# 06_83(3) Andjelkovic:tipska.qxd 67 Jelena Anđelković1*, Jelena Filipović2 1University of Belgrade, Faculty of Organizational Sciences, Serbia 2University of Belgrade, Faculty of Philology, Serbia Management: Journal of Sustainable Business and Management Solutions in Emerging Economies 2018/23(3) Management and Leadership in Serbian Terminology Work DOI: 10.7595/management.fon.2018.0025 1. Introduction Scientific and technical terminology represents the most important component of the language for specific purposes and can be considered a strategic resource of key importance for professional communication, information, and knowledge transfer. That is why terminology today is a significant topic of scientific re- search in the fields of linguistics, translation theory, language and terminology policy and planning, know- * Corresponding author: Jelena Anđelković, e-mail: plecasj@fon.bg.ac.rs Research question: This paper studies the roles of Terminology Leadership (Filipovic 2012, 2015; Filipovic & Vuco, 2012; Filipovic & Djordan, 2018) and Terminology Management model (Jernudd & Neustupny, 1987, 1991; Jernudd 1993, 1997 in Antia, 2000, p.3; Spolsky, 2004, 2009, 2012) in the implementation of terminology policy and planning in Serbia, and the sustainable development of Serbian scientific and technical terminology. Motivation: As in almost all standard-language cultures (Quirk,1990), the Serbian language policy is top-down oriented, i.e., it follows the lan- guage management model. In this model, all decisions regarding the language, including terminology decisions, are made by linguists - language planners, without taking into account the opinions of professional and academic com- munities, i.e., the primary creators and users of terminology. Newer European terminology guidelines, especially the widely accepted UNESCO Guidelines for Terminological Policies (2005, p.3), however, propose that terminology work should be approached both top-down, i.e., on the level of political decision-making (following the terminology management model), and bottom-up, i.e., on the level of professional associations and other terminology stakehol- ders (following the complementary model of terminology leadership). Idea: The idea behind this paper is to investi- gate to what extent the terminology leadership model and the bottom-up orientation in the Serbian terminology policy and planning are recognized and accepted by various groups of stakeholders in comparison with the dominant lan- guage management model. Data: The data regarding the perspectives of two groups of terminology stakeholders (technical translators and professional / academic community) towards the state of the Serbian subject-field termi- nology and terminology management were collected, analyzed, interpreted and compared. Tools: The data were collected through two surveys on terminology work (Andjelkovic, 2018). While the first survey focuses on translators’ perspective on terminology management, the second survey examines the attitude of the academic community to- wards the terminology state of their own subject field: management. Findings: The surveys’ results confirm that both groups of terminology stakeholders recognise the importance of collaborative and cooperative work of lin- guists and subject field specialists in terminology policy making, planning and implementation, and thus do not re- gard linguists (i.e., language planners) as exclusive language and terminology decision-makers. The results also indicate, however, that there is still a very strong influence of standard-language ideology and the top-down oriented language policy. Contribution: The paper suggests a change in the implementation of the Serbian terminology policy and planning that is more in line with the European terminology Guidelines (UNESCO, 2005). Keywords: terminology management, terminology leadership, terminology policy and planning, adaptive lea- dership, enabling leadership, administrative leadership. JEL Classification: Y8, O2, Z0 ledge management, information science, computational linguistics, natural language processing, etc. Bea- ring in mind the constructivism approach to science of the late 20th and early 21st centuries that erases boundaries between scientific disciplines and advocates a trans-disciplinary approach to the creation and use of academic resources in general, and terminology resources as well (Filipovic, 2015), terminology is nowadays mostly studied within interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary studies. Scientific and technical terminology development is closely related to the socio-economic situation in the mo- dern world, i.e., to economic, financial, and cultural globalisation, the rapid development of information and communication technologies, the global status of English as the international lingua franca (Clyne & Shari- fian, 2008), and the growing contrast between the developed and developing economies and markets. Na- mely, economically and technologically developed, dominantly English-speaking, markets and economies have turned the English language into the dominant language of professional and scientific communication and the main provider of terminology worldwide, especially in rapidly growing subject-fields and disciplines. This resulted in the globalisation and internalisation of terminology, justified by the need for efficient and ef- fortless international communication. This process, however, also created significant terminology and com- munication problems in non-English languages of developing countries, especially in languages of lesser diffusion (Piper, 1998; Bugarski, 2003) and their respective emerging economies and markets. As a coun- tebalance to terminology globalisation, these countries and languages emphasize a need for localisation, i.e., translation, creation, and adaptation of terminology for the purpose of its maintenance in the language in question (Schaffner, 1999). Localisation is thus aimed at preserving the diversity, functionality and su- stainable development of individual specialised languages for the dissemination and transfer of specialized knowledge and information. In order to preserve the functionality of a language in its professional domains of use and ensure its sustai- nability, a country requires a responsible and systematically implemented language policy and planning (LPP), and terminology policy and planning (TPP) as an integral part of corpus language policy in particu- lar (Filipovic & Djordan, 2018; Jakic, 2014). In this paper, the Serbian language terminology is viewed from the perspective of terminology policy and planning, with the aim of establishing the roles of terminology management and terminology leadership models in TPP formulation and implementation. The following sections of this paper define the concepts of language policy and planning (LPP), terminology policy and planning (TPP), language and terminology management, as well as language and terminology leadership, with a particular focus on the ambiguity of the term terminology management in the strictest and in the widest sense. Further in this paper, results of two questionnaires focusing on the Serbian terminology work, authority and cooperation will be provided, with the aim of discovering to what extent the terminology management and terminology leadership models are represented in terminology policy and planning im- plementation in the Republic of Serbia. 2. Management and Leadership in Language and Terminology 2.1 Language policy and planning (LPP), language management, and language leadership Language policy and planning (hereinafter referred to as LPP) is often defined as “organized, targeted and long-term activity of state institutions on various aspects of the status, form, and domain of use of a parti- cular language variant” (Filipovic, 2009, p.54). LPP “is never independent of political, economic, and social theory” (Ricento, 2006, p.19), i.e., it is always influenced by macro-sociopolitical processes and events, epi- stemological paradigms, and strategic goals (Ricento, 2006, p.26; Filipovic, 2009, p.55). The definitions stated above refer to the top-down oriented LPP, in which all the decisions regarding the se- lection of a linguistic variant to be standardized (status LPP), the language structures, forms and vocabulary to be processed (corpus LPP) and the varieties to be used in education (educational LPP) are made by aut- horized institutions and entities (Filipovic, 2015, p. 44). The top-down orientation in language policy and planning is typical of standard-language cultures (Milroy, 2001; Filipovic, 2009; 2012; 2015), i.e., language communities in which the standard language is regarded as the main carrier of national and individual uni- queness (Filipovic, 2015, p. 47). Under the strong influence of the standard language culture, the Serbian language and its terminology have been viewed as the responsibility of linguists, i.e., top-down oriented language planners (Filipovic & Djordan, 2018), indifferent to real life language practices and speakers’ com- municative needs and any bottom-up oriented terminology and language policy and planning (Filipovic, 2015, p. 47). 68 Jelena Anđelković, Jelena Filipović 2018/23(3) This traditional top-down LPP orientation is associated with a more contemporary Language Management paradigm (introduced by Jernudd & Neustupny, 1987, 1991; Jernudd, 1993, 1997 in Antia, 2000, p.3, and further elaborated by Spolsky, 2004, 2009, 2012). This paradigm transferred the focus from the planning model to the management model (Jernudd, 1993, p.134 in Antia, 2000, p. 3), and applied management concepts and terms to linguistic research and language policy (Spolsky, 2009 in Filipovic, 2015, p. 44). In the language management model, the role of a language manager is of crucial importance. In stan- dard-language cultures, the role of a language manager is performed by an authoritative national insti- tution that imposes language rules and decisions, introduces prescriptive measures and publishes language manuals (Spolsky, 2004, p. 8). Filipovic and Vuco (2012, p. 9) define language managers as individuals, institutions or countries whose activities directly correlate with certain sociopolitical, episte- mological and strategic interests of political entities. In management science, a manager is superior to other members of the organization, and in case of language, a language manager is superior to other members of society, language or professional community (Filipovic, 2015, p. 45). The top-down orien- tation advocated by the language management model is to some extent problematic since it fails to re- cognize the facts that language change is inseparable from social change, and that a language needs to adapt to communicative, social, psychological, cultural, and professional needs of certain social groups and communities (Filipovic, 2015, p. 48-49). These facts imply that a language policy also needs to be implemented bottom-up, which leads to an alternative (and complementary) model of language leadership (Filipovic, 2015). The concept of leadership has been adopted from the Complexity theory (Uhl-Bien et al., 2007, Wheatley, 2004, Zenousi & Dehghan, 2012; Byrne, 2002), a comprehensive epistemological paradigm that opposes the hierarchical scientific methods of positivist and structuralist orientation. In linguistic research human or- ganizations are also defined as complex systems, and the concept of language leadership, interpreted from a macro-complexity perspective, is successuflly applied to language policy and planning (Filipovic, 2015, pp. 29-30). Witin the language leadership model, the hierarchical relationship that managers have towards other members of the community (top-down orientation) is replaced by a heterarhic structure, partnership, teams, and networking (bottom-up orientation) (Whitley, 2004, pp. 13-14). Language leaders, unlike lan- guage managers, act as initiators or motivators who do not use their formal positions of power to impose certain language patterns and practices and pressure others to use them too (Filipovic, 2015, p. 5) but still influence language behaviour of others because of the respect and positive attitude that other members of the community have towards them (Filipovic, 2015, p. 46). Those members of language communities and / or professional communities that introduce emergent language behaviour (new forms resulting from the ful- fillment of communication needs) are regarded as adaptive language leaders. Individuals who spread this language behaviour beyond their own language community, through interaction with external members, are enabling language leaders. Since the emergent language practice sometimes does not follow the dominant language ideology, the introduction of such practices sometimes implies significant language and social changes, and often encounters disapproval of those outside the given community (Eckert & McConnell- Ginet, 1992). In the event that the approval is nevertheless reached, language managers give way to admi- nistrative language leaders, who, unlike managers, work closely with enabling language leaders (Filipovic, 2015, p. 40). The terminology policy and planning model that will be outlined in the sections below is based on the language leadership model. 2.2 Terminology policy and planning (TPP), terminology management and terminology leadership Terminology policy and planning (hereinafter referred to as TPP), as an integral part of a national language corpus policy and planning, is concerned with the strategies for development and regulation of terminology and terminology systems of professions and sciences in the given language, i.e., political decisions and in- terventions aimed at the conscious, systematic and sustainable development of the language for specific pur- poses and its terminology. The basic goal of terminology planning is the fulfillment of communication needs in scientific and professional domains and the provision of intra-lingual and inter-lingual communication in languages for specific purposes. Terminology planning is, however, often done purposely, i.e., decisions re- garding terminology planning can actually be a tool for achieving socioeconomic transformational policies (UNESCO, 2005, p. 6). Although there is a general consensus that the TPP should be based on a predefined model, it seems that there is no single TPP model that would be fully applicable to all languages without adapting it to their re- spective socio-cultural and socio-political circumstances. A possible exception may be the UNESCO Gui- delines for Terminological Policies: Designing and Implementing Terminology Policy in Language 69 Management: Journal of Sustainable Business and Management Solutions in Emerging Economies 2018/23(3) Communities, formulated in cooperation with the international terminology organization Infoterm in 2005, as well as the international standard ISO 29383:2010 Terminology policies - development and implementation. These two documents set out the general framework of the terminology policy and planning model, advo- cating a conscious, systematic, and controlled approach to the creation, maintenance, and use of termino- logy for the purpose of its sustainable development within a language community. The UNESCO Guidelines state that strategic decisions on terminology policy should be made top-down, i.e., on the level of political decision-making (with a recommendation that this policy be multilingual and non-restrictive), but they also claim that the TPP is created and implemented bottom-up, i.e., on the local level: in private companies, non- governmental organizations, professional associations etc. (UNESCO, 2005, p. 3). In other words, termino- logy policy is not the sole responsibility of language planners (as is the case in almost all standard-language cultures), but it should also be dealt with by those members of professionaland academic communities who, for the sake of adequate communication, continually upgrade and change the conceptual and terminologi- cal systems of their professions. The UNESCO Guidelines may thus imply that terminology policy and plan- ning should be imlemented in accordance with the language leadership, rather than with the language management model (explained above) to ensure sustainable development and maintenance of functiona- lity of professional discourse and terminology in languages of lesser diffusion such as Serbian. Even though this paper observes terminology management as part of the language management model, it is important to note that terminology management is a somewhat problematic concept accross disciplines (in termino- logy science, terminology policy and planning, translation theory, computational linguistics and other dis- ciplines, etc.). There are several reasons behind this. When first used, the terminology management term labelled “every deliberate manipulation of terminologi- cal information” (Wright & Budin, 1997, p. 1). By emphasizing the word management, these authors wished to highlight the importance of dealing with the quantity of information available to us in the modern world, and the importance of managing and controlling the information available (Wright & Budin, 1997, p. 2-3). The same authors drew a parallel between terminology management and information management, as both of them are, in fact, total quality management tools. Terminology management activities, according to Wright and Budin (1997, p. 22-23), are as follows: • Creating and naming new concepts, i.e., assigning terms to concepts in order to meet the need for a precise and unequivocal language for professional communication; • Systematic recording of terminological information in dictionaries, terminology collections and da- tabases; • Use of terminology information for oral and written translation, technical writing and information ma- nagement. Over time, the range of activities, products, and resources attributed to terminology management has ex- panded to also include the following: • Selection of terminological units for terminographic processing and / or standardization; • Creation and exploitation of a wider range of primary and secondary terminological resources and products: language corpora for special purposes, printed and electronic terminology dictionaries, glossaries, lexicons, terminology databases and terminology knowledge bases (ontologies), termi- nology norms and other collections of terms; • Development and exploitation of software tools and terminology management systems (TMSs); • Provision of terminological services; • Organization of terminological trainings, etc. Due to the diversity of terminology activities, the role of terminology managers is performed by various sta- keholders, i.e., the representatives of professional and academic communities, translators, translation agen- cies and translation departments in public, private and international companies, computational linguists and natural language processing (NLP) experts, but also by language planners and national and international language and standardization institutions, and many others. Terminology management is thus conducted on several levels: individual, local, national, and international, and is performed with diverse aims. Having all the abovesaid in mind, we believe that terminology management can be observed in its strict and its wide senses. Terminology management in its strict sense denotes the development and use of software solutions for ter- minology storage, i.e., terminology management systems (TMSs) as integral parts of computer-assisted translation tools (CAT) that contribute to the development of machine translation (MT) systems, all directed towards technical translation and terminology localization. 70 Jelena Anđelković, Jelena Filipović 2018/23(3) Thus, terminology activities undertaken by technical translators, translation agencies, and translation de- partments within larger organizations, public or private enterprises belong to terminology management in the strict sense. Translators employ various methods to collect and store terminology, create glossaries and internal termbases, lists of terms or terminology use, guidelines, and handbooks (Bucher, 2007, p.44; Fiser, 2008). These terminology storage methods not only accelerate and facilitate translation of technical texts, help with technical writing and assist in professional communication in general, but they also improve the con- sistency and quality of translation, at the same time keeping the price of translation lower. A number of com- mercially available software systems for terminology activities (Terminology Management Systems -TMSs) that can be used in translation and technical writing are available nowadays. These systems are most commonly integrated into CAT tools (Computer-Assisted Translation tools), along with translation memories (TMs). The most popular CAT tools are SDL Trados, OmegaT, and MemoQ (Gornostay, 2010). In order to promote their products, commercial software producers emphasize the benefits that terminology management systems bring to corporate users, particularly the fact that they contribute to a better understanding of relevant termi- nology by employees, prevent terminology errors in technical documentation, reduce the time of technical documents production, lower translation costs, and contribute to the consistency of translation (SDL sof- tware company). The fact is, however, that the number of organizations consistently and systematically en- gaged in terminology activities is still rather small, the most important reasons behind this being the lack of awareness of their importance, high costs of terminology manangement systems, and the fact that benefits are difficult to measure. The fact is, however, that the number of organizations consistently and systematically engaged in termino- logy activities is still rather small, the most important reasons behind this being the lack of awareness of their importance, high costs of terminology manangement systems, and the fact that benefits are difficult to mea- sure. The Department for Communications, Training and Preparation of the Serbian Version of Acquis Commu- nautaire within the Ministry of European Integration, Government of the Republic of Serbia, has recognized the importance of using terminology management software tools and systems. In order to achieve termi- nological consistency and quality of translation of the massive documentation necessary for the EU inte- gration process for the Republic of Serbia, the Department has developed an electronic terminographic resource: the multilingual terminology database Evronim, with over 18,000 terminology units in Serbian and their English equivalents (sometimes along with equivalents in several other 15 European languages, including Latin). Along with Evronim, the Department is also in charge of Evroteka, a bilingual, English-Ser- bian collection of legal texts. The collection is aligned and represents a translation memory created using the SDL Trados tool, currently containing more than 100,000 words. In its wide sense, terminology management is not an operational, but a sociolinguistic category that is a part of the top-down oriented language management (outlined above), concerned with strategic decisions and recommendations regarding terminology development, implementation of national terminology policies, and maintenance of national terminological infrastructures. In the wide sense, terminology management en- compasses both both descriptive and prescriptive activities (Wright & Budin, 1997, p.18), aimed at docu- menting and standardizing terminology used in a particular domain. These activities are organized, coordinated and systematically implemented by national terminology centres, language and standardization institutions with the purpose of harmonizing and standardizing terminology, and formulating and imple- menting terminological language policy and planning. The term management within the phrase terminology management implies a hierarchical top-down relation- ship between national language and terminology institutions as the only strategic decision-makers regarding terminology, on the one hand, and the actual terminology users - members of professional and academic communities, on the other hand. In other words, terminology management in its widest sense does not ack- nowledge the importance of networking, mutual cooperation and interdisciplinary collaboration between all the terminology stakeholders: terminology and language planners, domain / subjectfield specialists, com- putational linguists, technical translators, etc. Lack of cooperation and partialised terminology activities would result in non-transparency and redundancy of terminology work. For this reason we believe that the concept of terminology management in its wider sense should be complemented by another concept, the one of terminology leadership. Terminology leadership, in line with the concept of language leadership (outlined above), implies mutual cooperation, hierarchical relationship and interdisciplinary networking between all the terminology stake- holders, i.e., associations, institutions and individuals who create, edit, maintain, translate, use, and stan- dardize terminology. 71 Management: Journal of Sustainable Business and Management Solutions in Emerging Economies 2018/23(3) Figure 1 represents the Terminology leadership model, proposed by Filipovic & Djordan (2018), with all the terminology stakeholders classified into adaptable, enabling, and administrative terminology leaders. In this heterarchical relationship, adaptable terminological leaders are those members of professional or academic communities (i.e., subject field / domain experts) who introduce new terminology units into a language. A new terminology unit can be created either through the process of primary term formation, i.e., by designating a newly created concept in the source language, or through the process of secondary term formation, i.e., by translating or borrowing (with or without orthographic and morphosyntactic adaptation) the term created in the primary term formation process in the target language (Humbley, 2003, p.197). This aspect of termino- logy leadership is not limited to members of professional and academic communities, but is also quite often done by technical translators, when a term with no available translation equivalent is encountered. Enabling terminology leaders, on the other hand, are the ones who, through interdisciplinary dialogue and coopera- tion with members of other professional communities, verify the monosemy and adequacy of the given term or its translation into a target language. Finally, administrative terminology leaders are institutions that consist of linguists, translators and terminology planners, as well as members of other disciplines and professions (domain specialists), who work together on the harmonization, systematization and standardization of termi- nology of individual scientific and professional disciplines. The final, administrative, level of terminology lea- dreship thus also includes the activities of terminology management in its strictest sense, i.e., the creation of terminology resources, such as dictionaries, termbases, terminology portals and national terminology banks, which are inevitably performed in close cooperation between all the abovementioned stakeholders. Through networking and cooperation, the three types of terminology leaders jointly contribute to the effective termi- nology planning and responsible terminology policy implementation, while interdisciplinary cooperation and networking exist not only between, but also within all three levels of terminology leadership. Figure 1: Terminology leadership model (adapted from Filipovic & Djordan, 2018) 3. Management and Leadership in Terminology Work 3.1 Terminology management in its strictest sense: translators’ perspective A number of studies and surveys regarding terminology management in translation have been carried out. Most of the studies referred to the use of software tools and systems in translation, organizing and storing terminology by freelance translators, translation agencies and translation departments within large organi- zations (Fulford & Granell-Zafra, 2005; Lagoudaki, 2006; Fischer, 2008; Gornostay, 2010, etc.). Some of the research (Gornostay, 2010) identifies lists of terms in Microsoft Excel and Microsoft Word as still the most popular ways of storing terminology for further use in translation. None of the above surveys, however, in- cluded translators or translation agencies from Serbia. In order to discover the terminology management habits of Serbian translators, a small-scale study was conducted in the form of an online questionnaire (Andjelkovic, 2018). Fifty translators participated in the study: 22 (44%) full-time freelance translators, 4 (8%) translators working for translation agencies, 8 (16%) in-house translators employed by various companies, 10 (20%) foreign language teachers occasionally en- gaged in technical translation, 3 (6%) professional terminologists, and 3 (6%) respondents from other pro- 72 Jelena Anđelković, Jelena Filipović 2018/23(3) fessions and with no formal education in foreign languages, but with experience in technical translation. The majority of respondents (34, or 68%) had more than 10 years of translation experience, while only 5 res- pondents (10 %) had had been translating for less than three years. Most respondents (46, or 92 %) tran- slate from English. Other languages that the respondents marked were German, French, Italian, Russian, Slovene, Albanian, etc. (respondents were allowed to mark one or more languages). When asked whether and how they store new terminology encountered in the translation process for furt- her reference, only 11 out of 50 respondents (20.75%) claimed that they do not manage or store it in any way. Most respondents, however, replied that they manage terminology by making lists of terms in MS Word (18 or 33.96% of respondents) or MS Excel (17 or 32.08% of respondents), while only 7 respondents (13.21%) use terminology management systems (Figure 2). Figure 2: Terminology management habits of translators in Serbia In order to discover to what extent terminology management is present in formal education of translators, the respondents were asked a closed question that referred to whether they had had a chance to learn about terminology management practice and tools during their formal education. Almost two thirds (34, or 68%) of the respondents stated that they had not had any training in terminology management in schools and universities. A small number of respondents acquired this knowledge on their own through translation practice (11 or 22%), while only three respondents (6%) attended a seminar or a workshop on terminology management for translation purposes (Figure 3). Figure 3: Terminology management in formal education of translators in Serbia 73 Management: Journal of Sustainable Business and Management Solutions in Emerging Economies 2018/23(3) 13.21% 20.75% 32.08% 33.96% I use TM tools I do not store information on new terms I make lists of terms in MS Excel I make lists of terms in MS Word 68% 6% 22% No, I have not had any training Yes, I attended seminars, workshops and other kinds of training I learnt on my own, through translation practice In the next question, the respondents were asked how they resolved terminology translation dilemmas in case no available terminological resource provides an adequate translation equivalent. Respondents were asked to mark one or more out of four offered responses. Forty-one respondents (82%) claim that they consult translation contractors, while 32 respondents (64%) seek advice from other translators. Only 7 res- pondents (14%) follow their own instinct when unsure of the appropriate translation of a term, while only two respondents (4%) claim that they resolve terminological dilemma by consulting subject field experts who are not contractors of the given translation (Figure 4). Figure 4: Cooperation in terminology management: translators’ opinion 3.2 Terminology management and leadership: professionals’ perspective Another study (Andjelkovic, 2018), aimed at examining the state of Serbian terminology in the domain of ma- nagement, provided some interesting results regarding the opinions of the academic community (about ter- minology activities and problems encountered in this domain, as well as the matter of terminological responsibility. A total of 48 respondents filled in the questionaire. All the respondents were members of the teaching staff at the study group of Management and Organization at the Faculty of Organizational Scien- ces, University of Belgrade, i.e., 4full professors, 6 associate professors, 6 assistant professors, and 34 te- aching assistants. When asked whether they believe there are terminology problems in the subject domain of management in the Serbian language, as many as 94 % of the respondents have confirmed that they do exist. Figure 5: Are there terminology problems in the subject field of management in Serbian? In the following question, the respondents were offered several terminology problems and asked mark them on a scale from 1(most important) to 5 (least important). The most important problem, according to 42 res- pondents (or 87.5%), is the lack of Serbian equivalents for foreign terms, followed by terminology depen- 74 Jelena Anđelković, Jelena Filipović 2018/23(3) 32 41 2 7 0 10 20 30 40 50 I consult other translators I consult translation contractors I consult subject field experts I follow personal instinct dence on the English language (38 respondents, or 79.17%), non-standardized terminology (31 respo- ndents, or 64.58%), the lack of terminological resources (25 respondents, or 52.08%), and terminology syn- onymy (22 respondents, or 45,83%). Figure 6: Types of terminology problems in the subject field of management In a multiple choice question focusing on the responsibility for terminology management in its widest sense, the respondents were able to chose among three options: a) linguists, i.e., language planners, b) experts for the subject filed of management, and c) both. As many as 41 respondents (85.52%) stated that mana- gement experts and language experts should share this responsibilty and act cooperatively when solving terminology issues. Only four respondents (8.33 %) claimed that terminology management (in the widest sense) was the sole responsibility of language experts, while only three of them (6.25 %) opted for subject field (i.e., management) experts. Figure 7: Cooperation in terminology work: subject field experts’ opinion The last question in the questionnaire focused on institutional foundations for terminology management in the Serbian language. In response to the multiple choice question about which institution(s) should be in charge of scientific and technical terminology for this particular subject field, 15 respondents (34.09%) mar- ked universities, i.e., faculties or departments which are parent to certain areas, while nine respondents (20.45%) claimed that this should be the Institute for the Serbian Language within the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts. Seven respondents (16%) marked several institutions, thus expressing their belief that cooperation between the aforementioned institutions is needed. An interesting fact is that as many as ten respondents (22.73%) replied that the institution in charge should be a newly established centre for termi- nology (Figure 8). 75 Management: Journal of Sustainable Business and Management Solutions in Emerging Economies 2018/23(3) 87.50% 79.17% 64.58% 52.08% 45.83% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% La ck o f S er bi an eq ui va le nt s fo r En gl is h te rm s Te rm in ol og y de pe nd en ce o n th e En gl is h la ng ua ge N on -s ta nd ar di ze d te rm in ol og y La ck o f t er m in ol og ic al re so ur ce s Te rm in ol og y sy no ny m y Figure 8: Serbian institutions responsible for TPP: subject field experts’ opinion 3.3. Diverse or similar perspectives on management and leadership in terminology: a discussion Sections 3.1. and 3.2. above provide an overview of the results of two questionnaires focusing on scientific and technical terminology in the Serbian language. Even though the two questionnaires share the overall topic and have a similar number of respondents, they differ in a number of ways. While the first questio- nairre targets translators and their perception of terminology management, i.e., terminology management in its strictest sense, the second questionairre is aimed at members of professional community (for the sub- ject field of management) and their perception on how the terminology of their subject field should be ma- naged, as well as on who should be in charge of this task. In other words, the second questionnaire observes terminology management in its widest sense. The results of the two surveys can be observed independently, but they are also, despite the differences, to a certain extent comparable, while their comparison can lead to interesting conclusions. The results of the first questionnaire indicate that terminology management trainings for translators (i.e., ter- minology management in its strictest sense) are lacking in Serbian formal education. Such statistics may in- dicate the need for organizing trainings and workshops in terminology work in order to raise awareness of its importance and the benefits it brings to quality and consistency of translation. In addition, the fact that most translators claim to consult subject field experts when faced with a terminology translation problem may indicate that they are very much aware of the importance of interdisciplinary networking and cooperation in terminology work. The results of the second questionnaire confirm that subject field experts (i.e., members of academic com- munity and management experts) are very much aware of the existence of terminology problems in their sub- ject field. The majority of the respondents believe that the most important among these problems is the existence of terminology gaps in Serbian, as well as dependence on English and uncritical acceptance of English terms. Another interesting finding is that the majority of the respondents to this questionnaire believe that language planners and subject field experts share the responsibility of managing terminology in their subject field. This may suggest that they are, similarly to translators, aware of the importance of transdisciplinary cooperation and teamwork on finding solutions to terminological problems in the field of management. In addition, the respondents in this questionnaire are rather divided regarding their view on which institution should be in charge of terminology planning (i.e., terminology management in its strictest sense); some of them also be- lieve that this should be done cooperatively between several of the stated institutions. These findings indi- cate that the members of this academic community are fairly divided between accepting their own responsibility for terminology of their profesional domain and transfering the responsibility to (or sharing it with) an institution that exclusively employs linguists, and not experts in management, thus confirming the need for transdisciplinary cooperation discussed above. In other words, there seem to exist a mild opposi- tion to the traditional top-down orientation in terminology planning (i.e., in terminology management in its 76 Jelena Anđelković, Jelena Filipović 2018/23(3) 77 Management: Journal of Sustainable Business and Management Solutions in Emerging Economies 2018/23(3) widest sense) dominant in Serbia (Filipovic & Djordan, 2018) in which terminology decisions are made by authorized language institutions and entities that employ solely linguists as language and terminology plan- ners. Another orientation, bottom-up oriented terminology planning (Filipovic, 2015, p. 47) seems to be gai- ning pace, thus transferring Serbian terminology planning away from the terminology management to the terminology leadership model. In line with the need for transdisciplinary cooperation and networking in terminology work, and following the model of some European terminology institutions (particularly the Swedish terminology centreTerminologi- centrum TNC2), the Faculty of Philology, University of Belgrade is in the process of founding The Centre for terminology, translation and transdisciplinary studies. The idea behind the Centre is to, following the termi- nology leadership model, develop and maintain a network of terminologists from different professions, and coordinate the existing and forthcoming terminology-related projects and activities in the Serbian language through the activities of collecting, selecting, and harmonizing the terminology of individual fields, creating terminology resources (technical dictionaries, glossaries, lexicons, termbases, technical writing manuals, etc.), developing and using terminology management tools and systems, providing terminology services and support to organizations and individuals, providing training in terminology, technical writing, and professio- nal translation, and cooperating with national and international language, terminology and standardization institutions. The terminology centre as such is expected to significantly contribute to the harmonization, sy- stematization, and standardization of subject field terminologies and thus to the construction of a complete terminology infrastructure of the Serbian language. Conclusion The concept behind the term terminology management is not only ambiguous, but it also implies a hierarchical relations- hip between different actors and stakeholders. Terminology leadership, in contrast to terminology management (in its wi- dest sense), puts emphasis on interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary networking, heterarhical relations, cooperation, and teamwork. Two groups of respondents in two separate surveys, members of an academic community (management experts) and re- presentatives of translators (language experts), both confirmed the need for networking, interdisciplinary and transdisci- plinary cooperation and exchange of experiences in terminology work, thus indicating a shift from the application of terminology management (in its widest sense) to terminology leadership model in Serbian terminology planning for the subject field of management. Some of the replies, however, still indicate the strong influence of the standard lanuage cul- ture, with the dominant traditional top down orientation in language and terminology planning, in which linguists are seen as exclusive language and terminology planners in a language community. The results of the surveys thus indicate a growing need for revising and repositioning Serbian terminology planning for this subject field towards a more flexible and democratic leadership model, which would recognize both linguists and subject field experts as terminology decision-makers for this subject field to ensure its sustainable development and maintenance of professional discourse functionality in the Serbian language. In future, similar research should be carried out in subject fields to ensure that similar approach is acceptable across disciplines. If the results show similar tendencies, a step towards implementation of the terminology leadership model would be the work of the newly founded Centre for terminology, tran- slation and transdisciplinary studies at the University of Belgrade. REFERENCES [1] Andjelkovic, J. (2018). Terminologija menadžmenta: u prilog razvoju terminološke i jezičke politike i planiranja (unpublished doctoral thesis). Faculty of Philology, University of Belgrade, Serbia. [2] Antia, B.E. (2000). Terminology and language planning: an alternative framework of practice and dis- course. John Benjamins Co. Philadelphia: USA [3] Bucher, A. L. (2007). Terminology work: The Swedish way. Terminologija,14, 37-48 [4] Bugarski, R. (2003). Jezici. Beograd: XX vek. [5] Byrne, D. (2002). Complexity theory and the social sciences: An introduction. Rutledge. [6] Clyne, M., & Sharifian, F. (2008). English as an international language. Australian Review of Applied Lin- guistics, 31(3), 28-1.DOI: 10.2104/aral0828 [7] Eckert, P. & McConnell-Ginet, S. (1992). Think practically and look locally: Language and gender as community-based practice. Annual Review of Anthropology. Palo Alto: Annual Reviews. 21:461-490. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.an.21.100192.002333 [8] Filipovic, J. (2009). Moć reči: Ogledi iz kritičke sociolingvistike. Beograd: Zadužbina Andrejević. [9] Filipovic, J. (2012). Language policy and planning from the complexity perspective. U: Julijana Vuco, J. & Filipovic, J.: Philological Research Today. Language and Society. Filološki fakultet: Beograd, 285- 320. [10] Filipovic, J., & Vuco, J. (2012). Language policy and planning in Serbia: language management and lan- guage leadership. Anali Filološkog fakulteta, 24: 9-32. [11] Filipovic, J. (2015). Transdisciplinary Approach to Language Study. Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: 10.1057/9781137538468 [12] Filipovic, J., Djordan, A. (2018). Terminološka politika i planiranje u Srbiji: interdisciplinarni pristup. Srp- ski jezik (paper accepted for publication) [13] Fiser, D. (2008). Recent trends in the translation industry in Slovenia. The Journal of Specialised Trans- lation, 10.Retrieved from http://www.jostrans.org/issue10/art_fiser.php [14] Fulford, H., & Granell-Zafra, J. (2005). Translation and technology: A study of UK freelance translators. The Journal of Specialised Translation, 4 (1). [15] Gornostay, T. (2010, March). Terminology management in real use. In Proceedings of the 5th Interna- tional Conference Applied Linguistics in Science and Education , 25-26.Retrieved from https://www.re- searchgate.net/profile/Tatiana_Gornostay/publication/236218911_Terminology_Management_in_Real_ Use/links/00b7d5171480061b1c000000/Terminology-Management-in-Real-Use.pdf [16] Humbley, J. (2003). Metaphor and secondary term formation. Cahier du CIEL 2000-2003, 197 – 210.Re- trieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.625.3801&rep=rep1&type=pdf#page=197 [17] Jakic, G. (2014). Terminologija organizacionih nauka. Beograd:Fakultet organizacionih nauka [18] Jernudd, B. (1993). Language planning from a management perspective: An interpretation of findings. Language conflict and language planning, 72, 133. [19] Jernudd, B. (1997). New agencies in language planning.” TermNext News, 56, 57, 14-17. [20] Jernudd, B. H., & Neustupný, J. V. (1987). Language planning: for whom. In Proceedings of the inter- national colloquium on language planning (pp. 69-84). Québec: Les Presses de l'Université Laval. [21] Lagoudaki, E. (2006). Translation memory systems: enlightening users' perspective; key findings of the TM survey 2006 carried out during July and August 2006.Retrieved from https://pdfs.semantic- scholar.org/6c55/2454a3368e08cee7dc9a5fb3aa441a79db35.pdf [22] Milroy, J. (2001). Language ideologies and the consequences of standardization. Journal of Sociolin- guistics. 5 (4), 530-555. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9481.00163 [23] Neustupny, J., & Jernudd, B. H. (1991). Multi-disciplined language planning. 29-36. [24] Piper, P. (1998). O velikim i malim jezicima u svetlu lingvističke ekologije. Filološki pregled, 25(1), 67- 86. [25] Ricento, T. ed. (2006). An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method. Malden, MA, USA, Blackwell Publishing. [26] Schaffner, C. (1999). Globalisation, Communication, Translation. Current Issues in Language & Society, 6(2), 93-102.DOI: 10.1080/13520529909615538 [27] SDL software company (2018). Terminology Resource Hub. Retrieved from http://www.sdl.com/soft- ware-and-services/translation-software/terminology-management/terminology-resource-hub/. [28] Spolsky, B. (2004).Language Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [29] Spolsky, B. (2009). Language Management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [30] Spolsky, B. (ed.). (2012). The Cambridge Handbook of Language Policy. Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511979026 [31] Terminologicentrum TNC (2018). TNC, the Swedish Centre for Terminology Retrieved from http://www.tnc.se/om-tnc/in-english/ 78 Jelena Anđelković, Jelena Filipović 2018/23(3) 79 Management: Journal of Sustainable Business and Management Solutions in Emerging Economies 2018/23(3) About the Author [32] UNESCO (2005). Guidelines for terminology policies: formulating and implementing terminology poli- cies in language communities. United Nations: ParisUhl-Bien, M., Marion R. & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity Leadership Theory: Shifting Leadership from the Industrial Age to the Knowledge Era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18/4: 298–318. DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.04.002 [33] Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The leadership quarterly, 18(4), 298-318. DOI:10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.04.002 [34] Whitley, M.J. (2004). Leadership and the New Science. Discovering Order in a Chaotic World. San Fran- cisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc. [35] Wright, S. E., G. Budin (1997). Handbook of Terminology Management -Volume 1: Basic Aspects of Terminology Management. Philadelphia, USA: John Benjamins Publishing Company Received: 2018-02-07 Revisions requested: 2018-03-11 Revised: 2018-05-19 Accepted: 2018-08-30 Jelena Anđelković University of Belgrade, Faculty of Organizational Sciences, Serbia plecasj@fon.bg.ac.rs Jelena Anđelković is a Teaching Assistant at the Faculty of Organizational Sciences, University of Belgrade, with a PhD in linguistics. Her academic and research interests include languages for specific purposes, corpus linguistics, terminology language policy and planning, and terminology management. Jelena Filipović University of Belgrade, Faculty of Philology, Serbia jelenafbgd@gmail.com Jelena Filipović is a Professor of the Spanish language and Sociolinguistics and the Vice-Dean for Scientific Development at the Faculty of Philology, University of Belgrade. Her academic interests include sociolinguistics, critical sociolinguistics, Sephardic studies, Hispanic linguistics, applied linguistics, and language policy and planning. << /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles true /AutoRotatePages /All /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (Dot Gain 20%) /CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Warning /CompatibilityLevel 1.4 /CompressObjects /Tags /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages true /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /DetectCurves 0.0000 /ColorConversionStrategy /LeaveColorUnchanged /DoThumbnails false /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedOpenType false /ParseICCProfilesInComments true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams false /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize true /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments true /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveDICMYKValues true /PreserveEPSInfo true /PreserveFlatness true /PreserveHalftoneInfo false /PreserveOPIComments false /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts true /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply /UCRandBGInfo /Preserve /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /CropColorImages true /ColorImageMinResolution 300 /ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /ColorImageResolution 300 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages true /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages true /GrayImageMinResolution 300 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages true /MonoImageMinResolution 1200 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 1200 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict << /K -1 >> /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile (None) /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier () /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName () /PDFXTrapped /False /CreateJDFFile false /Description << /ARA /BGR /CHS /CHT /CZE /DAN /DEU /ESP /ETI /FRA /GRE /HEB /HRV /HUN /ITA /JPN /KOR /LTH /LVI /NLD (Gebruik deze instellingen om Adobe PDF-documenten te maken voor kwaliteitsafdrukken op desktopprinters en proofers. De gemaakte PDF-documenten kunnen worden geopend met Acrobat en Adobe Reader 5.0 en hoger.) /NOR /POL /PTB /RUM /RUS /SKY /SLV /SUO /SVE /TUR /UKR /ENU (Use these settings to create Adobe PDF documents for quality printing on desktop printers and proofers. Created PDF documents can be opened with Acrobat and Adobe Reader 5.0 and later.) >> /Namespace [ (Adobe) (Common) (1.0) ] /OtherNamespaces [ << /AsReaderSpreads false /CropImagesToFrames true /ErrorControl /WarnAndContinue /FlattenerIgnoreSpreadOverrides false /IncludeGuidesGrids false /IncludeNonPrinting false /IncludeSlug false /Namespace [ (Adobe) (InDesign) (4.0) ] /OmitPlacedBitmaps false /OmitPlacedEPS false /OmitPlacedPDF false /SimulateOverprint /Legacy >> << /AddBleedMarks false /AddColorBars false /AddCropMarks false /AddPageInfo false /AddRegMarks false /ConvertColors /NoConversion /DestinationProfileName () /DestinationProfileSelector /NA /Downsample16BitImages true /FlattenerPreset << /PresetSelector /MediumResolution >> /FormElements false /GenerateStructure true /IncludeBookmarks false /IncludeHyperlinks false /IncludeInteractive false /IncludeLayers false /IncludeProfiles true /MultimediaHandling /UseObjectSettings /Namespace [ (Adobe) (CreativeSuite) (2.0) ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfileSelector /NA /PreserveEditing true /UntaggedCMYKHandling /LeaveUntagged /UntaggedRGBHandling /LeaveUntagged /UseDocumentBleed false >> ] >> setdistillerparams << /HWResolution [2400 2400] /PageSize [623.622 850.394] >> setpagedevice