humans) discourse (cf. Sabban, 1999, p. 185). She discussed both the phenomenon of borrowing as a source of metaphorical uses as well as the possibility of creating new metaphors on the basis of a known (borrowed) concept (cf. Sabban, 1999, p. 199). Schmitt (1995) analyzed metaphors in the language of data processing in Spanish and focused on the metaphorization of terms as well as on the functions of metaphors in the context of LSPs, while the use of metaphors relating to traffic, fire, violence, and other phenomena was analyzed in Aguado de Cea (2006). In contrast, Alameda Nieto (1998) investigated Internet language, classifying her examples into 12 categories and finding that metaphorization is of major importance in technical LSPs because it enables a more clearly visualized representation of new concepts. Similarly, Seewald (1998) discussed metaphors in French, Italian, and Spanish Internet language. With regard to Italian, Cappuzzo (2005, pp. 58–59) also highlighted the importance of the metaphorization of common vocabulary, which is often inspired by English as well (finestra).

The language used on the Internet was explicitly investigated in Pierozak (2000) with a focus on linguistic mistakes in written communication in French. In contrast, Maiworm (2003) analyzed aspects of speech and writing in francophone chat-room utterances. Similarly, Schmidt-Radefeldt (2013) discussed the characteristics of what he called a “patchwork variety” of all normal languages, that is, the language of the Internet, taking German and Portuguese as examples. Although this is not an LSP proper, the phenomenon is closely related to technology and thus to the language of computer science itself and consequently seems worth mentioning. Rüdel-Hahn (2008) provided a contrastive study on Anglicisms in French, Italian, and Spanish Internet language, comparing the existence/use of such words and speakers’ attitudes toward them. She found that borrowing from English is highly frequent in all the languages considered (Rüdel-Hahn, 2008, p. 214).

Another field on the boundary between general and specialized language is, of course, popularization, which Autier (1982, pp. 35–36) described as a specific type of explicit reformulation (in contrast to a translation proper, where the target text is often received like an original). Schröder (2010) investigated the particularities of French journals on computers and new technologies as a specific press genre and included all language levels mentioned here, that is, morphology and semantics (regarding both word formation and borrowing) as well as syntax, text, and style.

4. The Language of Engineering

Engineering is clearly one of the fields where international communication usually takes place in English. This might be one of the reasons why specific Romance studies are rather scarce, and most works concentrate on word formation, lexis, and terminology or the specific characteristics of the ‘instruction sheet’ text type.

4.1 Word Formation, Lexis, and Terminology

Qvistgaard (1976) discussed the problems related to word-formation processes in technical French, and even though his work dates back some time, the basic phenomena and challenges remain the same, for example, the relation to common language as well as the use and choice of prepositions and/or articles. Auger (2010) discussed the French terminology of forestry equipment in Quebec (regarding aspects such as word formation and syntactic integration), which is the result of official efforts to move away from the English terms. Mikhailova-Tucholke (2017) analyzed French terminology in the field of solar energy, including in her study both the underlying word-formation processes and how terms are presented lexicographically in general-language dictionaries. With regard to Spanish, Martínez (1994) focused on the lexis of civil engineering, while Schatzmann (1999) studied motorcar terminology. Monterde Rey (2007) investigated the language used in aeronautical texts on fighter-aircraft fuel systems and identified the following characteristics: the terms are generally highly explanatory; they are mostly compounds, and many stem from common language; although they can be traced back to Latin roots, there are hardly any foreign terms; synonymy may be caused by different degrees of specialization; and, finally, polysemy is rare but usually unproblematic thanks to contextual disambiguation (cf. Monterde Rey, 2007, pp. 61–62). With regard to Romanian, Pop (1977) analyzed the terminology of mining, while Sandiuc (2016) focused on seafaring, discussing different term types, such as terms belonging exclusively to the maritime field or terms migrating to other areas or the common lexicon and vice versa, and Miclăuș (2000, 2002) investigated the terminology of aviation, discussing the influence of French and English in particular.

In a more comprehensive work, Laumann (1998) investigated French nominal compounds in the fields of electronics, electrical engineering, nuclear physics and nuclear technology, metallurgy, computer science, and space technology, most of which can be attributed to engineering in the broadest sense. He concluded that the choice of preposition and the insertion of a definite article are determined by the relation between the two constituents of a compound as well as by the speaker’s intention (cf. Laumann, 1998, p. 255). Cruz (2009) analyzed the formation of complex terminological units in Portuguese (e.g., defensas metálicas zincadas por imersão a quente) in the area of civil engineering, whereas Silva et al. (2009) discussed a research project on the creation of a glossary/dictionary for the field of civil construction. Finally, Zaytseva (2003) provided a quantitative comparative study of French, Spanish, Italian, and Romanian term-formation patterns in the fields of telecommunications, electricity, and electronics, and Huppmann (1993) highlighted the importance of syntagmatic structures in French and Spanish as an equivalent to German and English nominal compounds in technical LSPs.

4.2 Specific Aspects of the Language for Special Purpose of Engineering

Forner (1992) investigated the linguistic realization of underlying argumentation schemes in French texts on electrical engineering, pointing out that structurally similar sentences can convey highly diverse semantics. Gutermann (1996) analyzed the representation of space in German and French technical texts, taking into consideration their frequency as well as their linguistic realization and the relation between form and content. She concluded that the specificity of technical communication, in comparison with other contexts, leads to a higher degree of similarity between German and French (cf. Gutermann, 1996, p. 281). Bîzu (2017) aimed to identify passive verb forms in French and Romanian texts from the car construction sector and to analyze their structure as well as their relevance for the author’s communicative goals; she found that such forms are very frequent and serve to shift the focus from the agent to the action itself (cf. Bîzu, 2017, p. 28).

Roldán-Riejos and Úbeda-Mansilla (2013) analyzed the use of metaphors by Spanish engineering undergraduates, calling for metaphors to be systematically included in the linguistic training of future engineers. Analyzing metaphors in English and Spanish texts on civil engineering, Boquera Matarredona (2005, p. 285) found that they are less frequent in these texts than in other text types and that most of them are lexicalized and anthropomorphic. Thanks to the close relation between the two languages investigated, they should not pose a major translation problem, though more metaphors are used in Spanish.

With regard to the language of mechanical engineering in Romanian, Kis (1981) discussed aspects of expressivity and oral communication as well as the use of common words for tools and technical terms for workers. Concentrating on a more practical aspect of Portuguese LSPs, Franzen and Heinig (2012) paid attention to the linguistic skills that engineers (in different fields of work) require to be able to communicate adequately and successfully on the job: technical knowledge is not sufficient, as they must also be able to interact with customers, colleagues and superiors and adapt how they communicate to both the situation and interlocutor (cf. Franzen & Heinig, 2012, p. 776).

4.3 Instruction Sheets—A Special Case for Italian?

Most Italian studies on the language of technology focus on different aspects of instruction sheets, such as the edited volume Testi e machine: Una ricerca sui manuali di istruzioni per l’uso (Serra Borneto, 1992). Castelli and Lorenzi (1992) discussed the question of how to distinguish technological lexis from the perspective of the recipient and analyzed explicit definitions of technical terms in such manuals (material elements as well as processes and actions, which can be ostensive, correlative, procedural, or functional) (cf. Castelli & Lorenzi, 1992, p. 203). Complex definitions may be inadequately realized on a textual level, which is mainly due to problems regarding the distribution of information, synonymy, or the identification of the object itself (cf. Castelli & Lorenzi, 1992, p. 224; cf. also Ciliberti et al., 1988). Ciliberti et al. (1992, p. 33) characterized this text type with regard to operational (e.g., assembly), non-operational (e.g., technical data), and non-procedural (e.g., warranty information) aspects of content. Serra Borneto (1992; cf. also 1996) refined this model with regard to the action in question and procedural factors and described the relation between material procedures and textual representation. From a text-stylistic perspective, Ciliberti (1992) discussed different sub-text types (directive, enumerative, descriptive). The formation of narrative, descriptive, and argumentative text patterns is described in Mazza (2012). Based on the ideas of Longacre, Berrettoni (1992) described the linguistic means typical of procedural texts: the representation of chronologies by means of complex syntactic structures, iconicity versus hierarchization, tense, mode, and infinite verb forms as well as a focus on the process instead of the agent (cf. Berrettoni, 1992, p. 136 and 154, respectively). Focusing on information structure, Puglielli (1992, p. 166) highlighted the dominance of new elements in procedural texts, which is reflected in the low proportion of pronominal elements and thus little explicit cohesion. Besides various means of verbalizing requests, the specification of actions through temporal, modal, or final adverbials plays a central role (cf. Puglielli, 1992, p. 173). Mazza (2011) presented a comprehensive study of final, modal, and hypothetical expressions in Italian and Spanish instruction sheets. She detected differences between the two languages regarding the macrostructure of the texts and found that the postposition of final subordinate clauses and the expression of modality through adjectives (e.g., necessario, possibile) are more frequent in Italian (cf. Mazza, 2011, p. 133). Finally, the comprehensibility of instruction sheets is addressed in Serra Borneto and Cortelazzo (1988).

Apart from studies regarding Italian, Hahn (2011) compared French, Spanish, and German instruction sheets in order to identify LSP-specific characteristics, while Ebert and Hundt (1997) considered LSP as a variation of language in general and analyzed the communicative characteristics, macrostructure, and linguistic features of instruction sheets in German, Italian, and Portuguese, also hinting at the importance of contrastive works for translation studies (cf. section 6).

5. The Language of Mathematics, Physics, and Astronomy

For the language of mathematics, physics, and astronomy in general, the focus seems to lie on the lexicon again, though another aspect is discussed particularly often, especially with regard to mathematics: communication in school and/or university teaching.

5.1 On the Mathematical Precision of the Sciences

With regard to the lexis of mathematics, Candel (1997) and Candel and Lejeune (1998) pointed out that, even though mathematics is less vulgarized than other fields, it often serves as an aid to other fields of research such as engineering (cf. Candel, 1997, pp. 22, 24). In particular, Candel and Lejeune (1998) tried to find out how definitions in mathematical texts work. With regard to Spanish, Freixa and Montané (2006) analyzed the terminological variation in the field of mathematics and found that even though the language of mathematics is usually considered to be exceptionally precise and strictly formalized, mathematical terms are nevertheless subject to terminological variation. Silvestri (2012, p. 34) presented a structural, semantic, and cognitive examination of numerical terms in Italian. Sbaragli (2016) reflected on the role of metaphor within the lexicon of mathematics, including some Italian examples. Toma (2006) focused on the lexis of mathematics in Romanian as well as the underlying concepts, while in Toma (2005) she focused specifically on the migration of terms between different domains. In Toma (2017) she added some considerations on generalization in discourse. Mihăilă (1982) discussed the diachronic development (1880–1980) of the grammatical and syntactical structure of mathematic texts in Romanian.

Scholars in this field also seem interested in the grammatical particularities of language. Ranta (1997a, 1997b) aimed to analyze the grammar of mathematical French, which not only needs to be grammatically correct in the traditional sense but also has to comply with mathematic rules. Gentilhomme (1995) was particularly interested in set phrases, which he deemed to belong to what he calls a bisystème made up of linguistics and mathematics and which may (or may not) be different from those of other disciplines. Five years later, he discussed the aforementioned bi-system from a text-linguistic perspective (cf. Gentilhomme, 2000). Given the high frequency of relative clauses in the language of mathematics (cf. Atayan, 2011, p. 564), Atayan (2011) analyzed German, French, Italian, and Spanish non-restrictive relative clauses with a whole sentence as their antecedent in scientific texts (physics and mathematics); in the selected scholarly texts, the general functions of such clauses are the same as in general language use and across the different languages (cf. Atayan, 2011, p. 573).

In the 1980s, Loffler-Laurian focused on chosen aspects of the language of physics (and chemistry), namely the use of personal pronouns with reference to the author (1980), the use of the French verb être (1982), and the expression of measurements (1983). She later added some reflections on the use of metaphors in popular science texts, which is closer to normal mass communication than is the case in scientific texts in the stricter sense (cf. Loffler-Laurian, 1994, p. 79). López Gallardo (2011) analyzed the structure of the LSP of physics, which he considered to be a linguistic representation of the logical methods of mathematics; he focused on terminology, its etymology, and its use in contemporary Spanish, concluding with some considerations on physical concepts for which no Spanish terms yet exist. Cuadrado Esclapez and Berge Legrand analyzed the use of metaphors in particle physics (2005) and quantum physics (2007), aiming to prove that metaphors are fundamental for human conceptualization even in the sciences. Both domains are characterized by the concepts of war, confrontation, or power, and both English and Spanish use similar concepts, some of which were directly translated from English into Spanish. Casadei (1994) discussed the lexicon of the LSP and popular scientific language of physics, pointing out that the technical reading of common vocabulary plays an important role in the technicity of specialized texts (cf. Casadei, 1994, p. 61). Mari and Zanola (2012) investigated the development of the lexicon of quantum mechanics in Italian and traced the history of selected terms (cf. also Gualdo & Telve, 2011, p. 263, on the term quark). With regard to borrowings from English, they pointed out varying degrees of transparency (e.g., spin vs. osservabile) and underlined that common etymology can lead to the use of false friends (cf. accuracy vs. precisione, not *accuratezza) (cf. Mari & Zanola, 2012, p. 235). Del Bello et al. (1994) compared the Enciclopedia delle Scienze Fisiche with the Vocabolario della lingua italiana, emphasizing how important the dynamic development of individual subdomains can be with regard to lexical extension and neology, and discussed the interaction between the lexicon and syntactic, textual, and pragmatic specificities of scientific communication (cf. Del Bello et al., 1994, p. 18).

Capponi (2005) examined the Italian lexicon of astronomy from an etymological and historical perspective, while Capponi (2014a) discussed possible transitions between technical and common language (e.g., galassia), also including dialects and further metaphorization processes (e.g., gioviale) in her considerations. In Capponi (2014b), she added some considerations regarding Italian and Spanish bolide/bólido. Ortore (2014) discussed scientific popularization in the context of astronomy with regard to text linguistics, syntax, and terminology (cf. Ortore, 2014, p. 19, 43, and 77, respectively), although the identified characteristics seem to be not only valid for the Italian LSP of astronomy but also for other specialized languages (similarly in Dardano, 2012). Mapelli (2006) focused on how astronomical expertise is disseminated in Spanish-speaking media, analyzing the structure of specific text types such as news texts, press releases, and technical articles and finding that there are no strict rules and that content may be conveyed rather freely.

5.2 Languages for Special Purposes in the Context of School and University Teaching

Auger (1989, p. 21) analyzed the construction of mathematical French and underlined that for children the language of mathematics is just as inaccessible as a foreign language. Lahanier-Reuter (1998) focused on how students of 13 or 14 years of age describe a geometrical object they are looking at to identify some of the difficulties associated with the teaching of mathematics. Urzúa et al. (2006) carried out a study of lexical availability among students and teachers at the mathematical engineering faculty of a Chilean university, showing that the students’ lexicon increases over the course of their studies. Similarly, Ferreira et al. (2014) aimed to quantify and describe the mathematical lexicon of Chilean high school math students, finding that vocabulary increases with the level of education. De Meo (2004) discussed verbal interaction in mathematics teaching in school and described the transition from spoken Italian to a technical variety, stating that the explicit use of meta-language in definitions/explanations plays an important role, as does the consideration of the internal morphosyntactic structure of complex terms (cf. De Meo, 2004, p. 5 and 12, respectively; for mathematical definitions cf. also Dapueto, 2012). Aiming to objectively evaluate the level of difficulty of mathematical texts in a didactic context, D’Amore and Fandiño Pinilla (2016, p. 67) identified the relative potential of different parts of the lexicon to inhibit comprehension. Mathematical terms seem to be more problematic than common lexemes, though the biggest problem are markers of logical relations (operators such as non, implica; quantifiers such as alcuni; inference markers such as siccome). Simonetti and Cavaliere (2013) provided a didactically oriented overview of lexicology, forms, and structures of the Italian LSPs of mathematics, physics, and chemistry, while Dardano (2012) provided a text-linguistic analysis of schoolbooks for the same subjects to discuss the specificity of specialized communication in didactics. Ferrari (2018, p. 37; cf. also Ferrari, 2004) discussed the role of other semiotic systems (formulae, graphical representations) in the context of university teaching, also pointing out the properties of mathematical texts as products of an elevated register (cf. Ferrari, 2004, 2018, p. 38; cf. also Cavagnoli, 2022). In Brazil as well, much attention is paid to the language of mathematics in the classroom: Florenço Junior (2014) particularly highlighted the fact that there are two kinds of language of mathematics, that is, a formal/scientific and an informal or less formal/didactic kind. Maia and Carrião (2018) analyzed the language of mathematic textbooks at a high school level and concluded that a teacher might choose to introduce the specialized language step by step (cf. Maia & Carrião, 2018, p. 9). Similarly, Machado (2008) aimed to identify discursive characteristics of classroom conversations. The relation between “normal” language and the language of mathematics is what interested Lorensatti (2009); this work is in the tradition of Machado’s research on the mutual enrichment of mathematics and the mother tongue (Machado, 1990), which is still a standard work in Brazil, with the sixth edition published in 2011.

6. A Look Ahead: Some Remarks on Specialized Translation

One field that is growing ever more important in modern life is specialized translation. Therefore (and not least due to the authors’ academic affiliation), this section aims to give a brief insight into specialized translation involving the Romance languages.

Reinart and Pöckl (2015) introduced the reader to Romance LSPs in general and included perspectives from translation studies. With regard to translation proper, Stolze (2009) gave a general introduction to the theory and practice of specialized translation, while Schmitt (1999) introduced the reader to technical translation and Arntz (2001) to both technical and legal translation. Stolze (2022) contributed some considerations on specialized translation in the fields of mathematics, the sciences, and technology. Grade (2002) discussed the importance of translators of scientific and/or technical texts having broad background knowledge and was critical of the fact that specialized translation is often underestimated even by linguists (cf. Grade, 2002, p. 56). With regard to Italian, Scarpa (2001) introduced the reader to specialized translation, taking into account scientific and technological texts. The work of Famà (2013) came from a more practical perspective, focusing mainly on the development of skills and quality assurance for translators. Similarly, Crivello (1998) discussed specific problems with specialized translation (e.g., semantic loan translations out of context, bureaucratic and alienating language, and a style deviating from what the intended audience expects) and how to eliminate such defects. Seiler (2017) introduced the reader to software localization in the Romance languages, focusing on Francophony, Italophony, and Hispanophony, while Cañuelo and Seiler (2008) provided an overview of software localization in English and Spanish. Focusing on Spanish, García Palacios (2015) discussed the possibilities and limitations of the translation of neologisms in specialized texts. Research on interpretation studies is rather scarce, yet Ozores’s work (1984) on conference interpreters’ handling of Anglicisms in technical contexts should be pointed out.

Naturally, some researchers focused on specific aspects of specialized translation, based on (one or several) Romance languages as either source or target language. Thus, Wichmann (1969) discussed the translation of French mathematical texts into German, while Wienen (2010) focused on cohesion and more specifically on the so-called reprise-commentaire in the same language pair. For the language pair Italian–German, Hempel (2004, 2006, 2009) provided three analyses of technical manuals in which he focused on selected aspects such as the titles of such texts, the translation of complex nominalizations, and the phenomena of explicitation and intercultural interferences. Technical manuals are also the basis for Schreiber (2004), who considered not only German and Italian, but also English, Dutch, French, and Spanish and mainly provided contrastive conclusions comparing German with each of the other languages. Whenever the source language is German, compound words are considered to be specifically challenging: Allignol (1998) focused on the translation of such words into French in technical texts, while Herget and Proschwitz (2008) tried to identify typical correspondences for Portuguese. From a different perspective, Allignol (1995) aimed to find out how defective German source texts can lead to faulty French translations. There are also several works introducing the reader to specialized translation from English into Spanish (e.g., Bruno et al., 2016; Jiménez Serrano, 2002) or from German into Spanish and vice versa (Bachmann, 1996; Gamero Peréz, 2001), but also works focusing on specific aspects: Gamero Pérez/Oster (1999) analyzed directive speech acts in technical manuals with regard to translation, while Pajares Infante and Romero Armentia (1991) discussed the translation of English nominal compounds in technical texts. Sturm (2016) focused on German–Spanish translation difficulties caused by the syntactical structure and grammatical characteristics of technical texts. Many works also focused on specific aspects of computer science, such as English terms and their Spanish counterparts in Spain versus Latin America (Equipo de traductores y terminólogos de Comunicación y Lingüística S. A., 1991), the use of indicative versus subjunctive in English–Spanish translations (Duro Moreno, 1995) or lexis, and the sources of faulty translations (Vivancos Machimbarrena, 1996). Belda Medina (2003, and numerous papers) considered translation and translatability for the language pair English–Spanish and other Romance languages in the field of computer science. From a more practice-oriented perspective, Accino et al. (2004) discussed methods, resources, and the translation workflow, while Bolaños Medina et al. (2006) investigated the website localization of major enterprises in this field. Finally, Pano (2007) examined Anglicisms and the problems they can pose in translation. With regard to other fields, Vila de la Cruz (1999) focused on the translation of construction engineering terms into Spanish, whereas Montero-Martínez et al. (2001) discussed the phenomenon of syntactic calquing in translation regarding chemical engineering. Some studies on technical LSPs in contrast and translation also include Catalan, such as Montero Fleta et al. (2003), which analyzed how writers involve the reader in technical texts with regard to translation strategies into Spanish and Catalan. Marquet i Ferigle (1993) and Rey Vanin (2005) focused on technical translation, while Montesinos López and Bracho Lapiedra (2002) analyzed the translation of computer science–related LSP into Catalan and Spanish.


  • Abreu, J. M. (1992). Quelques remarques sur la terminologie espagnole dans le domaine des nouvelles technologies de la communication. La Banque des Mots, 44, 33–38.
  • Accino, J. A., Acebal, C. F., Ayesa, J., Férnandez Calvo, R., & Ugarte García, M. C. (2004). La traducción técnica en revistas profesionales: El ejemplo de Novática. In L. González & P. Hernúñez (Eds.), Las palabras del traductor: Actas del II Congreso “El español, lengua de traducción” (Toledo, 20 y 21 de Mayo 2004) (pp. 277–292). Brussels, Belgium: ESLEtRA.
  • Acosta, C., & Cuvi, N. (2005). El español en los intercambios deficiencia y tecnología durante el siglo XX. Panace, 6, 142–147.
  • Acosta, C., Cuvi, N., & Roque, X. (2003). Ciencia entre España e Hispanoamérica: Ecos del siglo XX. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 26, 471–472.
  • Aguado de Cea, G. (1993). Comando, instrucción, sentencia: ¿Sinónimos en el campo informático? III Encuentros complutenses en torno a la traducción (2–6 de abril de 1990) (pp. 155–163). Madrid, Spain: Universidad Complutense.
  • Aguado de Cea, G. (1994). Algunos ejemplos de polisemia y sinonimia en la terminología informática. Terminologie et Traduction, 1, 349–358.
  • Aguado de Cea, G. (2006). De bits y bugs a blogs y webs: Aspectos interdisciplinares, socioculturales y lingüísticos de la terminología informática. In C. Gonzalo & P. Hernúñez (Eds.), CORCILLVM: Estudios de traducción, lingüística y filología dedicados a Valentín García Yebra (pp. 693–720). Madrid, Spain: Arco Libros.
  • Ahlers, C., & Holtus, G. (1999). Lassen sich Anglizismen verbieten? Zum Wortschatz der Informatik in der fachbezogenen Presse Frankreichs. In P. Wagener (Ed.), Sprachformen: Deutsch und Niederdeutsch in europäischen Bezügen; Festschrift für Dieter Stellmacher zum 60. Geburtstag (Vol. 105, pp. 297–310). Stuttgart, Germany: Steiner.
  • Ahronian, C. (2005). Les noms composés anglais, français et espagnols du domaine d’internet: Traduction des composés anglais en français et en espagnol [Doctoral dissertation]. Université Lumière Lyon 2.
  • Alameda Nieto, I. Z. (1998). El empleo de la metáfora en el vocabulario tecnológico espanol de Internet. In A. Gil (Ed.), Kognitive und kommunikative Dimensionen der Metaphorik in den romanischen Sprachen: Akten der gleichnamigen Sektion des XXV; Deutschen Romanistentages (Jena, 28.9.–2.10.1997) (Vol. 5, pp. 260–280). Bonn, Germany: Romanistischer Verlag.
  • Allignol, C. (1995). Une difficulté de la traduction technique allemand-français: Les déficits rédactionnels dans les textes de départ comme source d’erreur en traduction [Doctoral dissertation]. Université Paris X.
  • Allignol, C. (1998). Die zusammengesetzten Wörter: Eine Schwierigkeit bei der Übersetzung technischer Fachtexte aus dem Deutschen ins Französische. Lebende Sprachen, 43(2), 64–66.
  • Altieri Biagi, M. L. (1965). Galileo e la terminologia scientifica. Florence, Italy: Leo S. Olschki.
  • Altieri Biagi, M. L. (2012). Le scienze e la funzione cognitiva della lingua. In A. Nesi & D. De Martino (Eds.), Lingua italiana e scienze: Atti del convegno internazionale; Firenze, Villa Medicea di Castello, 6–8 febbraio 2003 (pp. 3–12). Florence, Italy: Accademia della Crusca.
  • Arntz, R., & Arranz, J. C. (1998). Die spanischen Fachsprachen im 20: Jahrhundert und ihre Erforschung; Eine Übersicht. In L. Hoffmann, H. Kalverkämper, & H. E. Wiegand (Eds.), Fachsprachen: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Fachsprachenforschung und Terminologiewissenschaft (Vol. 2, pp. 1514–1521). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.
  • Arntz, R. (2001). Fachbezogene Mehrsprachigkeit in Recht und Technik. Hildesheim, Germany: Olms.
  • Atayan, V. (2011). Propositionsbezogene weiterführende Relativsätze in der fachsprachlichen Kommunikation: Einige Überlegungen zum tertium comparationis im Sprachvergleich. In E. Lavric, W. Pöckl, & F. Schallhart (Eds.), Comparatio Delectat: Akten der VI. Internationalen Arbeitstagung zum Romanisch-Deutschen und innerromanischen Sprachvergleich (Innsbruck, 3.–5. September 2008) (pp. 563–577). Frankfurt, Germany: Lang.
  • Atayan, V., Metten, T., & Schmidt, V. A. (2014). Sprache in Mathematik, Naturwissenschaften und Technik. In E. Felder & A. Gardt (Eds.), Handbuch Sprache und Wissen (pp. 411–434). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.
  • Auger, J. (1989). Analyse des facteurs qui influencent la construction de la langue mathématique. Revue des Sciences de l’Éducation, 15(1), 3–21.
  • Auger, P. (2010). Une rupture avec la tradition terminologique: Le cas de la dénomination des engins forestiers au Québec. La Banque des Mots, 79, 29–42.
  • Autier, J. (1982). La mise en scène de la communication dans des discours de vulgarisation scientifique. Langue Française, 53, 34–47.
  • Bachmann, R. (1996). Technisches Spanisch: Basiswissen Elektrotechnik. Wiesbaden, Germany: Brandstetter.
  • Bassi, E., Benzi, F., & Nesi A. (2012). Presentazione dell’enciclopedia-vocabolario dell’automazione industriale di Daniele Fabrizi. In A. Nesi & D. De Martino (Eds.), Lingua italiana e scienze: Atti del convegno internazionale; Firenze, Villa Medicea di Castello, 6–8 febbraio 2003 (pp. 63–80). Florence, Italy: Accademia della Crusca.
  • Becker, L. (2011). Kleinere romanische Sprachen in der wissenschaftlichen Kommunikation. In W. Dahmen, G. Holtus, J. Kramer, M. Metzeltin, W. Schweickard, & O. Winkelmann (Eds.), Die romanischen Sprachen als Wissenschaftssprachen. Romanistisches Kolloquium XXIV (Saarbrücken, 20.–22. November 2008) (pp. 317–352). Tübingen, Germany: Narr.
  • Belda Medina, J. R. (2003). El lenguaje de la informática e Internet y su traducción. San Vicente del Raspeig, Spain: Publicaciones de la Universidad de Alicante.
  • Berrettoni, P. (1992). Per una caratterizzazione linguistica del genere procedurale. In C. Serra Borneto (Ed.), Testi e macchine: Una ricerca sui manuali di istruzioni per l’uso (pp. 135–164). Milan, Italy: FrancoAngeli.
  • Bidu-Vrănceanu, A. (1989). Aspecte ale funcției reflexive a limbii in terminologiile tehnico-stiintifice. Studii şi Cercetări Lingvistice, 5, 417–422.
  • Bidu-Vrănceanu, A. (1995). Dinamica vocabularului românesc după 1989: Sensuri ‘deviate’ ale termenilor tehnico-științifici. Limbă şi Literatură, 1, 38–45.
  • Bîzu, C. (2017). Le passif dans des textes techniques français et roumains. Studii de Gramatică Contrastivă, 27, 22–29.
  • Blank, A. (1995). Lexikalische Entlehnung–Sprachwandel–Sprachvergleich: Beispiele aus dem Computer-Wortschatz. In C. Schmitt (Ed.), Die romanischen Sprachen im Vergleich: Akten der gleichnamigen Sektion des Potsdamer Romanistentags (27.–30.9.1993) (Vol. 2, pp. 38–69). Bonn, Germany: Romanistischer Verlag.
  • Bolaños Medina, A., Rodríguez Medina, M. J., & Bolaños Medina, L. (2006). Estrategias de localización de sitios web a partir del análisis contrastivo (inglés/español) de un corpus de páginas de multinacionales informáticas. In C. Mourón Figueroa & T. Moralejo Gárate (Eds.), Studies in contrastive linguistics: Proceedings of the 4th International Contrastive Linguistics Conference (Santiago de Compostela, September 2005) (pp. 115–123). Universidade Santiago de Compostela, Spain: Servicio de Publicaciones.
  • Boquera Matarredona, M. (2005). Las metáforas en textos de ingeniería civil: Estudio contrastivo español-inglés. Universitat de València, Spain: Servei de Publicacions.
  • Bouveret, M. (1998). Approche de la dénomination en langue spécialisée. Meta, 43(3), 393–410.
  • Brumme, J. (1988). Stand der lexikographischen Arbeiten zum heutigen Katalanisch: Die Erfassung von Neologismen aus Wissenschaft und Technik. Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universität Greifswald, 37(2), 51–54.
  • Bruno, L., Luque, I., & Ferreyra, L. E. (2016). La traducción de textos técnicos. Córdoba, Spain: Universidad Nacional de Córdoba.
  • Cabré, M. T. (1989). La terminologie catalane: Bilan des activités. Meta: Translators’ Journal, 34(3), 544–551.
  • Cabré, M. T. (1993). La terminología: Teoría, metodología, aplicaciones. Barcelona, Spain: Antártida/Empúries.
  • Cabré, M. T. (2005). La terminología: Representación y comunicación. Barcelona, Spain: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
  • Calvi, M. V., & Chierichetti, L. (2006). Nuevas tendencias en el discurso de especialidad. Bern, Switzerland: Lang.
  • Candel, D., & Lejeune, D. (1998). Définir en mathématiques: Regards lexicographiques sur des textes de mathématiques. Cahiers de Lexicologie, 73, 43–60.
  • Candel, D. (1997). Lexicographie de spécialité: Domaine: Mathématiques. Cahiers de Lexicologie, 71, 21–36.
  • Cantallops, J.–A. M. (1996). Actualitat dels estudis sobre el llenguatge científic del català. In A. Schönberger & T. D. Stegmann (Eds.), Actes del Desè Colloqui International de Llengua i Literatura Catalanes (Frankfurt, 18–25 de setembre de 1994) (pp. 75–296). Barcelona, Spain: Publicaciones de l’Abadia de Montserrat.
  • Cañuelo, S., & Seiler, F. (2008). Reflexiones teóricas y prácticas sober la localización de software a partir de una traducción de interfaz gráfica de usuario. In V. Ivanova, E. Krüger, & E. Tabares (Eds.), Análisis lingüístico contrastivo de textos especializados en español y alemán (pp. 45–66). Berlin, Germany: Frank & Timme.
  • Capponi, P. (2005). I nomi di Orione: Le parole dell’astronomia fra scienza e tradizione. Venice, Italy: Marsilio.
  • Capponi, P. (2014a). Tra lingua dell’astronomia e lingua comune. Cuadernos de Filología Italiana, 21, 137–151.
  • Capponi, P. (2014b): Usi traslati di termini astronomici: Bolide nella stampa italiana e spagnola del XX secolo. Philologia Hispalensis, 28(3–4), 93–115.
  • Cappuzzo, B. (2005). Il linguaggio informatico inglese e italiano: Considerazioni su alcuni aspetti lessicali dal confronto tra le due lingue. Mots Palabras Words, 6, 57–69.
  • Casadei, F. (1994). Il lessico nelle strategie di presentazione dell’informazione scientifica: Il caso della fisica. In T. De Mauro (Ed.), Studi sul trattamento linguistico dell’informazione scientifica (pp. 47–69). Rome, Italy: Bulzoni.
  • Castelli, M., & Lorenzi, F. (1992). Definizioni e lessico tecnico. In C. Serra Borneto (Ed.), Testi e macchine: Una ricerca sui manuali di istruzioni per l’uso (pp. 183–232). Milan, Italy: FrancoAngeli.
  • Cavagnoli, S. (1999). Die italienischen Fachsprachen im 20: Jahrhundert und ihre Erforschung; Eine Übersicht. In L. Hoffmann & H. E. Wiegand (Eds.), Fachsprachen: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Fachsprachenforschung und Terminologiewissenschaft (pp. 1503–1513). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.
  • Cavagnoli, S. (2022). Sprache der Mathematik, Naturwissenschaften und Technik im Italienischen. In V. Atayan, T. Metten, & V. A. Schmidt (Eds.), Handbuch Sprache in Mathematik, Naturwissenschaften und Technik (pp. 527–549). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.
  • Cherata, S. (2005). Formarea termenilor din domeniul tehnologiei informației în engleză, franceză și română. Studii şi Cercetări Lingvistice, 56(1–2), 31–42.
  • Ciliberti, A. (1992). Analisi stilistica dei sub-testi costituenti. In C. Serra Borneto (Ed.), Testi e macchine: Una ricerca sui manuali di istruzioni per l’uso (pp. 107–134). Milan, Italy: FrancoAngeli.
  • Ciliberti, A., Giuliani, M. V., Puglielli, A., & Serra Borneto, C. (1988). Adeguatezze e inadeguatezze dei manuali di istruzioni. In T. De Mauro, S. Gensini, M. E. Piemontese (Eds.), Dalla parte del ricevente: Percezione, comprensione, interpretazione; Atti del XIX congresso internazionale, Roma, Aula Magna della Sapienza, 8–10 novembre 1985 (pp. 263–284). Rome, Italy: Bulzoni.
  • Ciliberti, A, Giuliani, M. V., Puglielli, A., & Serra Borneto, C. (1992). Per un modello del manuale di istruzioni per l’uso. In C. Serra Borneto (Ed.), Testi e macchine: Una ricerca sui manuali di istruzioni per l’uso (pp. 21–52). Milan, Italy: FrancoAngeli.
  • Ciro, L. A., & Vila Rubio, N. (2015). El préstamo en el léxico de la informática e Internet en el ámbito hispánico. Revista Virtual Universidad Católica del Norte, 46, 129–145.
  • Clas, A. (1988). Une matrice terminogénétique en plein essor: Les binominaux juxtaposés. In R. Arntz (Ed.), Textlinguistik und Fachsprache: Akten des Internationalen übersetzungswissenschaftlichen AILA-Symposions (Hildesheim, 13.–16. April 1987) (Vol. 1, pp. 215–228). Hildesheim, Germany: Olms.
  • Clavería, G., Torruella, J., & Morales, C. (2001). La terminología informática en español. In M. Bargalló, E. Forgas, C. Garriga, A. Rubio, & J. Schnitzer (Eds.), Las lenguas de especialidad y su didáctica: Actas del Simposio Hispano-Austriaco (pp. 91–102). Tarragona, Spain: Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Servicio de Publicaciones.
  • Coteanu, I. (1987). Din nou despre impactul terminologiei tehnico-stiintifice. Limba Română, 3, 185–192.
  • Coteanu, I. (1990). Terminologia tehnico-stiintifica: Aspecte, probleme. Limba Română, 2, 95–100.
  • Crespo Jiménez, R. (1997). Voces inglesas en el lenguaje técnico del español de hoy. The Grove: Working Papers on English Studies, 4, 91–110.
  • Cruz, C. L. S. (2009). O processo de predicaçao das unidades terminológicas complexas da engenharia civil: The process of predication of the complex terminological units of civil engineering. Polifonia, 15, 59–74.
  • Cuadrado Esclapez, G., & Berge Legrand, H. (2005). A cognitive semantic analysis of metaphor in conceptualising Particle Physics. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 3(1), 165–181.
  • Cuadrado Esclapez, G., & Berge Legrand, H. (2007). Aportaciones al estudio de la metáfora en la física cuántica a partir de textos en inglés y en español. Ibérica, 13, 85–108.
  • D’Amore, B., & Fandiño Pinilla, M. I. (2016). Una formula per la misurazione oggettiva della difficoltà di comprensione di un testo di matematica da parte degli student: Uso valutativo e uso didattico. La Matematica e la Sua Didattica, 24(1–2), 59–78.
  • Dapueto, C. (2012). Quale logica (matematica) a scuola? In G. Gerla, C. Coppola, & T. Pacelli (Eds.), Logica, linguaggio e didattica della matematica (pp. 111–120). Milan, Italy: FrancoAngeli.
  • Dardano, M. (2012). La testualità nella lingua della scienza: Analisi di manuali scolastici. In A. Nesi & D. De Martino (Eds.), Lingua italiana e scienze: Atti del convegno internazionale: Firenze, Villa Medicea di Castello, 6–8 febbraio 2003 (pp. 81–94). Florence, Italy: Accademia della Crusca.
  • De la Cruz Cabanillas, I., Tejedor Martínez, C., Díez Prados, M., & Cerdá Redondo, E. (2007). English loanwords in Spanish computer language. English for Specific Purposes, 26(1), 52–78.
  • De Mauro, T. (2012). I linguaggi specialistici delle scienze idiografiche e nomotetiche e gli every-day languages in Italia e altrove. In A. Nesi & D. De Martino (Eds.), Lingua italiana e scienze: Atti del convegno internazionale: Firenze, Villa Medicea di Castello, 6–8 febbraio 2003 (pp. 13–26). Florence, Italy: Accademia della Crusca.
  • De Meo, A. (2004). Insegnamento di una lingua speciale e interazione verbale in classe: L’italiano della matematica nella scuola elementare. In F. Albano Leoni, F. Cutugno, M. Pettorino, & R. Savy (Eds.), Il parlato italiano: Atti del convegno nazionale (pp. 1–17). Naples, Italy: M. D’Auria.
  • De Yzaguirre i Maura, L. (1996). Maquinar-hi o programar-hi. Estudis de Lingüística i Filologia Oferts a Antoni M. Badia i Margarit, 3, 341–366.
  • De Yzaguirre i Maura, L., Tebé, C., Alonso, A., & Folguerà, R. (2001). El seguimiento de la implantación de términos vía Internet: Estrategias de cálculo y control. In M. Correia (Ed.), Simposio Iberoamericano de Terminología (7è 2000 Lisboa): Terminologia e indústrias da língua (pp. 323–336). Lisbon, Portugal: Instituto de Linguística Teórica e Computacional.
  • Del Bello, C., Gualdo, R., & Tarsitani, C. (1994). Appunti sull’attuale terminologia delle scienze fisiche. Lexicon Philosophicum, 7: Ricerca e Terminologia Tecnico-Scientifica, 13–31.
  • Della Valle, V. (1993). La lessicografia. In L. Serianni & P. Trifone (Eds.), Storia della lingua italiana: Vol. I. I luoghi della codificazione (pp. 29–91). Turin, Italy: Einaudi.
  • Diaconu, D. C. (2008). Abbreviations’ formation in Romanian computers language. Annals “Valahia” University of Targoviste: Letters Section, 6.
  • Diaconu, D. C. (2009). Some remarks on French influence on informatics language. Diversité et Identité Culturelle en Europe, 6, 137–145.
  • Diaconu, D. C. (2011). Semantic loan translation in informatics language. Annals ”Valahia” University of Targoviste: Letters Section, 9(1), 53–60.
  • Dima, E. (2005). Probleme ale neologiei traductive (cu privire specială asupra terminologiei informatice recente). Studii şi Cercetări Lingvistice, 56(1–2), 91–100.
  • Dota, M. I. M. (1991). Dicionários de informática: Uma análise comparativa. Alfa, 35, 85–103.
  • Duarte i Montserrat, C. (1991). Katalanisch: Fachsprachen und Sondersprachen/Tecnolectos y jergas. In G. Holtus, M. Metzeltin, & C. Schmitt (Eds.), Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik (LRL): Okzitanisch, Katalanisch (Vol. 5(2), pp. 182–191). Tübingen, Germany: Niemeyer.
  • Duro Moreno, M. (1995). Estilo y modos del verbo: Pequeño catálogo de recomendaciones para el mejor uso del indicativo y subjuntivo en la traducción profesional de informática del inglés al español. In R. Martín-Gaitero (Ed.), V Encuentros Complutenses en Torno a la Traducción (22–26 de febrero de 1994) (pp. 565–574). Madrid, Spain: Complutense.
  • Ebert, G., & Hundt, C. (1997). Bedienungsanleitungen im Sprachvergleich Italienisch-Portugiesisch-Deutsch. In G. Wotjak (Ed.), Studien zum romanisch-deutschen und innerromanischen Sprachvergleich: Akten der III Internationalen Arbeitstagung zum romanisch-deutschen Sprachvergleich (Leipzig, 09.10–11.10.1995) (pp. 169–189). Frankfurt, Germany: Lang.
  • Ebner, K. (2002). Die katalanische Computersprache. Zeitschrift für Katalanistik, 15, 91–115.
  • Elwert, W. T. (1989). Spanisch-italienische Divergenzen in der Terminologie der modernen Technik. In W. Dahmen, G. Holtus, J. Kramer, & M. Metzeltin (Eds.), Technische Sprache und Technolekte in der Romania (Vol. 326, pp. 222–246). Tübingen, Germany: Narr.
  • Emsel, M. (1990). Estructura semántica de verbos complejos en el contexto técnico. In G. Wotjak & A. Veiga Rodríguez (Eds.), La descripción del verbo español (pp. 121–126). Santiago de Compostela, Spain: Universidad de Santiago de Compostela.
  • Endruschat, A. (1998). Übersetzungsorientierte Analyse von Paralleltexten: Terminologiebildung in der portugiesischen Computersprache. Lusorama, 37, 40–53.
  • Equipo de traductores y terminólogos de Comunicación y Lingüística S. A. (1991). La informatica en español: Append from English language to Spanish computer language. Terminologie et Traduction, 1, 87–91.
  • Famà G. (2013). Die Fachübersetzung: eine Gebrauchsanweisung. In P. Katelhön, M. Costa, M.A. de Libero, & L. Cinato (Eds.), Mit Deutsch in den Beruf: Berufsbezogener Deutschunterricht an Universitäten (pp. 103–117). Vienna, Austria: Praesens Verlag.
  • Fernández, F., & Montero Fleta, B. (2003). La premodificación nominal en el ámbito de la informática: Estudio contrastivo inglés-español. València, Spain: Universitat de València.
  • Fernando Lara, L. (1986). Wissenschaftlich-technische Fachsprachen in Lateinamerika und der Entwicklungsstand des Spanischen: Das Beispiel Mexiko. In T. Bungarten (Ed.), Wissenschaftssprache und Gesellschaft: Aspekte der wissenschaftlichen Kommunikation und des Wissenstransfers in der heutigen Zeit (pp. 180–198). Hamburg, Germany: Edition Akademion.
  • Ferrari, P. L. (2004). Matematica e linguaggio: Quadro teorico e idee per la didattica. Bologna, Italy: Pitagora.
  • Ferrari, P. L. (2018). Il controllo semantico sui testi matematici all’inizio dell’università: Didattica della matematica. Dalle Ricerche Alle Pratiche D’aula, 3, 35–49.
  • Ferreira, A., Salcedo, P., & Del Valle, M. (2014). Estudio de disponibilidad léxica en el ámbito de las matemáticas. Estudios Filológicos, 54, 69–84.
  • Flierenbaum, K. (2011). Fachsprache im Spanischen: Mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Terminologie der Wirtschaftsinformatik. Munich, Germany: AVM.
  • Flinzner, K. (2006). Geschichte der technischen und naturwissenschaftlichen Fachsprachen in der Romania: Französisch. In G. Ernst, M.D. Gleßgen, C. Schmitt, & W. Schweickard (Eds.), Romanische Sprachgeschichte: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Geschichte der romanischen Sprachen (Vol. 2, pp. 2211–2226). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.
  • Florenço Junior, R. L. (2014). A linguagem matemática na sala de aula: Perspectivas e dificultades. E-xacta, 7(1), 29–34.
  • Forés López, M. D. (2010). Spanische Fachsprache in der technischen Kommunikation: Aspekte der Benutzerinformation in Spanisch. In W. von Hahn & C. Vertan (Eds.), Specialized language in global communication: Proceedings of the XVI European Symposium on Language for Special Purposes (LSP), Hamburg 2007 (pp. 260–267). Frankfurt, Germany: Lang.
  • Forner, W. (1992). Sinn und Text in technischer Kommunikation: Fachsprachliche Vertextungsstrategien eines häufigen Argumentationsschemas—Am Beispiel von französischen Texten zur Elektrotechnik. In J. Albrecht (Ed.), Fachsprache und Terminologie in Geschichte und Gegenwart (Vol. 14, pp. 197–221). Tübingen, Germany: Narr.
  • Franzen, B. A., & Heinig, O. L. O. M. (2012). Letramentos situados: A linguagem no campo de trabalho de engenheiros. Atos de Pesquisa em Educação, 7(3), 752–780.
  • Freixa, J., & Montané, A. (2006). Variación denominativa y biunivocidad en el lenguaje de las matemáticas. Revista Española de Lingüística, 36, 189–215.
  • Fundació Joaquim Torrens Ibern. (Ed.). (1992). L’ús del català científic i tècnic. Barcelona, Spain: Publicacions de l’Abadia de Montserrat.
  • Gablot, G. (1978). L’anglais langue scientifique française? La Banque des Mots, 16, 173–186.
  • Gamero Pérez, S. (2001). La traducción de textos técnicos: Descripción y análisis de textos (alemán-español). Barcelona, Spain: Ariel.
  • Gamero Pérez, S., & Oster, U. (1999): Análisis contrastivo de los actos de habla directivos en los manuales de instrucciones: conclusiones aplicables a la traducción. In P. Elena, C. Fortea, C. Gómez, M. Recio, S. Roiss, & D. Wiggert (Eds.), Universo de palabras. Actas del I Simposio de la Traducción del/al alemán (pp. 93–106). Salamanca, Spain: Facultad de Traducción y Documentación.
  • Gangemi, A. (1994). Strategie dell’informazione scientifica: Problemi di divulgazione, compressione e rappresentazione della conoscenza a partire dall’analisi di un corpus di testi genetici. In T. De Mauro (Ed.), Studi sul trattamento linguistico dell’informazione scientifica (pp. 121–154). Rome, Italy: Bulzoni.
  • García Delgado, J. L., Antonio Alonso, J., & Jiménez, J. C. (Eds.). (2013). El español, lengua de comunicación científica. Barcelona, Spain: Fundación Telefónica.
  • García Gavín, S. (2003). Consideraciones en torno al lenguaje especializado. In R. Muñoz Martín (Ed.), Actas del I Congreso Internacional de la Asociación Ibérica de Estudios de Traducción e Interpretación (Granada, 12–14 de Febrero de 2003) (Vol. 2, pp. 493–505). Granada, Spain: Asociación Ibérica de Estudios de Traducción e Interpretación (AIETI).
  • García Palacios, J. (2015). Neología y traducción especializada: ¿Un mismo espacio de actuación? In I. M. Alves & E. S. Pereira (Eds.), Neologia das línguas românicas (pp. 343–366). São Paulo, Brazil: Humanitas.
  • García Palacios, J., & Humbley, J. (2012). En torno a la dependencia terminológica. Hermeneus, 14, 133–165.
  • Gentilhomme, Y. (1995). Contribution à une réflexion sur les locutions mathématiques. Cahiers de Lexicologie, 66, 5–37.
  • Gentilhomme, Y. (2000). Termes et textes mathématiques: Réflexions linguistiques non standard. Cahiers de Lexicologie, 76, 57–89.
  • Gil, A. (1992). Terminologienormung in Spanien und Lateinamerika. In J. Albrecht & R. Baum (Eds.), Fachsprache und Terminologie in Geschichte und Gegenwart (pp. 263–273). Tübingen, Germany: Gunter Narr.
  • Gómez Font, A. (1999). Un nuevo lenguaje técnico: El español en la Internet. Chasqui, 66, 59–63.
  • Grade, M. (2002). Auswirkungen des wachsenden naturwissenschaftlich-technischen Wissens auf Beruf und Ausbildung technischer Fachübersetzer. Lebende Sprachen, 47(2), 49–56.
  • Gray, E. F. (1985). French computer terminology. The French Review, 58(6), 805–810.
  • Greenfield, J. (2005). Portugal und die mehrsprachige Wissenschaft. In E. Neuland, K. Ehlich, & W. Roggausch (Eds.), Perspektiven der Germanistik in Europa: Tagungsbeiträge; Tagung “Zukunftsperspektiven der Germanistik in Europa” Berlin, Februar 2004 (pp. 289–296). Munich, Germany: IUDICIUM.
  • Gualdo, R., & Telve, S. (2011). Linguaggi specialistici dell’italiano. Rome, Italy: Carocci.
  • Guerriero, A. R. (Ed.). (1988). L’educazione linguistica e i linguaggi delle scienze. Scandicci, Italy: La Nuova Italia.
  • Gutermann, B. (1996). Die Raumdarstellung in deutschen und französischen technischen Texten: Sprachvergleichende Untersuchungen zur Frequenz der Darstellung räumlicher Relationen, zu ihrer sprachlichen Form und zu Inhalt-Form-Beziehungen. Frankfurt, Germany: Lang.
  • Hahn, S. (2011). Fachlichkeit der Textsorte Bedienungsanleitung von Spiegelreflexkameras: Am Beispiel des Deutschen, Französischen und Spanischen. Hamburg, Germany: Kovač.
  • Heller, D. (2012). Wissenschaftskommunikation im Vergleich Fallstudien zum Sprachenpaar Deutsch-Italienisch. Arbeiten zur Sprachanalyse, 57. Frankfurt, Germany: Lang.
  • Hempel, K. G. (2004). La traduzione tecnica italiano-tedesco: Brevetti e manuali d’uso. In D. A. Cusato, D. Iaria, & R. M. Palermo (Eds.), Atti del III Convegno internazionale interdisciplinare su testo, metodo, elaborazione elettronica (Messina—Savoca, 12–14 novembre 2003) (pp. 269–304). Messina, Italy: Andrea Lippolis.
  • Hempel, K. G. (2006). Adressatenbezug und Expliziertheit: zur Übersetzung italienischer Bedienungsanleitungen. In C. Heine, K. Schubert, & H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast (Eds.), Text and translation (pp. 235–252). Tübingen, Germany: Narr.
  • Hempel, K. G. (2009). Intercultural interferences in technical translation: A glance at Italian and German technical manuals. The Journal of Specialised Translation, 11, 102–123.
  • Herwartz, R. (2002). “Lavadora, cafetera, sacacorchos”—Spanische Gerätebezeichnungen in Technik, Werbung und Alltag: Dargestellt am Beispiel der Haushaltsgerätebranche. Frankfurt, Germany: Lang.
  • Hoffmann, L., Kalverkämper, H., & Wiegand, H. E. (Eds.). (2008). Fachsprachen: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Fachsprachenforschung und Terminologiewissenschaft (Vol. 2). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.
  • Huppmann, I. (1993). Synthematisierte Nominalsyntagmen im Französischen und Spanischen. Eine kontrastive Studie zur Zeitungssprache und zur technischen Fachsprache [Doctoral dissertation]. Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München.
  • Irazazábal Nerpell, A. (1992). España, puente entre Iberoamérica y la Comunidad Europea, en la normalización de la terminología científica. In J. Albrecht & R. Baum (Eds.), Fachsprache und Terminologie in Geschichte und Gegenwart (pp. 256–262). Tübingen, Germany: Narr.
  • Jansen, S. (2002). Metaphern im Sprachkontakt—Anhand von Beispielen aus dem französischen und spanischen Internetwortschatz., 3, 44–74.
  • Jansen, S. (2005). Sprachliches Lehngut im WWW—Neologismen in der französischen und spanischen Internetterminologie [Doctoral dissertation]. Tübingen, Germany: Narr.
  • Jiménez Serrano, Ó. (2002). La traducción técnica inglés-español: Didáctica y mundo profesional. Granada, Spain: Comares.
  • Kalverkämper, H. (1988). Zwischen Anspruch und Wirklichkeit: Signale einer romanistischen Fachsprachen-Forschung: Zur Einführung. In H. Kalverkämper (Ed.), Fachsprachen in der Romania (pp. 7–14). Tübingen, Germany: Narr.
  • Kis, E., Moldoveanu, E., & Kis, G. (1981). Dinamica expresivității in comunicarea verbala a muncitorilor din întreprinderea mecanica cugir. Limba Română, 30(3), 233–236.
  • Kocourek, R. (1982). La langue française de la technique et de la science. Wiesbaden, Germany: Brandstetter.
  • Korneliussen, R. (2005). Vocabulario marinero de Costa Rica. Revista de Filología y Lingüística de la Universidad de Costa Rica, 31(2), 119–156.
  • L’Homme, M.C., & San Martín, A. (2016). Définition terminologique: Systématisation de règles de rédaction dans les domaines de l’informatique et de l’environnement. Cahiers de Lexicologie, 109(2), 147–174.
  • Lahanier-Reuter, D. (1998). La description en mathématiques: Quelques problèmes posés par les descriptions géométriques. Pratiques, 99, 105–123.
  • Larsen, M. D. (1998). INFORME: La evolución de términos tecnológicos en las revistas de informática. Hispania, 81(2), 352–362.
  • Laszlo, P. (1993). La vulgarisation scientifique. Paris, France: Presses Universitaires de France.
  • Laumann, F. (1998). Französische Nominalkomposita mit Präposition: Eine Untersuchung aufgrund der naturwissenschaftlich-technischen Fachsprache. Münster, Germany: Lit.
  • Lavinio, C. (2012). I linguaggi scientifici tra terminologia e testualità: spunti didattici. In A. Nesi & D. De Martino (Eds.), Lingua italiana e scienze: Atti del convegno internazionale: Firenze, Villa Medicea di Castello, 6–8 febbraio 2003 (pp. 135–151). Florence, Italy: Accademia della Crusca.
  • Lerat, P. (1995). Les langues spécialisees. Paris, France: Presses Universitaires de France.
  • Loffler-Laurian, A. M. (1980). L’expression du locuteur dans les discours scientifiques: ‘Je’, ‘Nous’, et ‘On’ dans quelques textes de chimie et de physique. Revue de Linguistique Romane, 173–174, 135–157.
  • Loffler-Laurian, A. M. (1982). Être dans quelques textes de physique et chimie hautement spécialisés. Revue de Linguistique Romane, 46, 121–157.
  • Loffler-Laurian, A. M. (1983). Les expressions de la mesure dans les textes scientifiques. Revue de Linguistique Romane, 47, 59–101.
  • Loffler-Laurian, A. M. (1994). Réflexions sur la métaphore dans les discours scientifiques de vulgarisation. Langue Française, 101, 72–79.
  • López Facal, J. (1982). Los procedimientos neológicos del español: Tipología y propuestas de jerarquización. In J. Rodríguez Richart (Ed.), Fachsprachenforschung und -lehre: Schwerpunkt Spanisch: Internationales Kolloquium an der Universität des Saarlandes (Saarbrücken, 6.–8. November 1980) (pp. 45–52). Tübingen, Germany: Narr.
  • López Gallardo, J. A. (2011). El lenguaje de la física y el español. Revista Digital Universitaria, 12(8), 1–13.
  • Lorensatti, E. J. C. (2009). Linguagem matemática e língua portuguesa: Diálogo necessário na resolução de problemas matemáticos. Conjectura, 14(2), 89–99.
  • Machado, A. C. (2008). Marcas do discurso da matemática escolar: Uma investigação sobre as interações discursivas nas aulas do ensino médio [Doctoral dissertation]. Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais.
  • Machado, N. J. (1990). Matemática e língua materna: Análise de uma impregnação mútua. São Paulo, Brazil: Cortez.
  • Maia, J., & Carrião, A. (2018). A linguagem nos livros didáticos de matemática. Revista Brasileira de Educação Básica, 11, 1–10.
  • Maiworm, S. (2003). Zwischen Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit: Eine linguistische Analyse französischsprachiger Chats [Doctoral dissertation]. Universität Düsseldorf.
  • Manea, C., & Pruneanu, D. M. (2007). Unele aspecte ale pătrunderii termenilor tehnico-ştiinţifici în limbajul comun. In L. Botoșineanu, E. Dănilă, C. Holban, O. Ichim (Eds.), Români majoritari/români minoritari: Interferenţe şi coabitări lingvistice, literare şi etnologice (pp. 197–216). Iași, Romania: Alfa.
  • Mapelli, G. (2006). El modelo esquemático de los géneros divulgativos de astronomía. In M. V. Calvi & L. Chierichetti (Eds.), Nuevas tendencias en el discurso de especialidad (pp. 95–116). Bern, Switzerland: Lang.
  • Mapelli, G. (2009). El lenguaje técnico-científico. In M. V. Calvi, C. Bordonaba Zabala, G. Mapelli, & J. Santos López (Eds.), Las lenguas de especialidad en español (pp. 101–122). Roma, Italy: Carocci.
  • Mari, C., & Zanola, M. T. (2012). La lingua italiana e la meccanica quantistica. In A. Nesi & D. De Martino (Eds.), Lingua italiana e scienze: Atti del convegno internazionale: Firenze, Villa Medicea di Castello, 6–8 febbraio 2003 (pp. 223–237). Florence, Italy: Accademia Della Crusca.
  • Marinelli, S. (1991). Guida etimologica alla terminologia tecnico-scientifica. Bologna, Italy: Calderini.
  • Marinkovich, J. (2005). La nominalización como un recurso de cohesión léxica en los manuales de la formación técnico-profesional. RLA, 43(1), 23–44.
  • Marquet i Ferigle, L. (1993). La traducció científica i tècnica. In L. Marquet i Ferigle (Ed.), El llenguatge científic i tècnic. Barcelona, Spain: Associació/Col·legi d’Enginyers Industrials de Catalunya.
  • Martínez, M. S. (1994). Spanish-English cognates in the subtechnical vocabulary found in engineering magazine texts. English for Specific Purposes, 13(1), 81–91.
  • Mazza, C. (2012). Descrivere, narrare, argomentare nel manuale d’istruzioni per l’uso. Testi e Linguaggi, 6, 147–164.
  • Messaoudi, L. (2010). Langue spécialisée et technolecte: Quelles relations? Meta, 55(1), 127–135.
  • Miclăuș, L. (2000). Terminologia aviatică. Analele Universităţii din Timişoara (Stiinţe Filologice), 38, 227–237.
  • Miclăuș, L. (2002). Alte observații asupra terminologiei aviatice. Analele Universităţii din Timişoara (Stiinţe Filologice), 40, 93–100.
  • Mihăilă, E. (1982). Structura gramaticala a limbajului matematic in perioada 1880–1980: Perspectiva stilistica. Limba Română, 31(1), 51–65.
  • Mikhailova-Tucholke, A. (2017). Der französische Fachwortschatz im Bereich Solarenergie: Wortbildung und Lexikographie. Berlin, Germany: Frank & Timme.
  • Miotti, R. (2008). La pronunciación de los anglicismos técnicos en dos lenguas de especialidad. In C. Navarro, R. M. Rodríguez Abella, & F. Dalle Pezze (Eds.), La comunicación especializada (pp. 273–296). Berlin, Germany: Lang.
  • Miranda, L. M. C. (1989). Terminologia de informática em língua portuguesa. Uma análise lingüística e terminológica. Ciência da Informação, 18(2), 183–190.
  • Miranda, L. M. C. (1992). Terminologia de informatica em lingua portuguesa: Contribuição para uma linguagem documentaria integrada (Brasil e Portugal). Revista Brasileira de Biblioteconomia e Documentação, 25(1–2), 22–41.
  • Molitor, E. (2004). Message électronique oder E-Mail?: Einstellungen frankophoner Informatikerinnen und Informatiker zu offiziellen Ersatzwörtern für die Fachsprache des Internet und zur Sprachpolitik; Eine WWW-Befragung. Göttingen, Germany: Universitätsverlag.
  • Monterde Rey, A. M. (2007). Estudio terminológico en textos aeronáuticos de tres niveles de especialización. Ibérica, 13, 39–64.
  • Montero Fleta, B. (1996). Aspectos léxicos de la equivalencia en español de la terminología científica inglesa. Terminologie et Traduction, 3, 269–289.
  • Montero Fleta, B. (1997). Rango, categoría y orden de los elementos en los grupos nominales: Estudio contrastivo inglés/español en textos informáticos. Revista Española de Lingüística, 27(2), 409–424.
  • Montero Fleta, B. (1999). Lengua y tecnología: aspectos terminológicos. Terminologie et Traduction, 2.1999, 156–166.
  • Montero Fleta, B. (2005). Procesos de creación y renovación lingüística en relación con la innovación tecnológica: Desde fuentes orales a fuentes escritas. Lebende Sprachen, 50(4), 163–168.
  • Montero Fleta, B., & Labrador Piquer, M. J. (2012). La prefijación en terminología informática: Análisis contrastivo español-inglés. English for Specific Purposes World, 12(36), 1–19.
  • Montero Fleta, B., Montesinos López, A. I., Pérez Sabater, C., & Turney Taggart, E. (2003). The reader and the writer in technical texts in English, Spanish and Catalan. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 16, 155–164.
  • Montero-Martínez, S., Fuertes-Olivera, P. A., & García de Quesada, M. (2001). The translator as ‘language planner’: Syntactic calquing in an English-Spanish technical translation of chemical engineering. Meta, 46(4), 687–698.
  • Montesinos López, A. I. (2013). La terminologia catalana de l’àmbit de la informàtica a través del temps i de les obres terminològiques. Terminàlia, 8, 7–16.
  • Montesinos López, A. I. (2018). Anàlisi contrastiva de la terminologia informàtica en català i en espanyol. Terminàlia, 18, 37–44.
  • Montesinos López, A. I., & Bracho Lapiedra, L. (2002). Correcció i traducció de textos informàtics, València, Spain: Universitat Politècnica de València.
  • Morin, R. (2006). Spanish gender assignment in computer and Internet related loanwords. Rivista di Linguistica, 18, 325–354.
  • Mortureux, M.F. (1995). Les vocabulaires scientifiques et techniques. Les Carnets du Cediscor, 3, 13–25.
  • Nicoletti, O. (2005). Internet-Terminologie und romanische Sprachen: Beispiele aus dem Spanischen, Italienischen und Französischen. In W. Dahmen (Ed.), Englisch und Romanisch: Romanistisches Kolloquium XVIII (Vol. 486, pp. 341–368). Tübingen, Germany: Narr.
  • Nunan, I. (2012). La nanotecnología: De la ciencia ficción a la realidad. L’actualité Langagière, 9(3), 22.
  • Oprea, I. (2006). Histoire des langages techniques et scientifiques dans la Romania: Roumain. In G. Ernst, M.D. Gleßgen, C. Schmitt, & W. Schweickard (Eds.), Romanische Sprachgeschichte: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Geschichte der romanischen Sprachen (Vol. 2, pp. 2187–2196). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.
  • Ortore, M. (2014). La lingua della divulgazione astronomica oggi. Pisa, Italy: Fabrizio Serra.
  • Ozores, V. (1984). Anglicismo y electrónica: Una situación paradójica del ‘Interprete de Conferencia’. Cuadernos de Traducción e Interpretación, 4, 91–95.
  • Pajares Infante, E., & Romero Armentia, F. (1991). La predeterminación sustantiva en inglés técnico: Problemas en su interpretación y traducción al español. Anuario de Estudios Filológicos, 14, 345–362.
  • Pano, A. (2007). Los anglicismos en el lenguaje de la informática en español: El “misterioso mundo del tecnicismo” a través de foros y glosarios en línea. In D. R. Miller (Ed.), Occasional papers del CeSLiC. Bologna, Italy: University of Bologna.
  • Pârlog, H. (2005–2008). Bridge-uri, router-e și switch-uri: On Romanian computer language. Journal of English Studies, 5–6, 269–282.
  • Partal, V. (2004). El català en el món cibernètic i tecnològic. Saó, 238, 15–27.
  • Piemontese, M. E., & Saponaro Cioffi, A. (1994). L’informazione scientifica in “Due parole.” In T. De Mauro (Ed.), Studi sul trattamento linguistico dell’informazione scientifica (pp. 273–296). Rome, Italy: Bulzoni.
  • Pierozak, I. (2000). Les pratiques discursives des internautes en français: Matériaux et éléments de réflexion. Le Français Moderne, 68, 109–129.
  • Pirogowska, E. (2003). De la métaphore dans la langue informatique. Studia Romanica Posnaniensia, 30, 131–141.
  • Pleșca, G. (2017). Limbajul de specialitate, particularități și caracteristici. In Universitatea de Stat din Moldova, Facultatea de Litere, Departamentul Lingvistică Română și Știință Literară (Ed.), Norma limbii literare între tradiție și inovație materialele simpozionuliui științific cu participare internațională (Chișinău, 19 Mai 2017) (pp. 186–194). Chişinău, Moldova: Universitatea de Stat din Moldova.
  • Pöckl, W. (1990). Französisch: Fachsprachen: Langues de spécialité. In G. Holtus, M. Metzeltin, & C. Schmitt (Eds.), Lexikon der romanistischen Linguistik (Vol. 5(1), pp. 267–282). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.
  • Pöckl, W. (1998). Heutige Fachsprachen im interkulturellen Austausch II: Die Stellung der französischen Wissenschaftssprachen außerhalb Frankreichs. In L. Hoffmann, H. Kalverkämper, & H. E. Wiegand (Eds.), Fachsprachen: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Fachsprachenforschung und Terminologiewissenschaft (Vol. 1, pp. 819–828). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.
  • Pöckl, W. (1999). Die französischen Fachsprachen im 20: Jahrhundert und ihre Erforschung; Eine Übersicht. In L. Hoffmann, H. Kalverkämper, & H. E. Wiegand (Eds.), Fachsprachen: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Fachsprachenforschung und Terminologiewissenschaft (Vol. 2, pp. 1491–1503). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.
  • Pöll, B. (2002). Spanische Lexikologie: Eine Einführung. Tübingen, Germany: Gunter Narr.
  • Pop, G. (1977). Unitate si varietate in terminologia miniera din bazinele maramuresene. Cercetări de Lingvistică, 22(2), 213–215.
  • Popa, E. (2005). Les américanismes dans la presse informatique. Studii şi Cercetări Lingvistice, 56(1–2), 215–218.
  • Puglielli, A. (1992). Dall’analisi macrolinguistica all’analisi microlinguistica. In C. Serra Borneto (Ed.), Testi e macchine: Una ricerca sui manuali di istruzioni per l’uso (pp. 165–182). Milan, Italy: FrancoAngeli.
  • Qvistgaard, J. (1976). Tendances actuelles de la terminologie technique en français. Revue Romane, 11(1), 138–158.
  • Ranta, A. (1997a). Structures grammaticales dans le français mathématique: I. Mathématique et Sciences Humaines, 138, 5–56.
  • Ranta, A. (1997b). Structures grammaticales dans le français mathématique: II. Mathématique et Sciences Humaines, 139, 5–36.
  • Raus, R. (2001). Productivité de cyber et hyper dans le lexique français d’internet. La Linguistique, 37(2), 71–88.
  • Reboullet, A. (1976). Images et réalités de la langue française. In M. Blancpain & A. Reboullet (Eds.), Une langue: Le français aujourd’hui dans le monde (pp. 1–11). Paris, France: Hachette.
  • Reinart, S., & Pöckl, W. (2015). Romanische Fachsprachen: Eine Einführung mit Perspektiven aus der Übersetzungswissenschaft. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.
  • Rey Vanin, J. (2005). Estratègies introductòries i traducció en textos de divulgació científica. In M. T. Cabré & C. Bach (Eds.), Coneixement, llenguatge i discurs especialitzat (pp. 241–250). Barcelona, Spain: Documenta Universitaria.
  • Riera i Fonts, C. (1992). Manual de català científic: Orientacions lingüístiques. Barcelona, Spain: Claret.
  • Rodrigues, R. (2017). Terminologiebildung in der portugiesischen Computersprache im Kontext von Terminologieplanung und Sprachpolitik [Doctoral dissertation]. Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg.
  • Roldán-Riejos, A., & Úbeda-Mansilla, P. (2013). Análisis del uso de la metáfora en el contexto de la ingeniería. Revista Internacional de Educación y Aprendizaje, 1(1), 13–32.
  • Röntgen, K.H. (2006). Geschichte der technischen und naturwissenschaftlichen Fachsprachen in der Romania: Iberische Halbinsel. In G. Ernst, M.D. Gleßgen, C. Schmitt, & W. Schweickard (Eds.), Romanische Sprachgeschichte: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Geschichte der romanischen Sprachen (Vol. 2, pp. 2226–2238). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.
  • Rüdel-Hahn, M. (2008). Anglizismen im Internetwortschatz der romanischen Sprachen: Französisch—Italienisch—Spanisch [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Düsseldorf.
  • Sabban, A. (1998). Metaphernfelder in Texten zum Computervirus: Eine vergleichende Untersuchung zu den Sprachen Deutsch, Französisch und Spanisch. In W. Börner & K. Vogel (Eds.), Kontrast und Äquivalenz: Beiträge zu Sprachvergleich und Übersetzung (Vol. 442, pp. 250–280). Tübingen, Germany: Narr.
  • Sabban, A. (1999). Zwischensprachliche und innersprachliche Entlehnung von Redeweisen: Der Diskurs über Computerviren (Französisch—Spanisch—Deutsch). In M. Bierbach & B. von Gemmingen (Eds.), Kulturelle und sprachliche Entlehnung: Die Assimilierung des Fremden; Akten der gleichnamigen Sektion des XXV: Deutschen Romanistentags im Rahmen von Romania I (Jena, 28.9.–2.10.1997) (pp. 181–204). Bonn, Germany: Romanistischer Verlag.
  • Sampedro Losada, P. J. (2000). Anglicismos, barbarismos, neologismos y “falsos amigos” en el lenguaje informático. Las Palmas, Spain: Grupo de Lengua e Informática.
  • Sandiuc, C. (2016). The Romanian maritime vocabulary: An interdisciplinary approach. In I. Boldea & D.M. Buda (Eds.), Convergent discourses: Exploring the contexts of communication (pp. 227–233). Tîrgu Mureș, Romania: Arhipelag XXI Press.
  • Sbaragli, S. (2016). L’importanza della metafora in matematica e nella sua didattica. In M. Iori (Ed.), La Matematica e la sua Didattica/Mathematics and Mathematics Education (pp. 459–464). Bologna, Italy: Pitagora Editrice.
  • Scarpa, F. (2001). La traduzione specializzata: Lingue speciali e mediazione linguistica. Milan, Italy: Hoepli.
  • Schatzmann, M. (1999). Zwischen Fachsprache und Gemeinsprache: eine Untersuchung zur spanischen Terminologie der Automobiltechnik. Moderne Sprachen, 43(2), 172–198.
  • Schmidt-Radefeldt, J. (2013). Internetisch oder internautês? Die patchwork-Sprachvarietät der globalisierten Kommunikation. In H. Thorau, K. Sartingen, & P. Medeiros (Eds.), Aquele século teve muitas heroinas (pp. 188–206). Bern, Switzerland: Lang.
  • Schmitt, C. (1993). Der Personalcomputer und sein Einfluß auf die Entwicklung des Wortschatzes der spanischen Gegenwartssprache: Ein Beitrag zur lexikalischen Wortbildungslehre. In J. Kramer (Ed.), Verbum Romanicum: Festschrift für Maria Iliescu (Vol. 28, pp. 317–325). Hamburg, Germany: Buske.
  • Schmitt, C. (1995). Das Spanische in einer technisierten Welt: Zu Formen und Funktionen der Metaphorik in der Fachsprache der elektronischen Datenverarbeitung. In Departament de Filologia Catalana, Universität de Barcelona (Ed.), Estudis de lingüística i filologia oferts a Antoni M. Badia i Margarit (Vol. 2, pp. 311–324). Barcelona, Spain: Publicacions de l’Abadia de Montserrat.
  • Schmitt, C. (2005). Sobre la discusión de los anglicismos en el portugues: Estándar y uso desde la base del lenguaje de la informática y de Internet. Estudis Romànics, 27, 7–39.
  • Schmitt, P. A. (1999). Translation und Technik. Tübingen, Germany: Stauffenburg.
  • Schönberger, A. (1998). Fachsprachen im Katalanischen des 20: Jahrhunderts und ihre Erforschung; Eine Übersicht. In L. Hoffmann, H. Kalverkämper, & H. E. Wiegand (Eds.), Fachsprachen: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Fachsprachenforschung und Terminologiewissenschaft (Vol. 2, pp. 1521–1527). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.
  • Schreiber, M. (2004). Sprechakte in Bedienungsanleitungen aus sprachvergleichender Sicht. Lebende Sprachen, 49, 52–55.
  • Schröder, K. (2010). Französische Zeitschriften für Computer und neue Technologien: Sprachliches Profil eines Pressegenres. Berlin, Germany: Logos.
  • Schweickard, W. (1989). Rumänisch: Fachsprachen/Langues de spécialité. In G. Holtus, M. Metzeltin, & C. Schmitt (Eds.), Lexikon der romanistischen Linguistik (Vol. 3, pp. 216–225). Tübingen, Germany: Niemeyer.
  • Seewald, U. (1992). Besonderheiten der Wortbildung im französischen Wortschatz der Datenverarbeitung. Fachsprache: International Journal of LSP, 1–2, 2–13.
  • Seewald, U. (1998). Gebrauch der Metaphorik in der Sprache des Internet: Untersuchungen am Beispiel des Französischen, Italienischen und Spanischen. In A. Gil & C. Schmitt (Eds.), Kognitive und kommunikative Dimensionen der Metaphorik in den romanischen Sprachen: Akten der gleichnamigen Sektion des XXV: Deutschen Romanistentages (Jena 28.9.–2.10.1997) (Vol. 5, pp. 360–378). Bonn, Germany: Romanistischer Verlag.
  • Seiler, F. (2017). Software localization into Romance languages. In K. Bedijs & C. Maaß (Eds.), Manual of Romance languages in the media (pp. 506–520). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.
  • Sempere Martínez, J. A. (2001). La formado del llenguatge de la cibernética i els anglicismes tècnics. In J. Brumme (Ed.), La historia de los lenguajes iberorrománicos de especialidad: La divulgación de la ciencia: Actas del II Coloquio Internacional (27–29 de mayo de 1999) (pp. 333–338). Frankfurt, Germany: Vervuert.
  • Serra Borneto, C. (1992). Caratteri della procedura. In C. Serra Borneto (Ed.), Testi e macchine: Una ricerca sui manuali di istruzioni per l’uso (pp. 53–106). Milan, Italy: FrancoAngeli.
  • Serra Borneto, C. (1996). Deutsch-italienische Gebrauchsanweisungen: Versuch einer kontrativen Analyse. In B. Spillner (Ed.), Stil in Fachsprachen (pp. 169–181). Frankfurt, Germany: Lang.
  • Serra Borneto, C., & Cortelazzo, M. A. (1988). Textstruktur und Verständlichkeit der Gebrauchsanleitungen für elektrische Haushaltsgeräte. In T. Bungarten (Ed.), Sprache und Information in Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft (pp. 206–218). Tostedt, Germany: Attikon.
  • Sholkamy, M. E. S. A. (2015). I termini inglesi nel linguaggio dell’informatica italiano. Rome, Italy: Edizioni Accademiche Italiane.
  • Silva, H. P. F., Santos, J. B. B., & Cruz, C. L. S. (2009). Glossario de terminologias da area de construcao civil: Um recorte. Profiscientia, 4, 173–184.
  • Silvestri, D. (2012). Lessici tematici tra lingua standard e lessici scientifici. In A. Nesi & D. De Martino (Eds.), Lingua italiana e scienze: atti del convegno internazionale: Firenze, Villa Medicea di Castello, 6–8 febbraio 2003 (pp. 27–44). Florence, Italy: Accademia Della Crusca.
  • Simonetti, V., & Cavaliere, S. (2013). L’italiano della matematica, fisica e chimica. Perugia, Italy: Guerra.
  • Sosa Mayor, I. (2001). El vocabulario informático en los diccionarios bilingües hispanogermanos. In M. Bargalló, E. Forgas, C. Garriga, A. Rubio, & J. Schnitzer (Eds.), Las lenguas de especialidad y su didáctica (pp. 297–310). Tarragona, Spain: Universitat Rovira i Virgili.
  • Sosnowski, R. (1999). Principali caratteristiche della lingua dell’informatica. In S. Widłak (Ed.), Lingua e letteratura IV (pp. 87–96). Cracovia, Poland: Universitas.
  • Sosnowski, R. (2000). Modi di arricchimento lessicale nel linguaggio informatico italiano. In S. Vanvolsem, D. Vermandere, F. Musarra, & B. Van den Bossche (Eds.), L’italiano oltre frontiera: Atti del V° convegno internazionale, Lovanio, 22–25 aprile 1998 (pp. 359–369). Florence, Italy: Franco Cesati.
  • Stolze, R. (2009). Fachübersetzen—Ein Lehrbuch für Theorie und Praxis. Berlin, Germany: Frank & Timme.
  • Stolze, R. (2022). Die Fachübersetzung in Mathematik, Naturwissenschaften und Technik. In V. Atayan, T. Metten, & V. A. Schmidt (Eds.), Handbuch Sprache in Mathematik, Naturwissenschaften und Technik (pp. 221–240). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.
  • Sturm, S. (2016). Las interferencias sintácticas en el lenguaje técnico. Revista Electrónica de Didáctica de la Traducción y la Interpretación, 10, 1–21.
  • Taranto, M. (1994). Aspetti e problemi dei linguaggi delle scienze attraverso i quotidiani. In T. De Mauro (Ed.), Studi sul trattamento linguistico dell’informazione scientifica (pp. 91–102). Rome, Italy: Bulzoni.
  • Taylor, G. (1988). INFOR-M-A-T-IQUE: A study of ‘informatique’-related ‘-ique’ terms. Meta, 33(4), 550–559.
  • Toma, A. (2005). Interdisciplinaritate si terminologie matematică: Termeni migratori. In G. Pană Dindelegan (Coord.), Actele Conferinţei Catedrei de limba română (Bucureşti, 25–26 noiembrie 2004) (pp. 393–403). Bucharest, Romania: Editura Universităţii.
  • Toma, A. (2006). Lingvistică și mathematic: De la terminologia lexicală la terminologia discursive; Termen, limbaj, discurs, interdisciplinaritate. Bucharest, Romania: Editura Universităţii.
  • Toma, C. A. (2017). La généralisation intensionnelle et la généralisation extensionnelle dans l’architecture du discours mathématique. Diversité et Identité Culturelle en Europe, 14(2), 79–98.
  • Urzúa, C. P., Saéz, K., & Echeverría, M. S. (2006). Disponibilidad léxica matemática: Análisis cuantitativo y cualitativo. RLA, 44(2), 59–76.
  • Vanvolsem, S. (2012). Trasparenza e opacità: La definizione dei termini scientifici nei lessici. In A. Nesi & D. De Martino (Eds.), Lingua italiana e scienze: Atti del convegno internazionale: Firenze, Villa Medicea di Castello, 6–8 febbraio 2003 (pp. 45–61). Florence, Italy: Accademia della Crusca.
  • Verdelho, T. (1994). Galegisch, Portugiesisch: Fachsprachen/Tecnolectos. In G. Holtus, M. Metzeltin, & C. Schmitt (Eds.), Lexikon der romanistischen Linguistik (Vol. 6(2), pp. 339–355). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.
  • Vigner, G., & Martin, A. (1976): Le français technique. Paris, France: Hachette.
  • Vila de la Cruz, M. P. (1999). Terminología y traducción en algunas especialidades de la ingeniería industrial. In M. A. Vega & R. Martín-Gaitero (Eds.), Lengua y cultura: Estudios en torno a la traducción; Volumen II de las actas de los VII encuentros complutenses en torno a la traducción. Madrid, Spain: Instituto Universitario de Lenguas Modernas y Traductores.
  • Vivanco Cervero, V. (2001). Los animales y los colores: Usos metafóricos en español e inglés en las ingenierías. Ibérica. Revista de la Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Específicos (AELFE), 3, 57–71.
  • Vivancos Machimbarrena, M. (1996). Una correcta traducción del léxico en textos técnicos informáticos: Análisis de errores. In S. Barrueco García & E. Hernández (Eds.), Lenguas para fines específicos: IV. Investigación y enseñanza (pp. 75–86). Madrid, Spain: Universidad de Alcalá, Servicio de Publicaciones.
  • Walter, H. (1997). Le lexique de l’informatique et l’emprise de l’anglais. La Linguistique, 33(2), 45–59.
  • Wichmann, H. (1969). Typische Schwierigkeiten bei der Übersetzung französischer mathematischer Texte. Lebende Sprachen, 14(4), 103.
  • Wienen, U. (2010). La cohésion comme paramètre décisif de la traduction spécialisée: L’exemple de la reprise-commentaire (français—Allemand). In A. Dufter & D. Jacob (Eds.), Syntaxe, structure informationnelle et organisation du discours dans les langues romanes (pp. 215–227). Frankfurt, Germany: Lang.
  • Zaytseva, N. Y. (2003). Quantitative typology of Roman terminological systems. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 10(2), 143–157.