Cognitive Approaches to Specialist

Languages 1st Edition Marcin Grygiel

(Ed.)
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/cognitive-approaches-to-specialist-languages-1st-edit
ion-marcin-grygiel-ed/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Pluricentric Languages and Language Education :

Pedagogical Implications and Innovative Approaches to
Language Teaching 1st Edition Callies

https://textbookfull.com/product/pluricentric-languages-and-
language-education-pedagogical-implications-and-innovative-
approaches-to-language-teaching-1st-edition-callies/

Africa s endangered languages documentary and

theoretical approaches 1st Edition Jason Kandybowicz

https://textbookfull.com/product/africa-s-endangered-languages-
documentary-and-theoretical-approaches-1st-edition-jason-
kandybowicz/

The Extended Theory of Cognitive Creativity:

Interdisciplinary Approaches to Performativity Antonino
Pennisi

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-extended-theory-of-
cognitive-creativity-interdisciplinary-approaches-to-
performativity-antonino-pennisi/

Universal Approaches to Support Children s Physical and

Cognitive Development in the Early Years 1st Edition
Soan

https://textbookfull.com/product/universal-approaches-to-support-
children-s-physical-and-cognitive-development-in-the-early-
years-1st-edition-soan/
Microsoft Specialist Guide to Microsoft Windows 10 1st
Edition Byron Wright

https://textbookfull.com/product/microsoft-specialist-guide-to-
microsoft-windows-10-1st-edition-byron-wright/

Speech Perception Production and Acquisition

Multidisciplinary approaches in Chinese languages
Huei■Mei Liu

https://textbookfull.com/product/speech-perception-production-
and-acquisition-multidisciplinary-approaches-in-chinese-
languages-huei%e2%80%90mei-liu/

A Specialist Periodical Report 1st Edition Maxim

Ryadnov

https://textbookfull.com/product/a-specialist-periodical-
report-1st-edition-maxim-ryadnov/

Naturalizing Logico Mathematical Knowledge Approaches

from Philosophy Psychology and Cognitive Science 1st
Edition Sorin Bangu

https://textbookfull.com/product/naturalizing-logico-
mathematical-knowledge-approaches-from-philosophy-psychology-and-
cognitive-science-1st-edition-sorin-bangu/

Minority Languages from Western Europe and Russia

Comparative Approaches and Categorical Configurations
Svetlana Moskvitcheva

https://textbookfull.com/product/minority-languages-from-western-
europe-and-russia-comparative-approaches-and-categorical-
configurations-svetlana-moskvitcheva/
Cognitive Approaches
to Specialist Languages
Cognitive Approaches
to Specialist Languages
Edited by

Marcin Grygiel
Cognitive Approaches to Specialist Languages

Edited by Marcin Grygiel

This book first published 2017

Cambridge Scholars Publishing

Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Copyright © 2017 by Marcin Grygiel and contributors

All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without
the prior permission of the copyright owner.

ISBN (10): 1-4438-5515-4

ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-5515-0
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface ...................................................................................................... viii

Part I. Introduction

Chapter One ................................................................................................. 2

Specialist Languages and Cognitive Linguistics: A Marriage
of Convenience or Irreconcilable Opposites?
Marcin Grygiel

Part II. Language of Discourse Communities

Chapter Two .............................................................................................. 16

A Cognitive Linguistics Approach to the Discourse of Drug Information
for Experts and Patients
Maria Cornelia Wermuth

Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 55

Are (Polish) Politicians out of this World? Conceptual Metaphors
of Outer Space in Political Discourse
Ewa GieroĔ-Czepczor

Chapter Four .............................................................................................. 78

The Same Genre for Different Audiences: A Contrastive Analysis
of American and British Football Match Reports
Marcin Lewandowski

Part III. Language of Business and Finance

Chapter Five ............................................................................................ 100

Inferential Patterns in the Translation of Financial Metaphors
José Mateo

Chapter Six .............................................................................................. 126

Keep Your Head in the Clouds and Your Feet on the Ground:
The Metaphorics of Financial Management
Marcin Grygiel
vi Table of Contents

Part IV. Language of Law

Chapter Seven.......................................................................................... 150

A Cognitive Linguistics Approach to Plain Language Translations
of American Divorce Law
Charles R. Dyer

Chapter Eight ........................................................................................... 185

Towards a Cognitive Linguistics Account of a Terminological Database:
The Case of Legal Language
Edyta WiĊcáawska

Part V. Language of Aviation

Chapter Nine............................................................................................ 202

‘PLANES ARE BIRDS’ Metaphor: A Cognitively Oriented Study
of Aviation Vocabulary
Beata Kopecka

Chapter Ten ............................................................................................. 214

Aviation Radiotelephony Discourse: An Issue of Safety
Olena Petrashchuk

Part VI. Technical Language

Chapter Eleven ........................................................................................ 234

Specialist Vocabulary: Cognitively Motivated Onomasiology behind
English Computer Hardware and Software Terminology
Piotr Cymbalista

Chapter Twelve ....................................................................................... 263

Metaphor in Terminology: A Case Study of Human Body Terms
in the Domain of Heavy Machinery
Ivana Králiková and Wei-lun Lu

Part VII. Metaphors in Billboards and Headlines

Chapter Thirteen ...................................................................................... 274

A Cognitive Linguistics Analysis of Baby-Boom Promoting Billboards
in Iran
Mohsen Bakhtiar
 Cognitive Approaches to Specialist Languages vii

Chapter Fourteen ..................................................................................... 304

Stylistic Devices and Metaphorical Creativity in Popular Science
Headlines in English and Polish: A Cognitive Linguistics Perspective
Marta Boátuü

Part VIII. Frame-Based Approaches

Chapter Fifteen ........................................................................................ 330

Semantic and Conceptual Aspects of Volcano Verb Collocates within
the Natural Disaster Domain: A Frame-Based Terminology Approach
José Manuel Ureña Gómez-Moreno and Miriam Buendía Castro

Chapter Sixteen ....................................................................................... 351

The Use of Framing to Conceptualize Specialized Terminology
Catherine Diederich

Chapter Seventeen ................................................................................... 372

A Frame Semantics Approach to Management
Paulina PotĊga

Part IX. Translation, Terminology and Corpora

Chapter Eighteen ..................................................................................... 384

Cluster Equivalence, General Language and Language for Specific
Purposes
Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk

Chapter Nineteen ..................................................................................... 419

Written in the Wind: Cultural Variation in Terminology
Pamela Faber and Laura Medina Rull

Chapter Twenty ....................................................................................... 443

The Success of Low-Salience Terms
Mariusz Górnicz
 PREFACE

Many of the contributions to this volume were originally presented during

a theme session “Cognitive Approaches to Specialist Languages”
organized at the Polish Cognitive Linguistics Association 2015
Conference in Lublin. Others were invited by the editor especially for this
collection and they include contributions written by prominent scholars in
the fields of Cognitive Linguistics and Applied Linguistics, among others,
Pamela Faber, Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, Maria Cornelia
Wermuth, José Mateo, Catherine Diederich, Wei-Lun Lu or José Manuel
Ureña Gómez-Moreno. The contributors constitute an international team
and represent countries as diverse as Poland (five different universities),
Ukraine, Czech Republic, Spain, USA, Taiwan, Switzerland, Belgium.
The proposed volume, however, is not a collection of selected
proceedings of a theme session but it has a character of a monograph. Its
aim is to discuss various ways of approaching the problems associated
with a very broad phenomenon of specialist languages by means of the
analytical mechanisms and theoretical conceptions developed within the
framework of Cognitive Linguistics. Specialist languages (e.g. language of
law, language of business, language of aviation, language of football,
language of journalism, etc.) can be perceived as highly conventionalized,
semi-natural and not fully autonomous communication codes limited to
specific, predominantly formal, situations. A large number of them can be
best characterized by subject matter and semantic content, but the most
important distinctive element in their make-up seems to be the frame of
context in which they are embedded.
The subject to be discussed in the volume is innovative as it offers a
new way of researching specialist texts – the kind of linguistic output
which is especially popular among corpus linguists, translators,
lexicographers, dictionary compilers, data-base creators, text analysts.
‘Specialist languages’, ‘special languages’, ‘specialized languages’ or
‘languages for special/specific purposes’ are terms more widely used
among practitioners than theorists and are tightly connected to professional
practices. Similarly, Cognitive Linguistics is a usage-based model in
which language reality is perceived as inextricably linked to human
experience. The proposed volume offers a wide range of perspectives on a
well-defined and closely focused question of a possible contribution of
Cognitive Linguistics to the study of specialist languages.
 PART I.

INTRODUCTION
 CHAPTER ONE

SPECIALIST LANGUAGES AND COGNITIVE

LINGUISTICS: A MARRIAGE OF CONVENIENCE
OR IRRECONCILABLE OPPOSITES?

MARCIN GRYGIEL

Introduction
‘Specialist languages’, ‘special languages’, ‘specialized languages’
(henceforth SL) or ‘languages for special/specific purposes’ are terms
more widely used among practitioners than theorists. Yet, despite their
enormous popularity, SL remain a little researched and variously defined
area of applied linguistics (Sobkowiak 2008, Grucza 2009, Lewandowski
2013, Wille 2014). SL are mostly characterized by subject-specific
terminology or a communication situation with a particular frame of
reference and may include specific linguistic means of expression. These
mostly cover lexical, semantic, stylistic and syntactic features. SL are
traditionally invoked in the contexts of foreign language teaching and
translation studies to refer to ergolects of business, medicine, law and
other subject areas which are considered vital from the communicative
point of view in professional interaction.
The aim of this chapter is to discuss a possible contribution of
Cognitive Linguistics (henceforth CL) to the study of SL. CL is a usage-
based model in which language reality is perceived as inextricably linked
to human experience. Similarly, the concept of SL is both usage-oriented
and tightly connected to professional practices. SL seem to constitute an
ontologically gradient phenomenon which generates a number of
controversies. Some researchers discard SL as a construct for investigation,
claiming that instead of languages we are dealing with terminologies or
discourses. Others maintain that a specialist language includes “the totality
of all linguistic means” and should be investigated at all linguistic levels
(Hoffmann 1976: 170). Still in other approaches, SL are treated as semi-
autonomous variants, varieties, jargons, technolects or sub-languages
 Specialist Languages and Cognitive Linguistics 3

based on expert knowledge. The question arises to what extent these

semiotic systems should be considered natural and to what extent artificial
languages. What role does cognition play in the emergence and
development of SL?
CL promises to be a framework that could offer novel insights into the
problem of defining and better understanding of SL. Additionally, CL can
serve as an analytical tool in accounting how SL are conceptualized and
linked to professional practices. Consequently, the aim of this chapter, as
well as the whole volume, is to show the usefulness of cognitive apparatus
in the study of SL.

Characteristic features of SL
The present chapter attempts to draw a broad background for the main
ideas that will be developed in more detail in the subsequent parts of the
volume. One of its focuses is the notion of SL and their characteristic
features. SL function in a great variety of types, but they generally share a
number of converging areas and common characteristics. These similarities
may be centered around language use, topic, audience, communicative
goals, production circumstances (Schulze and Römer 2008). We should
not forget, however, that SL are themselves very dynamic phenomena that
fluctuate in the continuum between specialist and non-specialist
communication as well as different levels of granularity. SL are definitely
far from being uniform and the notions we associate with them are in fact
conventionalized generalizations highlighting the most prototypical cores
of stability around which they emerge. Thus, SL in their totality should be
treated more like abstractions and conceptual structures rather than
physical entities. This is the reason why in Grygiel (this volume – Chapter 6)
I approach SL as three dimensional multimodal forms of communication
where specialist knowledge, professional practices and modes of linguistic
expression are mixed together.1
The most important characteristic features of SL, which make them
different from more general means of communication, involve primarily
the specific language use. This covers – first of all – lexis, morpho-syntax
as well as textual patterning. Of all the three categories, lexis has definitely
been considered the most prominent area of research and, accordingly,

1
Similarly, Gotti (2003: 24) refers to “specialist discourse” as “the specialized use
of language in contexts that are typical of a specialized community stretching
across the academic, the professional, the technical and the occupational areas of
knowledge and practice”.
4 Chapter One

received much more attention in linguistic literature on SL than the two

remaining classes. The distinctiveness of lexical items used in specialist
texts persuaded many scholars to treat lexis as a separate phenomenon and
even, metonymically, equate its applications with the whole concept of
SL. Thus, SL are often associated with their most central – lexical –
component and, as a result of the pars pro toto reasoning, are frequently
reduced to the study of terminology.
According to Gotti (2003), the salient lexical characteristics of SL
include monoreferentiality and precision. As the major goal of SL is to
communicate a precise message, efficiency is a great priority and words
with a double meaning in context as well as figures of speech and
metaphorical expressions, which are common in literary texts, are
generally avoided. Monoreferentiality means that there is one word form
used for one referent and its exact sense can be inferred without reference
to the context. Consequently, one term signals a concept in a given
specialized subject domain and a given term cannot be substituted by a
synonym but only by definition or paraphrase. Sinclair (1996: 82) defines
this “terminological tendency” within SL as “the tendency for a word to
have a fixed meaning in reference to the world, so that anyone wanting to
name its referent would have little option but to use it, especially if the
relationship works in both directions”.
The lack of emotion and lack of ambiguity have been posited as other
characteristic traits of SL. The traditionally held view is that SL should be
neutral, logical and informative as their main function is purely denotative.
Furthermore, they are also described as transparent. The feature of
transparency describes the fact that within SL it should be always possible
to promptly access the meaning of a term through its surface form and
translators should be able to apply literal translation procedures. SL
accommodate those values by being as specific, unambiguous and thus as
literal or transparent as possible. Consequently, they are often assumed to
function as ideally objective containers of scientific knowledge and
empirical findings.
However, in practice SL are far from being artificial languages
constructed to perform pre-programmed functions. Cases of ambiguity,
imprecision and semantic instability have also been detected, especially in
social disciplines (economics, and non-exact sciences) and at times also in
legal language. Many studies show that SL do not have a different
grammar or lexis with respect to common language. The only difference is
the frequency of usage of grammar rules and lexis (Chubaryan and
Muradyan 2015).
 Specialist Languages and Cognitive Linguistics 5

Because the general function of specialist texts is usually the

transmission of knowledge, they are characterized by a greater repetition
of terms, phrases, sentences, and even full paragraphs. This can also mean
that the text shows similarities in the syntactic constructions used. Among
the typical linguistic features of academic prose are the frequent use of
nouns, adjectives, and prepositions – as well as a comparatively infrequent
use of verbs, pronouns, and adverbs (Biber 1988, Biber et al. 1999).
Terms are generally represented by compound nominal forms. They
have meanings specific of a given domain. As a result, understanding a
terminology-rich text requires knowledge of the domain, the concepts
within it, the propositional relations within the text, as well as the
conceptual relations between concepts within the domain.2 This is a key
factor in the translation of specialist texts by a translator, who is obliged to
acquire the specialist knowledge necessary to understand the entities and
processes described in the source text (Faber 2012).

Examples of applying CL analytical tools to SL

According to many SL researchers (e.g. Faber 2012 or Herrmann and
Sardinha 2015), CL is an attractive linguistic paradigm for the analysis of
SL. For example, Faber (2012: 6) claims that “the emphasis placed by
Cognitive Linguistics on conceptual description and structure, category
organization, and metaphor coincides to a certain extent with crucial areas
of focus in Terminology, such as scientific ontologies, the conceptual
reference of terminological units, the structure of scientific and technical
domains, and specialized knowledge representation”.
On the other hand, however, we should bear in mind that CL is not
one, uniform and rigorously defined approach to the study of language.
Instead, CL could be treated as an umbrella term which includes not only
work on Cognitive Grammar, Conceptual Metaphor Theory, Conceptual
Metonymy Theory (Panther and Radden 1999, Barcelona 2000, 2012) and
Conceptual Blending Theory, but also other cognitive-oriented theories
such as Construction Grammar (Goldberg 1995, 2006), Cognitive
Semantics (Talmy 2000), Conceptual Semantics (Jackendoff 1983, 1990,
1997), and Frame Semantics (Fillmore 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1982,
1985, 1991, 2003a, 2003b, 2009).

2
In fact, Meyer (1992: 20) notices that terminology is “somewhat of a misnomer:
most fundamentally, it is not the study of terms but rather of the knowledge
conveyed by the terms”.
6 Chapter One

Numerous studies carried out within the Conceptual Metaphor Theory

(CMT) paradigm have suggested that metaphorical language use is
pervasive in natural language across many different domains of application
including textual genres, contextual registers, discourses and SL in
general. Thus, the role of metaphors has been studied in the language of
business and economics (Henderson 2000, White 2003, Koller 2004,
Crawford Camiciottoli 2007, Grygiel 2015), technical communication
(Giles 2008), medicine (Salager-Meyer 1990), biosciences (Larson et al.
2005, Hellsten 2008, Nerlich et al. 2009), environmental studies (Larson
2011), physics (Pulaczewska 1999), law (Smith 2007), newspapers
(Krennmayr 2013), football (Lewandowski 2013), politics (Musolff 2004),
academic discourse (Herrmann 2013) and many other varieties of SL.
As far as academic discourse is concerned, the type of SL used in this
context cannot be confined to a common subject as academic discourse
can be further subdivided into humanities and arts, natural sciences,
politics, law, education, and social sciences. Instead, Herrmann (2013:
127) claims that in the case of academic prose the audience is specialist, its
dialect domain is global and its main communicative purposes are
information, argumentation and explanation. As a result of being grounded
in a distinctive type of SL, metaphors indentified in academic discourse
display a distributional profile of their own. Herrmann’s (2013) analysis
suggests that although metaphorical use is relatively stable in terms of
frequency across academic sub-registers, certain features of academic sub-
registers, such as subject matter, stylistic conventions, and typical
communicative goals are likely to influence the distribution of metaphor
types across academic fields and disciplines. All sub-registers rely largely
on indirect metaphor, but implicit and direct metaphor vary across sub-
registers, with natural sciences, humanities and arts showing a higher
proportion of direct metaphors than the other two sub-registers, but
probably for divergent reasons; while natural sciences may use direct
metaphors for pedagogical reasons, humanities and arts may also apply
them to create aesthetically rich prose.
It seems that all studies where CMT is applied to investigate SL appear
to suggest that metaphorical language use is ubiquitous in SL and may
play a special role in the careful production of the registers associated with
informational exposition, specifically with regard to their focus on
conveying densely packed and highly precise information. Thus,
metaphors are conceptual tools that exploit familiar knowledge to render
possible the creation of abstract SL ideas across a wide range of source
domains. This is compatible with the basic position of CMT (Lakoff,
1987, 1993; Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, 1999) which sees metaphor as an
 Specialist Languages and Cognitive Linguistics 7

indispensable phenomenon of natural discourse spread across all domains,

and more abstract domains in particular.
CMT seems to be the most popular and widely used CL model applied
to the analysis of SL. However, other researchers are more interested in
finding a more general cognitive mechanism that would be able to
describe both dynamic aspects and multi-level construction of SL.
Specialist languages can be thought of as representations of micro-realities
which integrate specific linguistic expressions, expert knowledge, special
practices and particular socio-cultural settings. All of these elements seem
to be amenable to frame-based modeling in the form of dynamic scenarios
with their interactional properties. A cognitive frame refers to events,
perceived as schematized ‘scenes’ or ‘situations’, and has a form of a
scenario containing typical roles played by participants, objects
manipulated by them and background factors in which the events are
anchored. It schematizes connections between experience and language
and contains links to more elaborate knowledge structures. As a result,
frames have the advantage of making explicit both the potential semantic
and syntactic behavior of specialist language units.
Frames are typically activated and indexed by words (or specialist
terminology) associated with them. By means of frames, a language-user
interprets her/his environment, formulates her/his own messages, understands
the messages of others, and accumulates or creates an internal model of
her/his world (Fillmore 1976: 23).Thus, frame-based approaches, more
than other accounts, allow for the dynamicity, inherent to specialist
languages, to be taken into consideration and are able to explain any
specialist language in terms of an on-going process rather than to represent
it as a ready-made product.
There have been a number of influential applications of Fillmore’s
Frame Semantics (Fillmore 1976, 1982, 1985; Fillmore and Atkins 1992;
Fillmore et al. 2003) and previous frame-based models to the study of
specialist languages, specialized discourse, specialized terminology,
specialized knowledge and ontology (e.g. Fillmore and Atkins 1992,
Kralingen 1995, 1997; Faber 2012, 2014; Faber and León-Araúz 2014;
Diederich 2015). For example, in Faber’s Frame-Based Terminology
approach certain aspects of Frames Semantics are used to structure
specialized domains and create non-language-specific representations.
Such configurations form the conceptual meaning underlying specialized
texts in different languages, and thus facilitate specialized knowledge
acquisition. One of the basic premises of this approach is that the
description of specialized domains is based on the events that generally
take place in them, and can be represented accordingly (Grinev and
8 Chapter One

Klepalchenko 1999). Each knowledge area thus has its own event
template.

Advantages of applying CL to SL
Traditional approaches to SL have been mostly descriptive and
comparative – describing differences between specialist language and
general language, e.g. Business English and General English or between
various types of specialist languages confronted with each other.
Figurative language seems to have been officially banished from the realm
of scientific and specialist communication. Such analyses, though useful
and practical, are merely anecdotic if they are not placed within the richer
context of a wider theoretical framework.
Similarly, most studies on SL have been conducted on a small scale or
have been limited in their focus, investigating only a small set of linguistic
phenomena such as the use of the passive voice and the concentration of
semantic information in complex nominal forms. Accordingly, manuals
and research in terminology tend to restrict themselves to a description of
practical matters regarding database organization, information extraction,
term entry design, language planning, etc (Faber 2012). In the same line,
broad quantitative studies which utilize a transparent, systematic method
that identifies all metaphorical language rather than particular subgroups
have largely been absent.
Thus, the biggest advantage of applying CL to the study of SL is
putting this investigation not only in the context of a comprehensive
theory of language use but also in an even wider perspective where
language makes part of cognition and is subjected to cognitive processes.
As a result, SL can be studied as coherent and uniform semiotic codes
without being separated from the specialist knowledge and culture or
social setting with which they are closely integrated. We should not forget
that SL, when used in an authentic context, are always culture-specific. In
fact, they may be global, nationally based or reflect particular corporate
cultures.
In comparison to previous approaches, CL offers better models for the
theory of SL. Cognitive mechanisms such as metaphor or metonymy are
able to explain the construction of SL in terms of conceptual transfers
between micro-realities. Thus, CL makes it possible to study linguistically
encoded ‘SL micro-realities’ as systematically motivated metaphorical
construals. Conceptual metaphors sanction context-specific practices,
procedures, behavior. The idea that meaning is context-dependent and
 Specialist Languages and Cognitive Linguistics 9

encyclopedic, on the other hand, is the basis of the notion of frame, which
is in consonance with the knowledge-specific approach to meaning in SL.
CL challenges the assumed arbitrariness and objectivity of not only
linguistic, but also social and cultural reality. From this perspective, SL
can be regarded not as mere mirrors of the reality around us, but also as
active participants taking part in the creation of this reality. SL can be
perceived as tools for accumulation and transmission of knowledge and
experience, but these tools are shaped by cognitive mechanisms and have a
human dimension. SL constitute modes of organizing human knowledge,
ideas, experiences, practices, conventions. They play a crucial role in the
construction of socio-cultural settings encapsulated in language. As a
consequence, they are rooted in the specific micro-realities with their
concrete contexts and their understanding is only possible in the
framework of cognitive processes that make our interaction with the
outside world possible.

Conclusions
Specialist vocabulary, and by extension specialist texts as well as
specialist languages, are often described as monoreferential, formal,
subject-specific, devoid of emotions, non-metaphorical, technical, precise
and based on clearly delineated Aristotelian boundaries. Despite the fact,
however, that specialist languages are to a large extent a product of
artificial processes of language engineering rather than natural language
evolution and development, they are a creation of human minds and
constitute scientific or quasi-scientific models. On the other hand,
cognitive linguistics offers a number of analytical tools which seem to be
ideally suited for the study of sociolinguistic, semantic, pragmatic and
discursive aspects of specialist languages. As such, they can be equally
revealing in cognitive pursuits and provide a good source of information
about how specific fragments of reality are shaped, structured and
categorized in the form of idealized, mental languages.

References
Barcelona, A. 2000. “On the plausibility of claiming a metonymic
motivation for conceptual metaphor”. In A. Barcelona (ed.), Metaphor
and metonymy at the crossroads. Berlin / New York, NY: Mouton de
Gruyter, 31–58.
Barcelona, A. 2012. “Metonymy in, under, and above the lexicon”. In S.
Martín Alegre, M. Moyer, E. Pladevall, and S. Tubau (eds.). At a Time
10 Chapter One

of Crisis: English and American Studies in Spain. Barcelona:

Departament de Filologia Anglesa i de Germanistíca, Universitat
Autònoma de Barcelona, 254-271.
Biber, D. 1988. Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. 1999. The
Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London:
Longman.
Chubaryan, A. and G. Muradyan. 2015. “On some research and
methodological peculiarities of specialized discourse”. Foreign
Languages in Higher Education 1(18), 125-132.
Crawford Camiciottoli, B. 2007. The Language of Business Studies
Lectures: A Corpus-assisted Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Diederich, C. 2015. Sensory Adjectives in the Discourse of Food: A
Frame-Semantic Approach to Language and Perception. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Faber, P. (ed.) 2012. A Cognitive Linguistics View of Terminology and
Specialized Language. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Faber, P. 2014. ‘Frames as a framework for terminology’. In Kockaert,
Hendrik J. and Steurs, Frieda (eds.). Handbook of Terminology, Vol. 1.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 14-33.
Faber, P. and P. León Araúz. 2014. “Specialized knowledge dynamics.
From cognition to culture-bound terminology”. In R. Temmerman and
M. Campenhoudt (eds.) Dynamics and Terminology. Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 135-158.
Fillmore, C. J. 1975. ‘An alternative to checklist theories of meaning’.
Proceeedings of the First Annual Meeting, Berkeley Linguistics
Society, 123–31.
—. 1976. “Frame Semantics and the nature of language”. In S. R. Harnad,
et al. (eds.) Origins and Evolution of Language and Speech. New
York: New York Academy of Sciences, 20–32.
—. 1977. “Topics in Lexical Semantics”. In P. Cole (ed.), Current Issues
in Linguistic Theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 76– 136.
—. 1978. “On the Organization of Semantic Information in the Lexicon”.
In D. Frakas, et al (eds.) Papers from the Parasession on the Lexicon.
Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 148–73.
—. 1982. “Frame Semantics”. In Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.)
Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul: Hanshin, 111–138.
—. 1985. “Frames and the semantics of understanding”. Quadernie di
Semantica 6 (2), 222–254.
 Specialist Languages and Cognitive Linguistics 11

—. 1991. “Corpus linguistics” or “computer-aided armchair linguistics.”

In J. Svartvik (ed.) Directions in Corpus Linguistics: Proceedings of
Nobel Symposium. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter, 35– 60.
—. 2003a. “Organization of semantic information in the lexicon”. In C.J.
Fillmore (ed.) Language Form, Meaning, and Practice. Stanford: CSLI
Publications.
—. 2003b. ‘Topics in lexical semantics’. In C.F. Fillmore, Language
Form, Meaning, and Practice. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
—. 2007. Valency issues in FrameNet. In T. Herbst, K. Götz-Vetteler
(eds.), Valency: Theoretical, Descriptive, and Cognitive Issues.
Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 129–160.
—. 2009. ‘A valency dictionary of English’. Review Article. International
Journal of Lexicography 22.1, 55–85.
Fillmore, C.J., and B. T. Atkins. 1992. “Toward a Frame-based lexicon:
The semantics of RISK and its neighbours”. In A. Lehrer and E. Kittay
(eds.) Frames, Fields and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantic and
Lexical Organization. Hillsdale: Erlbaum, 75–102
Fillmore, C.J., & Atkins, B.T.S. 2000. “Describing Polysemy: The Case of
Crawl”. In Y. Ravin and C. Laecock (eds.), Polysemy. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 91-110.
Fillmore, C.J., Johnson, C.R., & Petruck, M.R.L. 2003. “Background to
FrameNet”. International Journal of Lexicography 16 (3), 235–250.
Giles, T.D. 2008. Motives for Metaphor in Scientific and Technical
Communication. Amityville: Baywood.
Goldberg, A. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to
Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
—. 2006. Constructions at Work: the Nature of Generalization in
Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gotti, M. 2003. Specialised Discourse: Linguistic Features and Changing
Conventions. Bern: Peter Lang.
Grinev, S. and I. Klepalchenko. 1999. “Terminological approach to
knowledge representation”. In TKE ’99: Proceedings of the 5th
International Congress on Terminology and Knowledge Engineering.
Vienna: TermNet, 147-151.
Grucza, S. 2009. „Kategoryzacja jĊzyków (specjalistycznych) w Ğwietle
antropocentrycznej teorii jĊzyków ludzkich”. Komunikacja
Specjalistyczna 2. Warszawa: Katedra JĊzyków Specjalistycznych
UW, 15-30.
Grygiel, M. 2015. “The conceptual metaphor BUISNESS IS WAR in
Business English”. In M. Wierzbicka and L. Wille, eds. Im
Wirkungsdeld der kontrastiven and angewandten Linguistik. In the
12 Chapter One

Field of Contrastive and Applied Linguistics. Vol. 6. Rzeszów:

Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego, 65–78.
Hellsten, I. 2008. “Popular metaphors of biosciences: Bridges over time?”
Configurations, 16 (1), 11-32.
Henderson, W. 2000. “Metaphor, economics, and ESP: Some comments”.
English for Specific Purposes, 19, 167-173.
Herrmann, J.B. 2013. Metaphor in Academic Discourse: Linguistic Forms,
Conceptual Structures, Communicative Functions and Cognitive
Representations. Utrecht: LOT.
Hoffmann, L. 1976. Kommunikationsmittel Fachsprache – eine
Einführung. Tübingen: G. Narr.
Koller, V. 2004. Metaphor and Gender in Business Media Discourse: A
Critical Cognitive Study. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kralingen, R. van. 1995. Frame-Based Conceptual Models of Statute Law.
Hague: Kluwer Law International.
Krennmayr, T. 2011. Metaphor in newspapers. Utrecht: LOT.
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories
Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: The Chicago University Press.
—. 1993. “The contemporary theory of metaphor”. In A. Ortony (ed.),
Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 202-
251
Lakoff, G and M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Larson, B. 2011. Metaphors for Environmental Sustainability: Redefining
our Relationship with Nature. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Larson, B., Nerlich, B., and Wallis, W. 2005. ‘Metaphors and biorisks:
The war on invasive species and infectious diseases’. Science
Communication, 60, 2629–2639.
Lewandowski, M. 2013. The Language of Football: An English-Polish
Contrastive Study. PoznaĔ: Wydawnictwo UAM.
Meyer, I. 1992. “Knowledge management for terminology-intensive
applications: Needs and tools”. In J. Pustejovsky and S. Bergler (eds.)
Lexical Semantics and Knowledge Representation. Berlin: Springer
Verlag. 21-37.
Musolff, A. 2004. Metaphor and political discourse. Analogical reasoning
in debates about Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Nerlich, B., Elliott, R., & Larson, B. (eds.). (2009). Communicating
biological Sciences: Ethical and Metaphorical Dimensions. Aldershot:
Ashgate.
Panther, K.U. and G. Radden. (eds.). 1999. Metonymy in Language and
Thought. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
 Specialist Languages and Cognitive Linguistics 13

Pulaczewska, H. 1999. Aspects of Metaphor in Physics. Tübingen: Max

Niemeyer.
Salager-Meyer, F. 1990. “Metaphors in medical English prose: A
comparative study with French and Spanish”. English for Specific
Purposes, 9, 1456–1590.
Schlesinger, I.M. 1995. Cognitive Space and Linguistic Case: Semantic
and Syntactic Categories in English. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Schulze, R. and U. Römer (eds.) 2008. Patterns, Meaningful Units and
Specialized Discourses. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
13(3), Special Issue. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sinclair, J.M. 1996. “Written discourse structure”. In J. M. Sinclair, Hoey
M., Fox G. (eds.) Techniques of Description: Spoken and Written
Discourse. London: Routledge.
Smith, M.R. 2007. “Levels of metaphor in persuasive legal writing”.
Mercer Law Review, 58, 919-947.
Sobkowiak, P. 2008. Issues in ESP: Designing a Model for Teaching
English for Business Purposes. PoznaĔ: Wydawnictwo UAM.
Talmy, L. 2000. Towards a Cognitive Semantics, vol. 1. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press
White, M. 2003. “Metaphor and economics: The case of growth”. English
for Specific Purposes, 22(2), 131-151.
Wille, L. 2014. “On controversies surrounding specialist languages”. In L.
Wille and M. Pikor-Niedziaáek (eds.) Specialist Languages in Use and
Translation. Rzeszów: Wydawnictwo UR, 11-21.
 PART II.

LANGUAGE OF DISCOURSE COMMUNITIES

 CHAPTER TWO

A COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS APPROACH

TO THE DISCOURSE OF DRUG INFORMATION
FOR EXPERTS AND PATIENTS

MARIA CORNELIA WERMUTH

Introduction
In this chapter, we take a Cognitive Linguistics approach to analyzing the
specialized vs. popularized discourse in written drug information. There
are two types of audience to which information on a drug’s characteristics
is to be transmitted: experts (medical doctors, pharmacists) on the one
hand, and patients on the other. The discourse in the texts addressing
experts is highly technical and terminology-rich, reflecting the ergolect or
work language (Pickett 1989: 5) of the medico-pharmaceutical domain.
Patient-oriented texts such as Patient Information Leaflets, by contrast,
use a popularized discourse in which the specialist knowledge is reworded
and reframed in a format conform to the linguistic and knowledge profile
of a non-expert audience. This is not particularly surprising considering
the impact of the situational context on communication (Schulze and
Römer 2010: 1) and the inherent relationship between discourse domains
and specialized language. In the case of drug information this close
interrelationship is manifest: Already a cursory glance at specialized
medico-pharmaceutical documents shows a number of discourse features on
different levels, which reflect the expert’s perspective and conceptualization
(Cabré 1998). Hereby, terms (or so-called specialized knowledge units; see
Faber 2012: 2) play a pivotal role, being the most important vehicles of
conceptual meaning in specialized texts. The high frequency of terms in
combination with distinctive syntactic constructions (e.g. nominalizations
and passive constructions resulting in a de-personalized style) is in sharp
contrast to the discourse in Patient Information Leaflets, which has been
popularized by a series of “microstrategies” (Zethsen Korning 2009: 800
and Wermuth, forthcoming 2016).
 Discourse of Drug Information for Experts and Patients 17

There is already a large body of research into the formal and linguistic
features of Patient Information Leaflets and their readability (see, for
example, Pander Maat and Lenz 2010; Garner et al. 2012; Clerehan et al.
2005; Clerehan et al. 2009; Clerehan 2014; Fage-Butler 2013a) tackling
problems mainly related to comprehensibility and lay out.1 Important input
has, among others, been provided by discourse analytic studies of medical
communication and by numerous studies of language use and interactional
aspects in medical conversation analysis, which has become an established
field of research in the medical domain (for a detailed review see Ong et
al. 1995; Stewart et al. 2003). In a recent study Fage-Butler (2013b)
explored Patient Information Leaflets in a novel way using perspectivist
theory (Alrøe and Noe 2011). According to this theory, knowledge is
inherently associated with some disciplinary, professional and/or personal
“locus of observation” (Fage-Butler 2013b: 144). Starting from the general
consensus that patients’ perspectives should be included in Patient
Information Leaflets, the author examines the appropriateness of
perspectivist theory as a means of conceptualizing the neglect of the non-
expert viewpoint in this text genre. Her analysis highlights the relevance of
a polyocular approach in order to optimize “communication across
perspectival asymmetries” (Fage-Butler 2013b: 140).
At the same time, the results point to the urgent need for more research
on the topic from other disciplines as well. This finding is the starting
point for the present investigation: So far there are indeed no detailed
investigations into the linguistic implications associated with the
reconceptualization and reframing of medico-pharmaceutical expert
knowledge from a patient’s perspective. Though a recent study on the
linguistic localization of Patient Information Leaflets (Wermuth,
forthcoming 2016) describes a number of linguistic modifications that
point to different viewpoints from which the described reality is perceived
(i.e. expert vs. patient), the underlying cognitive mechanisms and
interrelationships between conceptual structures on the one hand, and
linguistic expressions on the other still require further studies. The aim of
the present chapter therefore is to explore in closer detail the linguistic
repercussions of the expert’s vs. patient’s perspective using a cognitively
inspired approach.

1
As the genre has been judged as being ‘dysfunctional’ (Askehave/Zethsen 2008:
171) many efforts have been undertaken to improve the reader-friendliness of
patient leaflets. For example, more patient-friendly elements have been introduced,
the side effects section has been improved, and sections on benefits and on other
sources of information have been added.
18 Chapter Two

The chapter is elaborated as follows. In Section 2 we introduce the

European Medicines Agency and describe our corpus in greater detail. In
section 3 we describe the theoretical framework of our analysis and the
relevant apparatus developed within Cognitive Linguistics used for the
analysis. In Section 4 we present and discuss the analysis results. In
section 5 we provide some conclusions that must confirm the usefulness of
the proposed cognitive approach.

Corpus description
The present study is based on the manual analysis of two English
language documents accompanying the blood pressure lowering medicine
Telmisartan (Teva Pharma).2 The documents are issued by the European
Medicines Agency and revised according to the most recent guidelines
(European Medicines Agency 2009). The first document is the so-called
Summary of Product Characteristics addressing medical experts, the
second document is the Patient Information Leaflet, in which the
specialized knowledge is ‘translated’ and reframed in a format conform to
the patients’ linguistic skills and background knowledge.

The European Medicines Agency

The European Medicines Agency (henceforth: EMA) is substantially
involved in the authorization process of pharmaceuticals in the European
Union (for a detailed description, see Wermuth, forthcoming 2016).
During this process many different kinds of documents are to be
submitted, among which the so-called Product Information Document, in
three parts: the Summary of Product Characteristics, the Labeling,3 and the
Patient Information Leaflet. The documents are drafted and submitted in
English and (after revision and approval by EMA) translated by
pharmacists and/or translators into the languages of the EU countries
where the product will be marketed (see Nisbeth Jensen 2012; Nisbeth
Jensen and K.K. Zethsen 2012, for a detailed description). In this
translation process also the mono- or intralingual translation of the
Summary of Product Characteristics into the Patient Information Leaflet
plays an important role besides translation proper. Before we are more
explicit about this type of translation, we first will describe in greater
detail the two text types under investigation.

2
The documents are accessible via the EMA website http://www.ema.europa.eu/.
3
The labeling shall not be considered here.
 Discourse of Drug Information for Experts and Patients 19

Summary of Product Characteristics

The Summary of Product Characteristics (henceforth: SmPC) is the most
important regulatory document on a medicinal product in the EU as it is a
substantial part of the marketing authorization. As already indicated by the
name, the document provides the product description in terms of its
chemical, pharmacological, and pharmaceutical properties, and clinical or
industrial use. The document is issued by the manufacturing pharmaceutical
company as the result of a lengthy development process with numerous
preclinical trials (see Figure 1). industrial use. The document is issued by
the manufacturing pharmaceutical company as the result of a lengthy
development process with numerous preclinical trials (see Figure 1).
SmPCs are scientific texts with a high information density that is
related to the needs of the expert reader (medical doctors, pharmacists) to
obtain as much information as possible as quickly on how the product is to
be used for a specific treatment. The document uses a specialized
discourse and represents the information in a specific sequential order at
different levels of analysis (see Figure 2).
Important to the present study is the fact that the SmPC is the reference
document for preparing the Patient Information Leaflet (henceforth: PIL).
The latter can be characterized as popularized and simplified summary
designed by the manufacturing pharmaceutical company for patient use.
This transformation represents a specific form of mono- or intralingual
translation that will be detailed in section 3. The main objective of PILs is
to enable patients to take their medication on their own and in the right
way. This is achieved by using everyday language and by reframing the
specialized information according to the viewpoint of the non-expert target
audience (Table 1).
20 Chapter Two

Figure 1. Prepparation of the Summary of Prroduct Characteeristics.

Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 THE RANGE QUADRANT
The range quadrant consists of the quadrant spring fastening and
bracket, rocker, body, scroll gear, range disk, range and cross levels
with suitable leveling screws, and a micrometer to set off the angle of
site.
The range disk is graduated to 6500 yards, least reading every 50
yards, scale numbered every 500 yards. This disk is operated by a
scroll gear. Large changes in range may be made by pulling out the
handwheel, thus disengaging the scroll gear, and moving the body
and index to the approximate range, whereupon the handwheel is
released, and the range accurately set by again turning the
handwheel.
The micrometer has 100 divisions and is operated by a milled
head. The limb of the micrometer, called the level scale, is graduated
from 2 to 5, each division corresponding to one complete revolution
of the micrometer. The arbitrary reference point or mean position of
the level holder is 300 which corresponds to a point on the same
level as the gun.
 RANGE QUADRANT
REVISED JUNE 4, 1908, JULY 30, 1910, FEB 6, 1911. CLASS 36-DIVISION 22 DRAWING 5

CARE AND INSPECTION OF SIGHTS.

Rear sight Bracket.—Should not be bent, broken or cracked.
Must be seated firmly in the bracket support.
Shank Socket Mechanism.—Not bent or burred; interior of shank
socket, scroll and worm gears free of scratches, burrs or deformed
threads. Sight shank easily inserted and moved up and down in the
socket. Scroll gear securely held in mesh with rack of sight shank.
For large movements of shank, should be easily disengaged by
pulling out scroll gear handle; must be securely held in place by
spring when released. Keep interior well lubricated. See that level
vials of cross and elevation levels are intact and bubbles not too
large.
Sight Shank.—Rack on right side must engage with scroll gear;
keep lightly oiled. Sight shank should remain in fixed position except
when disengaged or operated by scroll gear handles. For changes in
range of 300 yards or less use only the scroll gear; over 300 yards
pull scroll gear handle and slide shank up or down in socket by hand,
making accurate setting with the scroll gear.
Panoramic Sight.—Lug must fit snugly in T slot of rear sight and
then held fast by clamp screw and ratchet. When making ready for
march order, first set the azimuth and R & L deflection scales at
zero, and the elevation scale at 300. Release clamp screw and
ratchet. In removing panoramic sight, grasp at center below the
azimuth gear case, lift vertically out of the socket, lower the top of
sight to the left and replace in panoramic sight box.
Quadrant.—Must fit snugly in its bracket, spring catch engaging.
Nut on range disk must be tight to prevent slipping. To remove
quadrant, press on spring catch before sliding off bracket.
The sights are correctly adjusted when, at zero elevation and
deflection, correction having also been made for difference of level of
wheels, the line of sight is parallel to the axis of the bore.
The range quadrant is correctly adjusted when, with the range
disk set at zero, level set at 300, axis of gun horizontal and corrected
for difference of level of wheels, the bubble of the range level is
centered.
In adjusting sights, the panoramic sight should first be corrected. If
the rear sight is adjusted first, it will require readjustment if the
subsequent adjustment of the panoramic sight causes a change in
position of the rear-sight range strip.
To adjust the panoramic sight.—Select a well defined point at
least 2000 yards distant. If the bore sights are not available, stretch
two threads or hairs from the tail of a horse across the grooves
marked on the face of the muzzle and fasten them by a strap or
rubber band. Remove the firing-lock case from the hub of the block-
carrier. By sighting through the hole in the vent bushing of the
breechblock, adjust the intersection of the cross hairs on the distant
point, using the elevating and traversing mechanisms of the gun.
Now without moving the gun or disturbing the laying of the cross
hairs, bring the cross wires of the panoramic sight on the same
distant point by means of the azimuth scale worm-knob and the
scroll gear of the rear sight (on panoramic sights, M1915, to the
deflection R & L scale should first be made to read 0, and the
elevation scale of the objective to read 300). The cross hairs of the
gun and the cross wires of the panoramic sight will thus be laid on
the same point. Now adjust the azimuth micrometer scale to read 0
by means of unscrewing and tightening the screw on the milled
head. Loosen the nut on the range strip; move it up or down until it
reads (0) 100. Tighten the nut again. Verify the laying. For this
adjustment, it is not necessary to have the wheels or the carriage on
a level platform; cross level should be leveled.
To adjust the rear sight.—Having adjusted the panoramic sight
and the rear sight range strip as described above, and without
disturbing the laying of the gun, shift the deflection scale of the peep
sight and raise or lower the front sight until the cross wires of the
latter are laid upon the same distant point. Now loosen the two
screws of the deflection scale and place the 0 of this scale opposite
the index of the peep sight. The front sight is raised or lowered by
removing the split pins and then turning the front sight in the sight
bracket sleeve either up or down.
To adjust the quadrant.—(a) If an adjusted B. C. telescope or
another gun with its quadrant in proper adjustment is available, the
angle of site of some distinctly visible and distant point is measured
by either of these means. The gun to be adjusted is then laid upon
this distant point either with the bore sights, or with the tangent sight
set at 0 (or some other convenient) range. The measured angle of
site is then set off on the level scale of the quadrant and the bubble
of the range level is centered by turning the handwheel of the range
disk. By using the quadrant wrench, the range disk is then adjusted
to read 0 range, (or the convenient range previously set off on the
tangent sight).
(b) If no means are at hand to correctly measure the angle of site
of a distant point, the quadrants may be adjusted by using two guns
as follows: Unlimber two guns at about the same level, first seeing
that the sights are in adjustment (par. 75). Lay both guns upon some
distant point by means of the panoramic sight set at 0 range. Now
set both quadrants for the same angle of site (roughly estimated A.
S. of the distant point) and center the bubbles of the range level by
turning the handwheel of the range disks. By means of the quadrant
wrench, adjust the range disk of one of the quadrants to agree with
the other. Whatever error exists will now be the same in each
quadrant.
Now move one of the guns about 100 yards away and turn the
muzzles toward each other. With the sights set at 0 range, lay the
panoramic sights upon each other and measure the angle of site of
each gun. Half the difference of the two readings will be the slope of
the line of sight between the two guns. On the level scale of the
quadrant which read the greater angle of site, set off 300 plus the
half-difference, on the other quadrant set off 300 minus the half-
difference. Now center the bubble of the range level by turning the
handwheel of the range disk. By using the quadrant wrench, adjust
the range disk until it reads 0 range. Having thus adjusted two guns,
the others may be adjusted by the first means described.

OBSERVING INSTRUMENTS.

B. C. Telescope, M. 1915.

The B. C. Telescope, M. 1915, is a binocular observing

instrument of the scissors type. The two tubes of the telescope may
be clamped either in a vertical or a horizontal position. In the former
position the objectives are 12 inches above the eyes of the observer,
and in the latter position they are 24 inches apart and at the same
height as the eyes of the observer. In both cases they permit the
observer to take advantage of some shield or other cover and still
obtain a full view of the sector of observation. The tubes may be
adjusted for the observer’s interpupillary distance in either the
vertical or the horizontal position. The eyepieces may be adjusted to
the eyes of the observer by screwing in or out.

BATTERY COMMANDER’S TELESCOPE MODEL OF 1915.

36-22-31

The principal parts of the telescope are:—Leveling mechanism,

azimuth mechanism, elevating mechanism, angle of site mechanism,
the telescopes and the tripod. A carrying case is provided separately
for the instrument and for the tripod. In garrison a storage case is
also provided.
The leveling mechanism consists of a ball and socket joint
operated by the vertical spindle clamping screw.
The azimuth mechanism consists of the azimuth worm knob with
its lever, operating the azimuth worm and worm wheel; the adjusting
or slow motion knob and the azimuth clamp. The azimuth limb is
divided into 64 parts, each division representing 100 mils. The
azimuth micrometer is divided into 100 equal parts or mils,
numbered every 10 mils. One complete revolution of the micrometer
is equal to one division of the limb. The scales therefore correspond
to those on the panoramic sight, 6400 mils to the circumference.
The leveling mechanism is operated by the small elevation worm
knob.
The angle of site mechanism consists of the level, the angle of site
scale and micrometer with its worm knob.
The telescopes consist of the eyepieces, telescopic tubes with
their optical systems. In the right eyepiece is a graduated cross wire
which can be rotated for either the horizontal or the vertical position.
The tripod is similar to the usual telescopic instrument tripod.
The optical characteristics of the instrument are as follows:—
Power 10; field of view 75 mils; focal length of objectives 11½
inches; the field is flat, free from chromatic and spherical aberration,
coma and distortion.

Care and Instructions.

To set up the telescope.—First set up the tripod, clamping and
propping the legs so as to obtain the desired cover and view. By
means of the vertical spindle clamping lever, approximately center
level on azimuth worm case and clamp tightly. Carefully take out B.
C. telescope from case and while pressing on locker plunger, place
telescope on vertical spindle so that the projection on the azimuth
worm case will fit into the corresponding slotted segment of the
telescope. Release the locking plunger.
To focus the eye pieces.—Adjust each eye piece separately by
turning the same until the image of a distant object appears sharply
defined. Read the diopter scale, plus or minus, and note for future
use.
 To adjust the interpupillary distance.—The eye pieces having
been focussed, loosen the large friction clamp knob in front. Grasp
both tubes with the hands and separate or close them in (either in
the vertical or horizontal position) until the fields of view of the two
eye pieces are exactly coincident and present a single image to the
eyes. This can be tested by alternately closing one eye and then the
other, noting any movement in the image. Tighten the large friction
clamp knob. Read the interpupillary scale and note for future use.
To lay 0 on any point.—Level the instrument by means of the
vertical spindle clamping screw. Bubble must remain approximately
centered while instrument is turned 1600 mils. Set both the azimuth
index and the micrometer to read zero. Release the azimuth clamp
shaft knob; turn the telescope toward the point and tighten the
azimuth clamp shaft knob. Bring the vertical wire accurately on the
point by turning the azimuth adjusting worm knob.
To measure the deflection and site of a target.—Lay the zero
on the aiming point as above. If the line of sight must be moved
through a large angle, press down the azimuth worm lever as far as
it will go and while holding it down move the azimuth mechanism
until the line of sight is approximately directed upon the target; then
release the worm lever and bring the cross wires accurately on the
target by turning the azimuth worm knob (for deflection) and the
elevation worm knob (for elevation). Center the site level. Read the
deflection and site.
For carrying the B. C. telescope assembled on the tripod, clamp
tightly the vertical spindle clamping lever; close in and clamp the
tubes of the telescope; slide up and clamp the lower tripod legs; then
carry the telescope over the shoulder by grasping the tripod legs,
tube bases of telescope resting on the shoulder.
To dismount the B. C. Telescope and to pack in carrying case.
—Screw in both eye pieces. Press on the locking plunger and lift the
telescope vertically off the spindle. Unclamp the large friction clamp
knob, bringing the tubes together and insert in the carrying case;
close and lock the lid. In dismounting the tripod the leg separators of
the upper sections should first be unclamped. After the lower legs
have been assembled, they should be clamped. To set up the tripod
the operation is reversed.

Aiming Circle, M, 1916.

The Aiming Circle is an angle measuring instrument only and
consists of a telescope, leveling mechanism, angle of site device,
elevating mechanism, azimuth circle and compass, mounted on a
tripod.
Its leveling, azimuth and angle of site mechanisms are similar to
those in the B. C. Telescope, as is also the tripod. The elevating
mechanism consists of elevating worm knob and gear connecting it
with the telescope. The telescope has a universal focus, magnifying
power of 4, and a field of 180 mils. The cross wires are illuminated
by a window. The compass is secured by the needle release button.

Care and Instructions.

Glass compass cover should fit tightly. Compass needle when
clamped should not rotate while instrument is revolved or tipped.
When release button is pressed, compass must swing freely on pivot
and again remain clamped when button is released. Compass
should be released only when aiming circle is set up and horizontal.
 AIMING CIRCLE
36-22-30

Bubble must remain approximately centered while instrument is

turned 1600 mils.
To lay 0 on any point.—Set both the azimuth index and the
micrometer to read zero. Release the wing nut; turn the telescope
toward the point and again tighten the wing nut. Bring the vertical
wire accurately on the point by turning the adjusting worm wheel.
To measure the deflection and site of a target.—Lay 0 on the
aiming point as above. If the line of sight must be moved through a
large angle, press down on the azimuth worm lever as far as it will
go and while holding it down, move the azimuth mechanism until the
line of sight is approximately directed upon the target; then release
the worm knob (for deflection) and the elevation worm knob (for
elevation). Center the site level. Read the deflection and site.
To measure the compass deflection of a target.—Set both the
azimuth index micrometer to read 40. Release the wing nut; turn the
telescope until the N and S poles of the compass are respectively
near the N and S points marked on the compass box. Make the
coincidence accurately with the adjusting worm wheel. Now proceed
to measure the deflection and site of the target as described above.
The Tripod and Azimuth Gear Case.—The leather cover
protecting the ball and socket joint must fit snugly both above and
below, and be free of rips or holes. The ball and socket joint and the
tripod legs should be easily adjusted and moved, but should remain
fixed when clamped by the clamping levers.
For carrying the aiming circle assembled on the tripod, the wing
nut and the vertical spindle clamping lever should be clamped tightly
and the instrument carried over the shoulder by grasping the tripod
legs, head of tripod resting on the shoulder.

Adjustments B. C. Telescope and Aiming Circle.

The B. C. Telescope and the Aiming Circle are correctly adjusted
when the following conditions prevail: Telescope properly focussed;
plane of level perpendicular to the vertical axis of the instrument;
angle of site scale reading 300 when the line of sight is horizontal;
lost motion on worm gears eliminated. In principle, the adjustments
of the B. C. Telescope and of the Aiming Circle are exactly the same.
The leveling and focusing have already been described. Detailed
instructions of the operations in eliminating lost motion in the worm
gears will be found in the Handbook for F. A. Fire Control Equipment,
1916.
To make the site scale read 300 when the line of sight is
horizontal.—Set up the telescope or aiming circle. Level the
instrument so that the bubble on the azimuth worm case will remain
centered while the instrument is turned 1600 mils. Lay on some point
of a stake or other vertical linear object which is at a convenient
distance but not closer than 100 yards to the instrument. The point
selected should be at such a height that the telescope can later be
set up close to it, with the objective at the same height as the
selected point. Read the angle of site. This reading will be equal to
(300 + S + E), in which S is the angle of slope of the line of sight,
and E is the error in the site adjustment. Before leaving this station,
set up a second stake near the telescope and mark on it a point
which is at the height of the objective.
Now move the telescope to the first stake; set up and level the
instrument with the objective at the height of the point marked on this
stake. Lay on the marked point of the second stake and read the
site. This angle will be equal to (300 - S × E). Subtracting one
reading from the other we have:—(300 × S × E) - (300 - S × E) = 2S;
or one-half the difference of the two readings is equal to the angle of
slope of the line of sight. Therefore with the cross wires directed
upon the marked point of the second stake, center the bubble of the
site level. Now loosen the angle of site locking screw and turn the
micrometer to read (300 - S), being careful to keep the bubble
centered. Screw up the locking screw. The instrument is now in
adjustment.
After one telescope has been adjusted, other telescopes, aiming
circles and quadrants may be adjusted by merely measuring the site
of some distant point. The other telescopes and guns, being in
position near the adjusted telescope, are then made to read the
proper site when laid upon the distant point.

FIELD ARTILLERY RANGE FINDER, 1 METER

BASE
 (Bausch & Lomb.)
The instrument and accessories consist of the range finder proper,
the tripod mount, the tripod, the adjusting bar, the carrying-case and
the storage box.
The optical parts of the range finder are embodied in a seamless,
steel tube (A) covered with canvas and asbestos, to minimize the
effects of the change of temperature. The eyepiece (B) is located in
the center of the instrument and is equipped with a focusing device
graduated in diopters. A soft rubber eye cap is furnished to protect
the observer’s eye from shocks and stray light. A ray filter having two
sets of glass is operated by a small lever (C) situated to the lower left
of the eyepiece housing.
 DIAGRAM TO ILLUSTRATE THE
GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF RANGE-FINDERS.

The objective openings on the end boxes are opened and closed
by means of rotating shutters (D). Buffers (E) are provided on the
ends as a protection against shocks.
The range finder is of the type known as the fixed base, invert,
single coincidence. The magnifying power is 15; actual field of view
50 mils; shortest distance measurable 400 yards. The instrument
weighs about 20 pounds. Under favorable conditions and with expert
operators the average errors are:
1000 yds. 5 yds.
 2000 yds. 15 yds.
3000 yds. 30 yds.
4000 yds. 55 yds.
5000 yds. 90 yds.
6000 yds. 130 yds.
7000 yds. 175 yds.
8000 yds. 225 yds.
In practical use under ordinary conditions and with average
operators, the errors are three times as great.
The tripod mount consists of a spring catch (a); clamping lever
(N); elevation worm case (b); elevation worm knob (c); worm wheel
support (d); angle of site micrometer (e); angle of site housing (f);
angle of site vial holder (g); clamp screw handle (h); azimuth worm
knob (i); azimuth micrometer (j); azimuth worm lever (k); azimuth
scale (m); adjusting worm knob (n); and the vertical spindle clamping
lever (p). The tripod, consisting of spindle bushing locking screws (t);
tripod legs upper (r); tripod legs lower (q); clamping wing nuts (w);
and locking clamp arms (x), is similar to that provided for the B. C.
telescope and the aiming circle.

Care and Instructions.

To set up the Range Finder.—Set up the tripod as heretofore
prescribed, take the range finder from its case, holding it with the eye
piece toward the body, hook down. Place the instrument on the
support and engage the spring catch (a). The instrument is then
firmly seated on the tripod. Remove the protective hood from the eye
piece and the rotating shutters (D) from the objective apertures.
Loosen the locking lever so that the range finder may be made
horizontal, then turn toward the target and clamp the lever. To
dismount the range finder the operations are executed in an inverse
manner.
RANGE FINDER.
REAR VIEW
RANGE FINDER.
 To Measure a Distance.—Focus the eye piece. In very bright light
or in thick haze use the amber ray filter in the eye piece. By means
of the clamps and worm knobs of the azimuth mechanism and the
worm knob of the elevation mechanism, lay the range finder on the
target roughly by looking through the open sight on top of the
instrument. Final adjustment in deflection is made by the adjusting
worm knob (n) and in elevation by the elevation worm knob (c).
Now, look into the instrument. The field of view is divided into two
parts by a horizontal line. In the lower part the image is erect, in the
upper part inverted. By turning the elevation worm knob (c), the
images are lined up so that the same points will touch the dividing
line. Now, by turning the measuring roller (M) on the right hand top
side of the range finder, the upper image is shifted laterally until the
same vertically disposed points of the target are exactly opposite
each other. The range is then read on the range scale (H), which is
protected by a sliding shutter (Q).
In case the target is without prominent vertical features, such as a
crest line, the distance is measured by first turning the instrument to
a vertical position (Plate XV). This is accomplished by the clamp
screw handle (h) on the tripod mount. Final adjustment in deflection
is then made by the elevation worm knob (c), and in elevation by the
clamping lever (N).

Adjustments.
Adjustment for Height.—The erect and invert images sometimes
do not touch the dividing line with similar point so that one image
reaches this line before the other. In this case, lay the range finder
on an object having a sharply defined horizontal line or very
prominent point, and bring the images of this point exactly opposite
each other by means of the measuring roller (M). The two images
are then brought to the dividing line, the lower image by means of
the elevation worm knob (c), and the upper image by means of the
halving adjusting roller (J).