Table Of Content

Duijker/ Rijswijk: Trilingual Psychological Dictionary Volume 1: English / French / German Edited by International Union of Psychological Science Hubert C. J. Duijker Maria J. van Rijswijk Trilinp e Psychological Dictionary Volume 1: English / French/ German Second edition Hans Huber Publishers Bern Stuttgart Vienna NO LONGER THE PROPERTY UNIVERSITY NE AE sane, OFT HE Dictionary Dictionnaire _ de Psychologie en trois langues Dreisprachiges Psychologisches Worterbuch Edited by / Edité par/ H erausgegeben von International Union of Psychological Science Union Internationale de Psychologie Scientifique Internationale Vereinigung ftir wissenschaftliche Psychologie Hubert C. J. Duijker Maria J. van Rijswijk Volume 2: : Francais/ Allemand / Anglais Volume 3: Deutsch / Englisch / Französisch Volume 1: English / French/ German UNESCO subvention DG/3.2/41/78 © 1975 by International Union of Psychological Science Printed in Switzerland R e P by Lang Ltd, Bern-Liebefeld B ISBN 3-456-30558-3 Bin} Ar US Introduction V Introduction by Hubert C. J. Duijker 1. The initial stage This work represents the first attempt to provide a list of equivalent psychological terms in three of the major languages. It has resulted from the cooperation between a considerable number of psychologists and has taken many years to arrive at its present form. A brief outline of its history may be offered by way of introduction. A number of years ago, Dr. W. Luthe started a compilation of psychological terms in three languages — English, French and German — which forms the basis of the present version. We may safely assert that without his initiative, energy and persistence this work would not have appeared. To him, and to him alone, the major credit is due. At an early stage, the International Union of Psychological Science became actively interested in Dr. Luthe’s work. The reason for this interest was obvious: a trilingual lexicon might become a potent tool in fostering one of the Union’s main purposes: the facilitation of international contacts and international cooperation between psychologists all over the world. Even though only three of the major languages were represented, it was felt that the effort was worth while, since it may be assumed that nearly all psychologists are familiar with at least one of these, and may profitably use such a lexicon when trying to get access to publications in one of the other languages, with which they may be less acquainted. In view of the importance of the work started by Dr. Luthe, the Union decided — during the Bonn Congress in 1960 — to assume responsibility for its completion and publication. Since at the same time the Union decided to set up a special Committee on Publication and Communication, this Committee was given the task of seeing the lexicon through its final stages. Its first chairman — the senior editor — was asked to do such preparatory work as might be necessary; he was fortunate in obtaining the cooperation of Miss Maria J. van Rijswijk. In the meantime, a typewritten copy of one part of the lexicon (the English—French—German version) had been circulated among psychologists in various countries. Although everyone was very much impressed by the enormous amount of work done practically singlehanded by Dr. Luthe, still there were doubts and questions. It was felt that perhaps some of the major fields in psychology had not received sufficient coverage, while others might be somewhat overrepresented. Furthermore, not all translations could obtain unanimous approval. On the basis of these judgements the Union decided to take the most prudent course, i.e. to undertake a complete and thoroughgoing inspection of the whole material assembled by Dr. Luthe, and to make such changes as might be considered desirable by experts in the various fields. From the beginning it was evident that such a procedure would require a great deal of effort, time and money. However, in view of the potential importance of the VI Introduction + lexicon, it was felt that such considerations should play only a minor part. A volume of this kind will not be reprinted very soon, but has to serve during a considerable period. Defects are not easily remedied and provide a constant source of errors and irritation to its users. By its very nature it can never be perfect; but if it is published at all, it ought to be as good as the combined capacities of present-day psychologists allow. If delay was a necessary condition for improvement, then delay should be taken into the bargain. So it was decided to embark upon the time-consuming task of revision, even though, as a consequence, publication would have to be postponed. 2. Tne first and second drafts It might well be asked, why the present editors — whose mother tongue is not one of the three languages of the lexicon — nevertheless accepted the task. If pressed to give their reasons, they might reply that the trilingual lexicon would be a very useful instrument, well worth some effort; that no single person, no matter what language he speaks, would be able to perform this task alone, since a lexicon like this can only result from the cooperation of a considerable number of psychologists from the three language areas; that responsibility for the translations would have to be assumed anyhow by collaborators speaking the language in question; and that the editorial task would consist mainly in organizing the concerted effort of those who would be ultimately responsible. It might be added, that the task proved more difficult than was foreseen; and that the present version, modest and defective though it may be, represents several years’ continuous exertion by an enthusiastic team of graduate students under the direction of Miss van Rijswijk. How was the present version prepared? Dr. Luthe had provided a manuscript (the “English-first’’ version) and a large number of card files, containing translations from and into each of the three languages. This material formed the basis for the subsequent revision. Colleagues in different countries suggested a number of changes. Following these suggestions, the number of entries was considerable decreased. (The entries in question were mainly repetitions of partially identical terms, or dealt with fields which were considered somewhat overrepresented, e.g. graphology.) This, of course, was the easier part of the task, but it was also felt that a number of additional entries were needed. These had to be selected, and even more difficult, to be translated. Fortunately, we were able to profit from an excellent suggestion made by Professor D. H. Salman. The procedure proposed by him was as follows. There are several important psychological works, which have appeared in one of the three languages, and have been translated into the others. If one took these as a starting-point, one would have not only a set of translations which at least had been used by a (supposedly) competent translator, but also a technique for identifying at least some classes of terms to be included in the lexicon. This procedure was adopted. A number of translations were acquired and diligently explored. In this fashion, a large number of new translations were found. We were, however, not able to fill all the gaps. The number of existing translations vil Introduction (in the three languages) proved far from overwhelming. So other measures had to be taken. Since, for various reasons, we had started with English, it was necessary to supply translations of many French and German words. Here we had to ask the help of our colleagues. It was given promptly and unstintedly. The senior editor first went to Paris, where Professor P. Fraisse, Mrs. G. de Montmollin, Mr. G. Durup and Mr. C. Florés devoted much of their valuable time to numerous difficult problems in translation. Then Bonn was visited. Here Professor Thomae, Dr. Graumann, Dr. Aldrecht, Dr. Weinert and Dr. Frohlich were equally helpful and kind. To our French and German colleagues we offer our sincere thanks for the many excellent suggestions they have offered. About nine years ago, when the time of the Washington Congress (1963) approached, it was suggested that a first draft should be mimeographed. This would serve two purposes: first, serve as a basis for an international group of co-editors, second, function as an aid for the professional interpreters charged with the simultaneous translation of Congress papers. This plan was carried out, and a first draft was prepared. However, when it was ready, the editors discovered so many remediable defects that they decided on a new and thoroughgoing revision. This was approved by the International Union's Committee on Communication and Publication. Owing to a variety of circumstances, the preparation of the second draft took much longer than expected. It was not completed until about four years after the Washington Congress. Then it was sent to several psychologists who had expressed their willingness to carry out a final revision. Professor J. R. Paillard (Marseille), Professor R. Pagés (Paris) and Professor J.C. Brengelmann (Frankfurt) undertook this exacting and time-consuming task; their efforts resulted in very many substantial improvements in the original text. The 1.U.P.S. is highly indebted to them for the help they have given so liberally and effectively. In 1971 the various amendments finally had been incorporated in the manuscript. Thus the Executive Committee of the |.U.P.S. was able, during its 1971 meeting, to sign the contract with the publishers. 3. Some important problems a. The problem of selection This is to be a lexicon of psychological terms. What is a psychological term? In practically all psychological texts numerous words are found which belong to the normal (non-technical) language, such as: child, female, hearing, vision, leader, learning, rat, maze. It is the purpose of the lexicon to supplement the existing dictionaries, not to supplant them. Clearly, the best rule to adopt is to exclude all words that are to be found in the standard dictionaries. This rule has been followed in most cases. Nevertheless, there are some exceptions. First of all, a dictionary may offer a large number of near-equivalents, of which only one or two are used in the Vill Introduction ~ psychological literature. In such a case, it is useful to include in the lexicon the most appropriate translation. Of course, here, as everywhere, it is difficult to formulate an ; unambiguous criterion: we have relied on the consensus of our consultants. If we decide, at least in principle, to exclude all words belonging to the general idiom, must we, on the other hand, include all psychological terms? This question is by no means easy to answer. Psychologists seem to be fond of coining new words. With some exaggeration one might say that every psychologist to a certain extent has his own vocabulary. Many of the psychological neologisms are found in the writings of one author only. Must they be included, if a translation could be discovered? At the present stage, we have decided to leave out those words which have not been accepted by a somewhat larger public. Consequently, we have included only those words which occur in the existing dictionaries of psychology. A very important consideration was that for personal vocabularies no adequate translation could be found anyway, and that, on the rare occasions when they are quoted in a text in another language, they are left untranslated.- A further difficult problem was the following. Psychology had many connections with other fields of scientific enquiry: physiology, neurology, psychiatry, biology, sociology, pedagogics, physics, mathematics, cybernetics, linguistics, to name a few. In many cases, it is far from easy to decide whether a word belongs to the vocabulary of psychology or one of the other sciences. A decision is the more difficult because psychologists themselves are not quite in agreement as to the precise scope of their own discipline. For instance, some psychologists are practically indistinguishable from physiologists; while others deny that physiological data have any importance whatsoever for psychological studies. In the case of physiology, as in the others, we have attempted to keep to the middle of the road. Perhaps some of our colleagues wil! feel that we have drawn our boundaries too narrowly; other may reproach us that we have included too many terms from adjacent fields. Here also, we eventually have had to rely upon the considered judgment of our consultants. Many terms, indubitably psychological, are international in the sense that they are identical, apart from some differences in orthography, in the three languages concerned. It might be argued that such words might be left out. Nevertheless, a good many of them have been included. We believe that the future users of the lexicon may not always know which words are international in the sense mentioned above and would appreciate to have them listed. b. The problems of translation The three languages we are concerned with are, linguistically speaking, rather closely related. Nevertheless, each of them has its own character, and translation from any of them into the other(s) poses many intriguing problems.