Terminology is significant for professional communication and ipso facto for translation quality assurance (QA). To deliver a translation of high quality, it is crucial to have all new terms that occur in professional discourse collected, stored and managed properly by means of terminology databases (TDBs). In this paper I will try to define ‘quality’ in relation to TDBs and to determine the methodology and criteria that need to be considered by evaluating a TDB in the context of its reliability.

The author of this article carries out an analysis of the evolution of the term ‘commemorative names’ in the aspect of municipal onomastics. She primarily researches how the scope of this term has changed and which name groups have been included with that term. Moreover, she researches how the commemorative names themselves have changed. She concludes that the names of symbolic motivation that refer to cultural competencies of their users do not form a homogenous group, but they differ in genetic and motivational terms. Thus, four such groups may be identified: 1. commemorative names bearing real meaning, 2. conventional discretionary names (honorifying), 3. commemorative-discretionary names referring to local heroes, places and events, 4. names resulting from the broadly understood ‘cultural memory’, commemorating ideas, values, literary and movie characters, titles, Slavonic mythology and Polish legends, faith in its various dimensions, literary trends, artistic styles, art, etc. All four groups have their dual functions in common: deictic and cultural.

The main aim of this paper is to propose a terminological approach to the standardization of onomastic terminology. Attention is paid to the primary importance of conceptual systems and to the onomasiological approach typical of terminological work. Terminology is presented as a discipline devoted primarily to the study of concepts. Then the main concepts of terminology are discussed and the relations between a conceptual system and a terminological system are explained. An outline of the issue of conceptual systems of onomastics and of their internal structure is made. Then two important metatheoretical concepts are introduced and defined: 1) the concept of theoretical legitimacy of concepts and 2) the concept of economy of conceptual systems. In the final part of the article, several suggestions concerning the standardization of onomastic terminology are made: 1) terms referring to concepts belonging to separate conceptual series are not to be used interchangeably; 2) terms based on different roots (in the English onomastic terminology: -onym, -onymy, -onomastics, in the Polish terminology: -onim, -onimia, -onomastyka) are to be reserved respectively for the concept of a single (type of) proper name, for the concept of a set of proper names and for the concept of a specific onomastic discipline; 3) concepts used or newly introduced in a text are to be defined clearly in onomastic works, 4) onomasticians aiming for standardization of onomastic terminology should start their work by (re)constructing conceptual system(s) of onomastics and only then assign terms to concepts; 5) one completely unitary conceptual (and terminological) system of onomastics cannot be achieved due to the theoretical pluralism of the discipline; 6) the first goal of any conceptual and terminological standardization of onomastics is to define its range: should the standardization cover the concepts of philological or general onomastics? should it cover only empirical (descriptive) concepts or highly abstract theoretical concepts as well?

‘Composing’ and ‘composition’ are key terms in the announcement and subject of the conference. In this paper we want to investigate and analyse some backgrounds of the terms ‘composition’ and ‘design’ in landscape architecture. The two terms are related but not the same. ‘Composition’ refers to a static phenomenon; composing is the active form. ‘Design’ can be used both as active form – the act of designing – while it can also be used as a passive phenomenon; the noun ‘design’ stands for a plan. ‘Composition’ is an older term, already used in the classical architectural treatises such as by Alberti. Both terms stand for the core of what landscape architects do, making plans for realising future environments for people. We will start by giving a short overview of terms and definitions as used in references and set out the scope of the paper. We will continue with a short historical overview of the term ‘composition’ from the first architectural treatises on. Around the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, the term ‘design’ starts to emerge. Its introduction and rise is closely related to the setting up of architectural schools where the materialising of projects and the design backgrounds are separately treated in design studios. In the second part we will give a short historical outline of the development of landscape architecture over time with special attention to the turn of the last century when the first landscape architecture schools and programs started to emerge. In the last part we will develop a typological overview of the relation between composition and design, illustrated by realised projects. In the conclusion we will summarise the relation between structure, composition and design in contemporary practice; and put forward that composition in landscape architecture is ‘designed structure’. In this way the terms composition and design can be related and distinguished both in theory and practice.

The paper investigates and analysis sacred eye-catchers in Transylvanian gardens and parks. Interpretation of visual connections defined by landscape features with a sacred meaning (crypts, chapels, crosses, thumbs etc.) are the present study’s main purpose. The analysis of the visual connections on a landscape scale comprises the examination of outstanding visual elements (eye-catchers) that are decisive in the case of historic landscapes, gardens and parks, and among these in the case of castle gardens, manor houses and demesnes as well. In these cases the relationship between a manor garden and the surrounding landscape is the result of a conscious shaping of the environment. The sights which determine forcefully the historicity of the landscape are the results of enduring cultural influences over time. Although only just a very few of these former landscape connections persist, their preservation represents a public interest. The investigated eye-catchers – as outstanding landscape elements – determine in a decisive way the structure of garden landscapes in Transylvania. The sentimental, then romantic trends prevailing in the 19th century in many cases expected that outstanding buildings also become important parts of the gardens. The study proves the landscape compositional role and importance of the sacred features situated within the manor gardens, or outside the gardens, in the surrounding landscape, representing a visual entity with the castle garden ensemble.

The paper points out the role of terms in academic activity, particularly in onomastics. A survey of onomastic terms present in Polish dictionaries of linguistic terminology and onomastic encyclopaedias has been made. The need has been stressed to follow the rules of terminography in every dictionary of terms. Some normative terms, such as official name, dialectal name, minority name, have been suggested to be included as additional entries in glossaries of onomastic terms.

The main purpose of this paper is to reconstruct the approach to ambiguity presented in Tadeusz Pawłowski’s work Tworzenie pojęć w naukach humanistycznych („Creating concepts in the humanities”) (1986), to systematize and analyze this conception. Due to the fact that Pawłowski was a student of Tadeusz Kotarbiński and Janina Kotarbińska, and that he dealt with methodological issues concerning the language of science (and scientific philosophy), the background of my considerations is the tradition of the Lvov‑Warsaw School. In the article I also formulate some remarks on Pawłowski’s conception, as well as some other observations on ambiguity.

Nicholas Rescher przez ponad 40 lat analizował różne wymiary granic i ograniczeń nauki. Zagadnienie to postrzegał w ścisłym związku z progresywnością nauki, ale też zauważał jego specyfikę. Artykuł skupia się na analizie terminów i pojęć zaproponowanych i stosowanych przez Reschera w artykułowaniu i dyskusji zagadnienia granic nauki w wielu jej wymiarach. Wskazano na ich różnorodność i wieloznaczność. Poddano krytyce Rescherowskie próby określenia relacji pomiędzy pojęciami dotyczącymi granic oraz wskazano na niekonsekwencje i niespójności.

Warsaw highbrow journal Biblioteka Warszawska in the second phase of its history, 1864–1914. It was a period of rapid development of the natural sciences, accelerated by the gradual reception of Darwin's theory of evolution. The arrival of Darwinian naturalism had major consequences beyond the scientific community. Although it led to the abandonment of Romantic evolutionary ideas, it not only reaffirmed the Eurocentrism of contemporary science but also tended to encourage attempts at constructing a racial hierarchy of white peoples.

Podstawowe pojęcia darwinowskiej teorii ewolucji to: „ewolucja”, „populacja” i „dobór naturalny”. Wszystkie te terminy mają aspekty filozoficzne i – dla jasności teorii – warto zadbać o ich poprawne definicje. W literaturze jednak są one definiowane w różny, nieprecyzyjny sposób. Artykuł zawiera krytyczną analizę niektórych z tych sformułowań, wykazując, że spełniają one tylko w niskim stopniu kryteria jasności i jednoznaczności. Na przykład: ewolucja musi być ewolucją czegoś, a istnieje bardzo dużo propozycji na temat tego, co ewoluuje: człowiek, wszechświat, gatunek, życie itd. Czy istnieje i czy jest możliwa taka definicja ewolucji, która obejmowałaby wszystkie te byty? Najczęściej traktuje się teorię ewolucji jako teorię ewolucji populacji. Co to jest jednak populacja i czy może trwać dłużej niżżycie jednego organizmu z tej populacji? Podobnie, „dobór naturalny” jest definiowany jako „przeżycie najlepiej przystosowanych”, a zarazem przez analogię do doboru sztucznego, który jest decyzją człowieka. Dobór naturalny jest więc zjawiskiem czy decyzją? Jeśli jest zjawiskiem, to na jakiej podstawie używa się zwrotu, że dobór naturalny jakąś cechę „faworyzuje”? Podsumowując, można stwierdzić, że podstawowe terminy teorii ewolucji nie są jasne i jednoznaczne. Być może dlatego, że teoria ewolucji – choćby według T. Nagela – jest bardziej projektem badawczym niż opisem rzeczywistości.