Contrastive Linguistics Essay

The Language of the Stock Exchange – A Contrastive Analysis of the Lexis V clanku je podana analiza jezika borze s stalisca slovensko-angleske protistave. Izrazje (samostalniske zveze) obeh jezikov smo protistavili tako v strukturnem kot v semanticnem smislu, pri cemer se je razkrilo vec protistavnih znacilnosti, med drugim razlicni nacini ubeseditve istega pojma, terminoloske praznine in lazni prijatelji, slovensko borzno terminologijo pa zaznamujejo tudi angleske tujke. The article analyzes the language of the stock exchange from a Slovene-English contrastive viewpoint. The specialized lexis of the two languages was juxtaposed as to the structural and semantic differences of their respective terms and expressions (nominal phrases), revealing such contrastive phenomena as different conceptualizations, terminological gaps and false friends, while the Slovene stock exchange terminology is also characterized by English foreignisms. 1. Introduction James characterizes contrastive analysis (CA) as a hybrid linguistic discipline (1989: 4), since it is neither particularist nor generalist and is interested both in the immanent genius of a language and in the ways in which one language compares to other languages. CA does not strive to classify languages and is interested both in the differences and similarities between them. Having had strictly pedagogical implications at first, the theoretical foundations of CA were initially laid down by Robert Lado in his Linguistics Across Cultures (1957). Lado supported the conviction that if learners of a foreign language (L2) were made aware of the ways in which their mother tongue (L1) and L2 differed, this would facilitate foreign language learning. He went even further by claiming that the elements of L2 that are similar to the learners’ L1 will prove simple to learn, with those that are different being difficult. Lado was the first to suggest a systematic set of technical procedures for the contrastive study of languages; this included descriptions of languages and their comparisons as well as predictions of L2 learning difficulties. In its most ambitious phrasing, the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis claimed to be able to predict all learners’ errors committed in using an L2. However, empirical studies conducted during the 1970s could not sustain this claim, making it clear that CA could only predict certain problematic areas for learners and some of the errors they are bound to make in their versions of L2 (James 1989: 145; my italics). All comparisons work on the basis of the assumption that the entities to be compared have certain things in common, and that any differences between them can be laid 154 Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 7 (2009) against this common background. A CA thus always involves a common linguistic platform of reference, against which contrastive deviations are stated. This common platform is termed tertium comparationis (TC). Depending on the adopted TC, the same aspects of language may turn out be similar or different (Krzeszowski 1990: 16). In syntactic and lexical contrastive studies, the TC is often taken to be formal or semantic correspondence (ibid. ), chiefly in combination. Contrastive linguistics is not a unified field of study. The focus may be on general or on language specific features. The study may be theoretical (theoretical CA), without any immediate application, or it may be applied (applied CA), i. e. carried out for a specific purpose (Fisiak 1981: 2–3). Further, Gabrovsek (2005: 75–6) points out that contrastive work can be done at the levels of: phonology, graphology, lexicology, grammar, and textology. This is why any contrastive work must necessarily be limited in scope and thus always represent but a fragment of the overall contrastive landscape of a given pair of languages. Contrastive lexicology is the contrastive study of the vocabularies of two (or more) languages. It concerns itself with the transposition of lexical items from L1 to L2 and vice-versa, facing such difficulties as culture-bound vocabulary, interlingual mismatches, lexical gaps, etc (ibid.: 62–194). Equivalence between lexical items in two languages can be complete (trgovalni dan—trading day), partial (organizirani trg—regulated market), or nil (TUVL; insider). There are two possible scenarios in transposing such problematic lexical units: either the L2 equivalent is completely unknown to us (what, for example, is narocilo z razponom in odstranitvijo neizvrsene kolicine in English), which might lead to considerable confusion or even a communication breakdown, or we are uncertain as to the correct collocate (is SLO organizator trga EN market organizer or market operator?), which may make our L2 unidiomatic, but does not impede successful communication. Depending on the pattern and environment it appears in, a lexical item will typically benefit from additional semantic shading imposed by the surrounding lexical elements (semantic tailoring), and often consequently receive different counterparts in L2. Note the pairs svezenj—bundle, avkcija—auction, majhen—small, but (in a stock exchange context) svezenj—block (trade), prekinitvena avkcija—volatility interruption, mali vlagatelj—retail investor. The collocator and the base, even if lexically predictable in L2, may appear in the opposite order in the two languages (zascita vlagateljev—investor protection) or be joined by a different preposition (trgovati z obveznicami—trade in bonds). Another collocation-related problem, interlingually, is false friends: (borzna) kotacija ? (market) quotation. Lexicological CA also deals with divergent polysemy (vzdrzevalec likvidnosti—liquidity provider or market maker). This article focuses on lexical contrastive studies and chooses as its TC the English and Slovene lexis of the language of the stock exchange, juggling between formal and semantic equivalence of the terms and expressions in the two languages. Taking the Slovene-English contrastive viewpoint, we focused on nominal phrases (NPs), which have been examined as to the types of (non-)correspondence, on the structural as well as semantic level. The aim of this article has not been a discussion of terminology as such; terminology is here solely the object of contrastive lexicology, which lies at the core of this paper. B. Bozinovski, The Language of the Stock Exchange †¦ 155 As to the structural aspect, a divergence had been expected of the following kind: SLO simple NP complex NP EN simple NP complex NP complex NP simple NP On the semantic level, an occasional discrepancy had been anticipated between the meaning of a particular NP in isolation and that in a particular context (in different word combinations, most notably collocations), semantic tailoring being a feature of not only LGP (language for general purposes) but also LSP (language for special purposes). We had thus expected NPs to have different translation equivalents in different environments. English being the lingua franca of the financial world, we had also expected to find the English terms to be of a much more specialized nature than their Slovene counterparts. 2. Materials and methods The present CA entailed a lexicological comparison of pairs of (original) Slovene and (translated) English texts used in the regular operations of the Ljubljana Stock Exchange Inc. (LJSE). In juxtaposing texts with the same TC—the common platform for comparison was stock exchange terminology—pairs of lexemes (terms and expressions) relevant to our discussion were singled out and compared as to their structural and semantic properties. Given that we dealt with an LSP, our primary concern was with NPs, which constitute the main part of any LSP. The analysis was based on the thus-compiled database of over 1,000 pairs of headwords, of which only a selection appears in this article. 3. Analysis 3. 1. SLO: simple NP > avkcija CVS delnica delnicar dividenda glavnica indeks izdaja nalozba narocilo obveznica posel EN: simple NP auction NAV share shareholder dividend principal index issue investment order bond trade 156 Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 7 (2009) 3. 1. SLO: simple NP > promet sklad svezenj trg EN: simple NP (continued) turnover fund block market The logical English equivalents for promet, posel and izdaja in general language or in isolation would be, for example, traffic, business and betrayal, with bond, auction and share being translated into Slovene as vez, drazba and delez, but in a stock exchange context the respective equivalents are LSP specific and uncontroversial. Svezenj and trg prove more problematic. The former can either be translated as block (of securities) or as block trade, since it can refer to a particular quantity of securities or to a trade executed in that particular quantity of securities—both svezenj in Slovene. Trg can either be rendered as single-word market or compound order book, depending on the context. In the case of the securities market in general, trg is equivalent to the EN market, but in combination with the trading platform and orders placed in the trading system, trg will normally be order book (narocila na trgu—orders sitting in the order book). SLO avkcija and dividenda are LSP terms of an international character, having been adopted from English (which their English counterparts clearly show), while the others are Slovene words. While avkcija, trg, izdaja, and narocilo are polysemous words of widespread use in Slovene LGP and only obtain specialized meanings when used in proper stock exchange contexts, dividenda, sklad, delnica, glavnica, nalozba and obveznica are financial terms of an inherently terminological nature. In English, the situation is slightly different; only dividend and investment belong to the financial field, while all other words have a wide range of uses and senses. In their full versions, CVS (cista vrednost sredstev) and NAV (net asset value) are structurally divergent but lexically transparent. 3. 2. SLO: simple NP borza dokapitalizacija kupnina lot nezaupnica pooblascenec pripojitev Statut VEP > EN: complex NP [N+N] [N+N] [N+N] [Adj+N] [N+PP] [N+N] [N+PP] [N+PP] [N+PP] stock exchange capital increase purchase price trading unit vote of no confidence proxy holder merger by acquisition Articles of Association NAV per unit Except for dokapitalizacija—capital increase, kupnina—purchase price, pripojitev—merger by acquisition and nezaupnica—vote of no confidence, which share at least some lexical elements, the remaining pairs are lexically completely divergent. B. Bozinovski, The Language of the Stock Exchange †¦ 157 3. 3. SLO: simple NP > EN: simple NP [N+N] [Adj+NP] [Adj+N] [N+PP] [Adj+NP] [N+N] [Adj+N] [N+PP] [N+N] [Adj+N] [Adj+N] unit futures point delisting derivative tick LJSE quote (n. ) ticket ticker security enota premozenja financne terminske pogodbe indeksna tocka izkljucitev iz (borznega) trga izvedeni financni instrument korak kotacije Ljubljanska borza narocilo za nakup in prodajo stevilka posla trgovalna koda vrednostni papir The lexically completely divergent Ljubljanska borza and LJSE deserve a word of mention. While having an adjectival premodifier (denoting the place) and a simple nominal head (denoting the institution) in Slovene, English lexicalizes the concept differently in several respects. First, Ljubljana in Ljubljana Stock Exchange is a nominal premodifier, as opposed to the adjective ljubljanski. Further, the simple borza has a complex equivalent in English, namely the compound stock exchange, the two terms being lexically miles apart (the word borza itself has nothing in common with stocks or securities or exchanges of any kind). What is more, all this is packaged into an English acronym of the stock exchange name, thus LJSE, which is common practice with English names of stock exchanges (New York Stock Exchange—NYSE, London Stock Exchange—LSE, National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotations— NASDAQ), while less so in Slovene. The Slovene name of the exchange either appears in its full form or is shortened to borza. English abbreviations and acronyms are a common feature of stock exchange terminology and have penetrated Slovene in their original forms in large numbers. Examples include ETF (exchange traded fund—indeksni vzajemni sklad), SI (systematic internalizer—sistematicni internalizator), MiFID (Markets in Financial Instruments Directive—direktiva o trgu financnih instrumentov), OTC (over-the-counter, which has no lexicalized equivalent in Slovene), FOK (fill-or-kill—narocilo z razponom in odstranitvijo neizvrsene kolicine). In these cases, there are no equivalent Slovene abbreviations (although descriptive equivalents do exist), since the English ones are recognized and actively used by all Slovene speakers of the LSP in question. Note also the difference between the highly idiomatic fill-or-kill as opposed to the descriptive Slovene expression. 3. 4. 3. 4. 1. SLO: complex NP > EN: complex NP Structurally and lexically transparent equivalents auction trading brokerage house avkcijsko trgovanje borznoposredniska hisa 158 Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 7 (2009) 3. 4. 1. Structurally and lexically transparent equivalents (continued) electronic trading financial instrument institutional investor public company trading day elektronsko trgovanje financni instrument institucionalni vlagatelj javna druzba trgovalni dan  Note further instances of the so-called international words in both columns, underlining the international character of the terminology: avkcijsko—auction, financni—financial, instrument—instrument, elektronsko—electronic, institucionalni—institutional. Although we do have a native Slovene word for institution, which is ustanova, there is no semantically corresponding Slovene adjective (ustanovni in this case would be a false friend); this is why the Slovene term employs the international premodifier. 3. 4. 2. Structurally parallel, lexically unpredictable equivalents official market regulated market retail investor semi-official market average price initial public offering bullish market registered shares private bonds government bonds open-end fund borzna kotacija organizirani trg mali vlagatelj prosti trg enotni tecaj prva javna prodaja bikovski trend imenske delnice podjetniske obveznice javne obveznice vzajemni sklad Here we have NPs of the uniform structure Adj+N on both sides, and what is problematic is the lexical choices—either of premodifiers or of heads. In place of official one would expect a fusion with the words stock exchange (judging from borzen). Kotacija does have a direct translation, namely quotation, but the English term refers to the highest bid or lowest ask price available on a security at any given time and thus the two are false friends. The very specific Slovene term borzna kotacija, which stands for the part of the LJSE regulated market intended for companies complying with strict reporting and disclosure obligations, only has one equivalent in English, namely official market. For organizirani trg, many would expect organized market, which, however, is a mistranslation. Instinctively, and not being familiar with stock exchange terminology, a translator might also be tempted to translate the seemingly unproblematic mali vlagatelj as something like small investor, which would of course result in implications divorced from the stock exchange context. If looked at in isolation, prost, enoten, prodaja, trend, imenski, kotacija, podjetniski, javen would all get translations different from those in the above right B. Bozinovski, The Language of the Stock Exchange †¦ 159 column. Here they appear in typical multi-word lexical items from the language of the stock exchange, and demand specific equivalents. The above pairs are also illustrative of the different conceptualizations in the two languages. Take podjetniske obveznice—they are not *entrepreneurial bonds or *company bonds, but rather private bonds. What is more, although one might expect, in view of the logic of things, the opposite of private to be public bonds, English nevertheless calls them government bonds (while Slovene does see them as public, thus javne obveznice). 3. 4. 3. Structurally divergent, lexically parallel equivalents 3. 4. 3. a. Opposite order of lexemes or different parts of speech delnica [prostega trga] druzba za upravljanje [dvotirni] sistem [vodenja druzb] indeks [blue-chip delnic] indeks [celotnega trga] indeks obveznic posel s sveznjem struktura prometa vzdrzevalec likvidnosti N+[NP] N+PP [Adj]+N+ [NP] N+[NP] N+[NP] N+N N+PP N+N N+N [semi-official market] share management company [two-tier management] system blue-chip index [total market] index bond index block trade turnover structure liquidity provider [NP]+N N+N [NP+N]+ N N+N [NP]+N N+N N+N N+N N+N In phrases with indices, Slovene has plural nominal postmodifiers in the genitive case (indeks obveznic), while English will typically lexicalize the same concept though a singular nominal premodifier in the nominative (bond index). The delnice part of the respective Slovene NPs (indeks blue-chip delnic, indeks delnic investicijskih skladov) has a nil realization in English (blue-chip index, investment fund index). 3. 4. 3. b. Structurally different premodifiers avkcijsko trgovanje celotna trzna kapitalizacija delniska druzba osnovni kapital presezni certifikat tekoci podatki trzna kapitalizacija trzno narocilo cenovno obcutljiva informacija dobro pouceni vlagatelj auction trading total market capitalization joint-stock company share capital outperformance certificate real-time data market capitalization market order price-sensitive information well-informed investor 160 Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 7 (2009) Slovene uses adjectival premodifiers where English has nominal ones, except in the last two cases, which both share the structure of a nominal head premodified by an adjective and even share the same head, but employ different premodifiers; the Slovene premodifier has the head obcutljiv premodified by the adverb cenovno, whereas in English the same information is lexicalized through a compound composed of a noun (price) and an adjective (sensitive). 3. 4. 3. c. Structurally different postmodifiers delnice investicijskih skladov predcasni odkup delnic stopnja donosa trzna kapitalizacija obveznic shares of investment funds early redemption of shares rate of return market cap of bonds The recurrent pattern here is a nominal postmodifier in the genitive case in Slovene as opposed to a postmodifying prepositional phrase (PP)—typically the of-phrase, as shown by all of the above examples—in English. Both groups of postmodifiers have the same function (namely that of expressing genitival relations), irrespective of their having different constructions; Slovene being a synthetic language, its expression of the genitive involves attaching genitival suffixes on postmodifying nouns, with English, an analytic language, having the same content expressed through an independent morpheme (the preposition of). Postmodifiers may be PPs on both sides, but with different heads: sredstva v upravljanju trgovanje z obveznicami sistematicni internalizator za delnice 3. 4. 4. N+PP N+PP NP+PP assets under management N+PP trading in bonds N+PP systematic internalizer in NP+PP shares Structurally and lexically divergent equivalents EN BTS trading system GBD brokerage house market maker TUVL segment 3. 4. 4. a. Explanatory equivalent BTS GBD TUVL segment The acronym TUVL stands for Trg uradnih vzdrzevalcev likvidnosti, BTS for borzni trgovalni sistem and GBD for Gorenjska borznoposredniska hisa, none of which have English counterparts. There are other Slovene acronyms and abbreviations that do not have direct English equivalents and need explanatory phrases when being translated into English, e. g. , CTG (celotna globina trga), ATVP (Agencija za trg vrednostnih paprijev), KDD (Centralna klirinsko depotna druzba), DZU (druzba za upravljanje), ID (investicijska druzba), PID (pooblascena investicijska druzba), and others. Disregarding the names of institutions, only a few are left, a situation B. Bozinovski, The Language of the Stock Exchange †¦ 161 somewhat different from that in English, which abounds in abbreviated forms. These, in turn, do typically not require explanatory Slovene phrases to be understood by Slovenes, being used world-wide by the speakers of the LSP in question. Slovene abbreviations, on the other hand, are not self-explanatory or known to English speakers, and therefore do need explanations. Cf. 3. 3. 3. 4. 4. b. Non-transparent equivalents Below are a few groups of recurrent constructions that appear in the two languages as equivalent: SLO: NP [NP(nomin. )+NP(gen. )] [Kodeks upravljanja] [javnih delniskih druzb] SLO: NP [N(nomin. )+N(gen. )] nihanje cen obrat kapitalizacije placilo kuponov revizija indeksov SLO: NP [N(nomin. )+NP(gen. )] indeks [delnic borznega in prostega trga] EN: NP [NP+N] [Corporate Governance] Code EN: NP [N+N] price volatility turnover rate coupon payment index review EN: NP [NP+N] [total market] index Note the contrastively problematic EN index review (similarly index performance, index structure, index constituents, etc), where the premodifying noun index is always in the singular, both if referring to a single index (SLO revizija indeksa) or several (SLO revizija indeksov). This calls for an attentive English-Slovene translator who must infer from context. SLO: NP [N(nomin. )+NP(gen. )] datum [zapadlosti zadnjega kupona] SLO: NP [N(nomin. )+N (gen. )] institut izstopa institut iztisnitve oddelitev druzbe SLO: NP [NP+PP] [prvi trgovalni dan] [brez upravicenja do dividende] [izvedeni financni instrumenti] [na blago] SLO: NP [NP/N+PP] [borzni clan] [z oddaljenim dostopom] narocilo [s preudarkom] EN: NP [N+N] coupon date EN: NP [cpd] sell-out squeeze-out spin-off EN: NP [N+N] ex-dividend date commodity derivatives EN: NP [Adj+N] remote member discretionary order. 162 Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 7 (2009) SLO: NP [N+PP] delnice [v borzni kotaciji] 3. 4. 4. b. Non-transparent equivalents (continued) SLO: NP [N+PP] poslovanje [s sveznji] prenosi [med racuni istega imetnika] trgovanje [z vrednostnimi papirji] trgovanje [na podlagi notranjih informacij] SLO: NP [N+PP] potrdilo o pravnomocnosti SLO: NP [Adj+N] (borzni) clan kosovne delnice presecni datum EN: NP [NP+N] [official market] shares. EN: NP [N+N] block trading inter-accounts management securities trading insider dealing EN: NP [N(gen. )+NP] court’s [finality seal] EN: NP [N/NP+N] member (firm) [no par value] shares record date The above lists of corresponding construction patterns are far from exhaustive. We have merely made an attempt at classifying selected NPs both according to their structural (congruent or divergent) and lexical (transparent or oblique) properties, trying to show that there are innumerable patterns of correspondence between the two languages. 4.  Discussion and conclusion The present analysis has mapped out a complex web of interlingual correspondences between Slovene and English terms and expressions from the language of the stock exchange. The CA focused on the form of the identified pairs of NPs as well as on problems of meaning, discovering such interlingual difficulties as divergent polysemy, false friends, conceptual and lexical gaps. This was expected, since languages are known to differ in an unsystematic and largely unpredictable manner as to expressing the same content. We will now present our findings under the following three headings: a. Translation correspondence. Lexical (terminological) gaps The analysis has shown the prevalent type of translation correspondence between the identified Slovene and English NPs to be partial correspondence; it involves structural non-congruence, often coupled with complexities of meaning. Example pairs include: pooblascenec—proxy holder, trgovalna koda—ticker, posel s sveznjem—block trade, trzna kapitalizacija—market capitalization, promet clanov—turnover by member firms, nominalne delnice—par value shares, etc. There were also instances of complete correspondence, where the English and Slovene NPs were both structurally and semantically congruent, but these were a minority. Examples include: promet—turnover, trgovalni dan—trading day. B. Bozinovski, The Language of the Stock Exchange †¦ 163 Examples of nil correspondence between English and Slovene NPs have revealed lexical (or, rather terminological) gaps in the languages of the stock exchange, where certain concepts exist or have been lexicalized in one language but not in the other. English terms for which there are no ready-made Slovene equivalents include insider, blue-chip, OTC, and many others. Our expectations regarding the three types of translation equivalence to be found between lexical items in two languages, as laid down in the Introduction, have thus been confirmed. English is the lingua franca of business and finance, and this is also reflected (interlingually) in the language of the stock exchange. New concepts and terms for them are born in the Anglophone West, while the rest of the world adopts the English terminology and mostly just localizes it to a certain extent, often failing to come up with language-specific equivalent terms. As a result, Slovene stock exchange terminology abounds in carbon copies of English terms (blue-chip indeks, sistematicni internalizator, insajder), directly modelled upon their English counterparts, and descriptive expressions (izvedeni financni instrument, trgovanje na podlagi notranjih informacij, prvi trgovalni dan brez upravicenja do dividende). Especially tricky are virtually untranslatable English terms that have no lexical equivalent in Slovene at all (mistrade, market maker, OTC, hedge fund). Problematic as to their Slovene equivalents are also the idiom-like pumping dumping, painting the tape, wash sales, scalping, etc. When there are no ready-made translation equivalents (lexical, conceptual gaps), there are at least three options—a) to make up a new Slovene term, b) to opt for a descriptive equivalent, or c) to try to find an approximate â€Å"functional† equivalent. Descriptive expressions (posli, pri katerih je sprememba lastnistva financnih instrumentov zgolj navidezna for wash sales) can be long-winded. Functional equivalents (narocilo s skrito kolicino is a type of order very similar to iceberg order, but not identical to iceberg) can be inaccurate. The third option, to invent a new term, lies outside the scope of translation work, since in LSP it is not customary for translators to decide on preferred terms for concepts. These are for experts to agree on (sometimes in cooperation with linguists). Once they become used and catch on, the translator may recognize them as legitimate equivalents, based on expert advice, but not before, lest they become ghost words, i. e. terms that exist on paper, but not in actual use. There are also some Slovene terms with no mirror-image English equivalents, which is a general feature of any terminology, not just the language of the stock exchange. TUVL, BTS, and the like are limited to terms for concepts unique to the Slovene stock exchange trading platform. We can therefore speak of conceptual gaps. They are translated into English through explanatory equivalents, e. g. , market maker TUVL segment. b. Interference. Collocations, false friends and the like It is a known fact that language learners (translators as non-native speakers of an L2 included) are inclined to draw analogies with their L1 when constructing lexical units in L2. When the two languages overlap in their formal, semantic or grammatical features, this leads to positive transfer and correct L2 lexical items (terms and expressions). Slovene terms such as mednarodni razpis, nalozba, dividenda, obveznica and 164. Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 7 (2009) their English translations are parallel in all of the above respects and thus unproblematic in translational and contrastive terms. If the formal, semantic or grammatical features of L1 and L2, however, do not overlap, or if they do but only partially (when meanings agree, but not forms, or the other way around), then constructing L2 terms on the analogy with L1 ones leads to lexical errors and we speak of interference or negative transfer from L1. This is a possibility with the bulk of Slovene stock exchange terms and expressions. Take aplikacija, for instance. A translator unfamiliar with the terminology of the field might be tempted to translate it as application, which, to my knowledge, has no specialized meaning in this field, the correct equivalent being the unpredictable cross trade. Or the much debated organizirani trg, which is not organized in English, but rather regulated market. Consider also the temptation of word-for-word rendering of korak kotacije, borzna kotacija, mali vlagatelj, prekinitvena avkcija and many others. Negative transfer works in the opposite direction as well, when it is known as backward interference; under the influence of L2, learners can be often tempted to remodel their L1 lexical items to match those in L2. Even if backward interference be at work, expressions such as financial markets, legal framework, investors would not cause any problems, since they are structurally and semantically parallel to their Slovene equivalents. It gets tricky when the Slovene term for open-end fund is not odprti sklad, but rather vzajemni sklad, and especially with terms such as quote. Quote has the attractive verbal equivalent kotirati that does exist and is widely used but with a different meaning, the correct rendering being narocilo za nakup in prodajo. The cross-linguistic floors are also slippery with terms such as regulated market, which appears unproblematic at first sight; in fact, however, regulirani trg is an expression that does not exist in the Slovene language of the stock exchange, where the same concept has been lexicalized through another lexeme—organizirani trg. Further, there are pairs of NPs that look deceptively similar, yet differ in important details, which we had anticipated in the Introduction to this article. For instance, trade in shares is trgovati z delnicami, assets under management is sredstva v upravljanju, right on a security is pravica iz vrednostnega papirja, bond (sg. ) index is indeks obveznic (pl. ), dobicek (sg. ) na delnico is earnings (pl. ) per share, and capital markets can either be kapitalski trg (sg. ) or kapitalski trgi (pl. ). Grammatical collocations are a notoriously difficult interlingual area, causing problems especially in encoding, and so are the singular—plural distinctions. When translating slovenski kapitalski trg into English, most would opt for the only reasonable choice, namely Slovene capital market. Yet the English prefer the plural expression, thus Slovene capital markets. Due to semantic tailoring, a lexical item may be endowed with a multitude of semantic shadings and consequently receive different counterparts in the other language. Trg, for instance, is not always market in the language of the stock exchange. Borzni and prosti trg are exchange and semi-official market, while for narocila na trgu we have orders sitting in the order book. Similarly, the adjective organizirani can either be organized (trading) or regulated (market) in English, while vzdrzevalec likvidnosti can either be liquidity provider or market maker, depending on the context. B. Bozinovski, The Language of the Stock Exchange †¦ 165 Conversely, the EN share is not always delez in Slovene; note the pairs share—delnica, official market share—delnica na borznem trgu, market share—trzni delez, share capital—osnovni kapital. This confirms our expectations worded in the Introduction on the possible discrepancy between translation equivalents of lexemes in isolation (aplikacija—application, organiziran—organized) and those of the same lexemes in a particular context (aplikacija—cross trade, organizirani trg—regulated market). It is one of the goals of contrastive lexicology to point out such controversial pairs of collocations and thus sustain the claim that translation equivalence is largely collocation-dependent. The analysis has also singled out Slovene and English NPs that look similar (have a similar form), but differ, at least partly, in meaning (the so-called false friends). One of them usually belongs to the LSP of the stock exchange, while the other has LGP applications divorced from the stock exchange context: quote (n. )—kotirati (v.), institutional inve.