Term-formation deals with the small components of language known as terms. To put it simply, words are more general than terms. This means that words are identical to an umbrella term that embraces terms inside. Sager (1990) interprets words as items in the lexicon of a special language, which have general reference and are not specific to any discipline.

Persian term-formation is officially conducted by the Academy of Persian Language and Literature (hence, APLL). APLL was founded in 1935 in Tehran as the only official Persian language academy, authority, and regulatory body in Iran. It aims to conduct academic linguistic researches on Persian language and keep its originality and integrity as the common and official language of Iran. It also attempts to reinforce, develop, and equip Persian language in a way to meet the increasing cultural, scientific, and technical needs in the field of Persian language and literature. More importantly, APLL has the mission to eliminate dispersions among cultural and research centers over Persian language by coordinating linguistic efforts and researches. As such, it monitors and determines some criteria for term- formation to be observed by translators or perhaps lexicographers in confronting new terms.

The term-formation council of APLL is composed of over 60 specialized groups. Within each of these groups, there exist some experts who, along with other members, find equivalents for foreign terms in their special fields such as physics, medicine, etc. Thus, the source words adopted in Persian term- formation belong to different kinds of disciplines. The selected lexical items for the present study are not bound to a special field and include terms from several disciplines. Consequently, it would be much appropriate to use term and term-formation in our case.

The unit of translation (hence UT) in translating words from English into Persian would either be a morpheme or a word. This means that there are two UTs considered for translating words: morphemes and words. Morphemes are either free or bound. Bound morphemes are basically of two kinds: affixes and roots. English language makes ample use of affixes for derivational term- formation. In fact, derivation is the most employed procedure for term- formation in English (YULE 2010). Persian, however, resorts to different procedures for translating such affixes of English words (KHODABAKHSHI 2009). This means that only in some of the words the UT is a morpheme and only some of the prefixes are translated into prefixes in Persian. For translation of other words, a word is normally considered the UT. In the present study, we attempted to investigate the translation of English prefixes into Persian by APLL. Different procedures for translating English prefixes are further studied. All this was done to determine which one of the two UTs, namely morpheme and word, is more frequent in Persian term-formation.

The act of translating usually involves choosing one or more UTs. As Shuttleworth and Cowie (1997) suggest, this is done to determine the linguistic level at which the translator wishes to analyze the source text (hence, ST). Scholars have observed UTs at different ranks. In the earlier decades around 1950, structuralists adopted UTs at lower ranks, such as morphemes and mainly, words. From 1960s onward, translators or researchers focused on UT at ranks higher than word, i.e. phrase, clause, sentence, text, and even culture, after the cultural turn. It can be easily noticed that smaller UTs, such as morphemes, have usually been ignored. Translations have rarely remained at lower ranks than words so as to take morphemes into account. As Lehrer (1995) suggests, semantic units such as morphemes are given little attention in term-formation. Vinay and Darbelnet (1995) even reject the notion of words as UTs (quoted in MUNDAY 2008). Moreover, as the researcher examined the MA and PhD theses in the universities of his country, only few studies had been carried out to consider words or morphemes as the UT.

Nevertheless, a lot of attention is given by terminologists to morphemes, since those are the smallest units of language. In fact, term- formation based on the analysis of morphemes is of paramount significance in the translation of terms and modern Persian term-formation (TAJVIDI 2005). Thus, taking words or morphemes as the UT is indispensable as far as term- formation is concerned simply because there are two ranks observed in term- formation: word and morpheme. Following, some instances are presented even from languages other than Persian to illustrate the importance of morphemes and words as the smallest units of language and the significance of morphological analysis in translating words.

Analysis of morphemes was employed as early as 9th century A.D. by Al- Kindi in his translations of philosophical terminology from Greek into Arabic (BADAWI 1986). He analyzed the derivational structure of Greek words to offer Arabic translations for them and sometimes resorted to other translators to describe the structure of Greek words to him. Whatever his intention from such an analysis, Badawi believes such morphological analysis in translating words is used even today in translating technical terminology. Morphemes are also specifically addressed by Casagrande (1954) in his linguistic types of translation (quoted in SHUTTLEWORTH AND COWIE 1997). He defines the aim of this type of translation as identifying and assigning “equivalent meanings to the constituent morphemes of the source language” (94). In linguistic translation, ST segments are rendered sequentially into target language (hence, TL) units and the structural form is of paramount importance.

Based on the foregoing, taking morphemes as UT is fundamental to the study of term-formation strategies, particularly derivation and compounding. Thus, the primary focus of the present research was to find the extent to which morphemes are used as UT in term-formation. The present study is perhaps the first one specifically focusing on UTs adopted in term-formation since words or morphemes are rarely considered UTs. This demanded a study on the term-formation methods in Persian.

The present study adopts the strategies offered by the APLL for equivalent-finding. It is remarked in A Collection of Terms (TERMINOLOGY DEPARTMENT 2014) that there are two methods to find equivalents for English words:

1. Conceptual equivalent-finding: In this method, the focus is on the definitions and meanings of the English words as a whole, ignoring their structures.

2. Calquing: In the second method, the emphasis is on the structure and the constituents of the English words. In other words, every meaningful unit in the foreign word is replaced by a meaningful unit in Persian.

It is to add that in each of the two methods, term-formation is done through one of the term-formation patterns. In a study conducted by Pasha Abgarmi (2015), the two term-formation methods were examined in detail and strategies for treating English prefixes in Persian term-formation were introduced and investigated.

Tajvidi (2005) calls the above-mentioned second type of equivalent- finding the analytic-compositional method and suggests that it has been the most frequent equivalent-finding strategy in the recent decades. He offers this name because in this method, first, the word is analyzed to its morphemes and having found the equivalents of morphemes, they are combined. This method is frequent since both English and Persian languages are analytic. As it was mentioned in the background section, the analytic- compositional method has a long history in term-formation.

Considering the UT, it could be concluded that in the first method, the UT is a word since the meaning of the whole word is taken into account and the constituents are ignored. In the second method, the UT is a morpheme because the meaningful units of words (stated in the definition of calquing) are known as morphemes. Morphemes can, in turn, be rendered in two manners:

1. The source language (hence, SL) morphemes including prefixes may be rendered into lexemes in the TL. In this condition, it so appears that the TL words will most probably be compounds because the roots of words are also translated into lexemes mostly. In some cases, TL words might even be synthetic compounds.

2. The SL morphemes including affixes may be similarly translated into affixes in the TL. In this case, the TL words will normally be derivational.

Thus, it can be summarized that there are two UTs considered in term- formation namely words and morphemes. In the former (called conceptual method), the focus is on the meaning of the whole word. In the latter type (called calquing), there are two outcomes for SL morphemes (prefixes in this study): being rendered into affixes (leading to derivatives) or lexemes (leading to compounds).

There is not a single criterion to distinguish affixes (prefixes in this study) from lexemes. Scholars have different views in this regard. However, in the present article, the viewpoint of Kalbasi (2008) was adopted as one of the modern definitions. According to her, prefixes are bound morphemes that precede bases and cannot be used independently. In other words, they should always be attached to other words or bases. On the other hand, lexemes can be used independently and do not need to be attached to other words or bases. For instance, فرا is considered a prefix since it cannot be used alone, but برون is regarded as a lexeme since it can be used independently without being attached to other bases (see table 2).

Table 1

Prefix	Frequency	Prefix	Frequency	Prefix	Frequency
01. after-	36	15. extra-	65	29. pre-	671
02. ante-	105	16. fore-	390	30. pro-	1206
03. anti-	283	17. hyper-	72	31. pseudo-	37
04. arch-	240	18. inter-	580	32. retro-	41
05. auto-	173	19. meta-	145	33. semi-	98
06. back-	199	20. micro-	171	34. sub-	308
07. bi-	1433	21. mis-	273	35. super-	148
08. by-	102	22. multi-	167	36. supra-	26
09. circum-	10	23. non-	230	37. trans-	564
10. counter-	131	24. off-	224	38. un-	238
11. dis-	779	25. on-v	64	39. under-	100
12. down-	94	26. out-	306	40. up-	73
13. en-	426	27. over-	375
14. ex-	278	28. post-	206

Table 2

SL Term	TL Equivalent	Prefix Equivalent
extragalactic radiation	تابش فراکهکشانی	Prefix
extrasensory perception	ادراک فراحسی	Prefix
extraordinary ray	پرت ِو غیرعادی	Prefix
extra run	برنامۀ اضافی	Lexeme
extra chromosomal inheritance	وراثت برونفامتنی	Lexeme
extracellular	برونیاختهای	Lexeme
extracronal retainer	نگهدارندۀ برونتاجی	Lexeme
extramusical	برونموسیقایی	Lexeme
extranet	بروننِت	Lexeme
extranuclear inheritance	وراثت برونهستهای	Lexeme
extraoral orthodontic appliance	بَست اَرتادندانی بروندهانی	Lexeme
extratropical cyclone	چرخند برونحا ّرهای	Lexeme
extraversion	برونگرایی	Lexeme
trend extrapolation	برونیابی روند	Lexeme
extra load tyre	تایر پُربار	Lexeme
extra virgin olive oil	روغنزیتون بکر ممتاز	Lexeme
extra-alveolar crown	تاج بالینی	Ignored
extragalactic distance scale	نردبان فاصله	Ignored
extrahepatic bile duct carcinoma	پوشچنگار زردابراه	Ignored
extraordinary felling	برش اضطراری	Ignored
extrasystole	ضربان پیشرس	Ignored

As the focus of the current study, the researcher aims to find the ways terminologists treat prefixes in their translations of English terms. Based on the kinds of term-formation methods discussed above, it can be concluded that prefixes can be treated in three manners:

1. Prefix into Prefix: They may be translated into a prefix in Persian and the output would be a derivative. An example may be progression translated into پیشروی (going forward).

2. Prefix into Lexeme: They may be translated into Persian as a Lexeme. Thus, the output would mostly be a compound. An example is projection translated into برونفکنی (throwing outside).

3. Ignoring Prefix (Focus on Function): The prefix may be ignored. Here, the focus would be on the function of the source word. Since the whole word rather than its constituents is observed here, the UT in this method is a word. An example may be projectile translated into پرتابه (something that is thrown). Borrowing English words is also a case of ignoring prefixes. An example may be prostate translated into پروستات (/prosta:t/).

The present study used a general bilingual parallel corpus comprising an English element and a Persian one. English terms were listed next to their Persian equivalents. All the words with the specified prefixes were included and no randomization was applied in selecting them. The entries in the books follow an alphabetic order in both Persian and English. Since our ST is the collection of English words, the part alphabetized in English was adopted. The corpus of the study comprised all the eleven volumes of the book A Collection of Terms: approved by the Academy of Persian Language and Literature published by APLL from 2004 to 2014.

Term-formation is officially conducted by the APLL in Iran. Thus, the above-mentioned book was selected as the corpus of study. Furthermore, we attempted to study the recent status of Persian term-formation. The chosen corpus is frequently updated and newer terms are continuously added to it through years. Perhaps, it would not be an exaggeration to call it the most up-to-date corpus of Persian equivalents offered for English terms. Some of the words in this corpus are not found in popular dictionaries or even on the Internet. Even when they are found, newer senses of them are not included. Instances might be the word off-peak hours meaning سبکی زمان or MMS translated into فراپیام.

Moreover, a digital corpus was also used beside the books. This digital corpus comprised all the eleven volumes of the books online. This corpus is accessible at: http://www.persianacademy.ir/fa/word/default.aspx.

The present study was conducted on words or to be exact, terms, and the equivalents offered for them by APLL. Every word in the corpus containing the specified prefixes constituted the data for the study. Thus, 40 prefixes were examined, their list being extracted from English word-formation processes (LIEBER 2005). There are, for sure, many prefixes in English, but examining all of them were beyond the scope of the present study. Moreover, the 40 extracted prefixes were among the most common prefixes in English (see LEHRER 1995; BAUER 1983). They are given in alphabetical order in table 1.

The first step in data collection was to determine what English prefixes were to be analyzed in the study. Having extracted the list of prefixes, English words containing the specified prefixes were manually extracted from the corpus and categorized under each prefix. The equivalents offered by APLL for the selected words were also extracted from the same corpus. English words and their Persian equivalents were tabulated to make their comparison easier. The online corpus (the APLL official website tool) was used as an instrument to search prefixes in the corpus and yield concise results. Over 2354 words with the specified prefixes were found. The words were then extracted and classified in Microsoft Excel 2013. The frequencies of the prefixes in the corpus are given in table 1.

Cells of the tables had to be highlighted in order to group words. As it was mentioned, prefixes were treated in three manners in offering Persian equivalents for English words, namely prefix into prefix, prefix into lexeme, and ignoring prefix. When conceptual equivalent-finding method is used (i.e. when UT is a word), the English prefixes are not translated separately. In these cases, the prefixes are ignored and no equivalents are identifiable for them. However, when calquing method is adopted (i.e. when UT is a morpheme), the prefixes are rendered into either prefixes or lexemes in Persian.

Highlighting was applied at this stage with multiple colors. Several colors were used to highlight words where the English prefix was translated into different prefixes in Persian. Other colors were also used to highlight instances of translating English prefixes into Persian lexemes. Finally, another color was employed to distinguish cases of conceptual equivalent-finding.

Following, a sample is presented of the way collected data were classified. The prefix extra- is selected as an instance (see table 2).

It is noted that the prefix extra- is used in 21 words, but treated differently in each of them. The prefix equivalent column indicates how the prefix is treated in each word. When calquing method was adopted and the UT was a morpheme, the prefixes were translated into prefixes or lexemes. When the conceptual method was adopted, the UT was a word and the prefixes were ignored. The prefixes in highlighted cells are translated similarly.

For instance, the word extragalactic radiation is translated into تابش فراکهکشانی (belonging to over the galaxy) where the prefix extra- is translated into the prefix -فرا (over). The word extranet is translated into بروننِت (outside the net) where extra- is translated into the lexeme برون (outside). Finally, extraordinary felling is translated into اضطراری برش (emergency cutting) where the word اضطراری (emergency) is offered as an equivalent for extraordinary, but no separate equivalent can be spotted for the prefix extra-.

In the present study, the frequency of the two UTs, namely morpheme and word in Persian term-formation, was investigated. Following, the results are provided and the frequencies are calculated for both methods. The results are presented in two manners, general and detailed. The former indicates the sum of results for all 40 prefixes. However, the detailed results examine prefixes one by one, showing the mode (most frequent results) for them.

First, calquing, or analytic-compositional method, is finding equivalents for the constituting morphemes of words. In other words, the UT is a morpheme in this equivalent-finding method. In the present research, prefixes were studied as a subtype of morphemes. It was noted that English prefixes could be translated into either prefixes or lexemes in Persian. The results for each of them are presented in table 3.^{1 2}

Table 3

	TL	Prefix				Sum	Lexeme								Sum
SL		Eq1	f2	Eq	f		Eq	f	Eq	f	Eq	f	Eq	f
1. after-		پس	13	باز	1	14	تکمیلی	1	دوم	1	پیشاپسین	1	بعد	1	4
2. ante-		پیش	3	پیشا	3	7									0
		پار	1
3. anti-		پاد	55	ضد	23	85	بُر	3	کاه	1	گیر	1	کژ	1	8
		نا	6	وا	1		ستیز	1	زدا	1
4. arch-						0	مجمع	1	پر	1					2
5. auto-						0	خود	48	برجا	2	خود	1			51
6. back-		پس	18	وا	3	23	برگشت	7	پشت	6	عقب	4	پشت	2	23
		پیش	1	باز	1		برگردان	1	وارون	1	پشتیبان	1	ته	1
7. bi-						0	دو	52	دوگانه	2	نیم	1			55
8. by-						0	ضمنی	1	جنبی	1	کنار	1	جانبی	1	5
							میاندورهای	1
9. circum-		پیرا	1			1	دور	1							1
10. counter-		پاد	15	ضد	9	27	عکس	2	نقض	1	زدایی	1	وارون	1	7
		دگر	2	نا	1		مخالف	1	خالف	1
11. dis-		نا	16	بی	2	23	زدایی	4	سلب	1	کم	1	خواه	1	10
		وا	2	دژ	1		گسیختگی	1	باخته	1	کژ	1
		فرو	1	دگر	1
12. down-		فرو	13			14	پایین	5	سو	2	راست	1	خواب	1	14
		پیش	1				پایین	1	زوج	1	اَکار	1	پابه	1
							افتاده	1
13. en-		در	1			1	سازی	4	گزاری	2	در	2	بندی	2	13
							کردن	1	دهی	1	انداز	1
14. ex-		دگر	1	بر	1	4	برون	21	ده	1	زدایی	1	برداری	1	25
		فرا	1	وا	1		زا	1
15. extra-		فرا	2	غیر	1	3	برون	10	پر	1	ممتاز	1	اضافی	1	13
16. fore-		پیش	10	پیشا	1	11	آینده	2	پیشین	1	جلو	1	جلو	1	5
17. hyper-		بیش	11	ابر	3	19	پر	6	برین	2	افراطی	1	دور	1	10
		فوق	3	فرا	2
18. inter-		هم	4			7	میان	27	بین	24	در هم	4	چند	3	76
		بینا	3				بر	2	واسط	2	پایه	2	درون	2
							متقابل	1	رابط	1	پیما	1	مرز	1
							پساپیشین	1	مخلوط	1	به هم	1	میانجی	1
							برهم	1	دو	1
19. meta-		دگر	7	فرا	5	16	متقابل	1	پر	1					2
		پس	2	در	1
		شبه	1
20. micro-		فرا	1			1	ریز	45	خرد	12	کم	3	میکرو	1	61
21. mis-		نا	1	دگر	1	2	کژ	2	نامناسب	1	خطا	1			4
22. multi-		هم	2	چندا	2	5	چند	42	بس	2	چندم	2	مکرر	1	48
		بیش	1				دو	1
23. non-		نا	44	غیر	33	88	عدم	2	بدون	1	فاقد	1	سلب	1	6
		بی	9	ن	2		برون	1
24. off-		پس	2	فرا	1	5	برون	5	گشته	4	خارج از	2	بیرونی	1	16
		غیر	1	بی	1		دور	1	خارج	1	کج	1	پایان	1
25. on-		با	1			2	آغاز	1	سو	1	در	1	به	1	6
		بر	1				روی	1	بر	1
26. out-		بر	1			1	برون	7	دور	2	پی	1	دریا	1	13
							بیرون	1	ردی	1
27. over-		بیش	19	فرا	3	23	اضافه	3	مفرط	2	اضافه	1	بیشبود	1	15
		پیش	1				رو	1	تند	1	بیشازحد	1	اضافی	1
							سر	1	زیاد	1	پر	1	بر	1
28. post-		پس	15	پسا	13	28	ناگذر	1	پس از	1	پشت	1			3
29. pre-		پیش	60	پیشا	6	67	پیش از	6	زود	3	مقدماتی	1	سر	1	16
		فرا	1				کمک	1	نوک	1	پیشبینی	1	کوچک	1
							تقدیمی	1
30. pro-		پیش	30	فرا	4	40	برون	2	آینده	1	دومرحلهای	1	پی	1	7
		بر	3	فرو	2		آغازین	1	بیرون	1
		پیشا	1
31. pseudo-		شبه	12			12	نما	6	کاذب	3	دروغین	1	بس	1	11
32. retro-		پس	8	وا	2	11	برگشتی	1	عقب	1	پشت	1	گذشته	1	4
		بر	1
33. semi-		شبه	1			1	نیم	27	نیمه	19					46
34. sub-		فرو	8	وا	3	15	زیر	48	نیمه	7	جنب	5	جا	4	74
		دگر	1	شبه	1		خرده	2	فرعی	2	تحت	1	نیم	1
		بر	1	پس	1		زیرین	1	پایین	1	دوم	1	پی	1
35. super-		ابر	28	فرا	6	36	برهم	2	زبر	2	افراطی	1	ثانویه	1	12
		بر	1	باز	1		برتر	1	بسیار	1	تند	1	سر	1
							ترکیبی	1	رو	1
36. supra-		فرا	1	فوق	1	3	باال	5	زبر	2	بر	1	باالیی	1	10
		ابر	1				تک	1
37. trans-		ترا	37	ورا	2	42	ترانس	3	گردانی	2	نیم	1	هما	1	8
		فرا	2	دگر	1		رو	1
38. un-		نا	25	ن	11	51	عدم	1							1
		بی	10	غیر	5
39. under-		نا	1			2	زیر	14	کم	7	کمبود	2	کسر	2	33
		فرو	1				کف	1	فرود	1	زیرین	1	در	1
							کم	1	بن	1	ناکافی	1	کند	1
40. up-		فرا	11	پاد	2	15	باال	8	به کار	1	چپ	1	بعد	1	14
		پیش	1	پس	1		فرد	1	کارایی	1	افزایی	1
Total						705									732

In table 3, 40 English prefixes are listed as SL Prefixes. Their extracted TL equivalents are portrayed in two separate columns in front of them. The first column includes those equivalents that are similarly considered prefixes in Persian. The second column comprises the equivalents considered lexemes in Persian. Moreover, two columns are used to showing the sum of TL prefixes and lexemes for each SL prefix.

Each of the prefix or lexeme equivalents is followed by its frequency. For instances, for the first SL prefix (after-), the TL prefix equivalent -پس is offered in 13 cases while the TL prefix باز- (meaning re-) is offered in one case. Moreover, some equivalents are considered lexemes including دوم، تکمیلی، بعد پیشاپسین، (meaning complementary, second, succeeding, and then respectively). Each of these equivalents is employed once. Finally, the sum columns indicate that the prefix after- is translated into Persian prefixes in 14 cases while being translated into Persian lexemes in 4 cases. The final row also shows the total cases of translating SL prefixes into TL prefixes or lexemes. In sum, calquing method was used in 1437 words.

Second, in conceptual equivalent-finding, equivalents are offered regardless of the structure of the SL words. Instead, the meaning of the whole word is used as UT in equivalent-finding. Thus, unlike calquing method, separate equivalents are not identifiable for SL prefixes. Table 4 shows the frequency of this method used for each of the 40 prefixes studied.

Table 4

SL Prefix	F	SL Prefix	F	SL Prefix	F	SL Prefix	F
1. after-	1	11. dis-	38	21. mis-	3	31. pseudo-	1
2. ante-	4	12. down-	4	22. multi-	21	32. retro-	4
3. anti-	11	13. en-	42	23. non-	24	33. semi-	7
4. arch-	2	14. ex-	144	24. off-	10	34. sub-	35
5. auto-	14	15. extra-	5	25. on-	7	35. super-	17
6. back-	13	16. fore-	8	26. out-	18	36. supra-	0
7. bi-	14	17. hyper-	5	27. over-	4	37. trans-	98
8. by-	0	18. inter-	77	28. post-	9	38. un-	14
9. circum-	4	19. meta-	6	29. pre-	74	39. under-	11
10. counter-	4	20. micro-	13	30. pro-	138	40. up-	13
Sum	917

In table 4, each prefix is followed by a number in frequency columns. This number shows the frequency of conceptual equivalent-finding used for each of the prefixes. Since in this method the equivalents are offered for the whole word rather than its constituting morphemes, no equivalent is given here. In sum, 917 words were translated using the conceptual method.

With respect to the two methods and the tables offered above, the following results were obtained (see figure 1).

Figure 1

It can be noticed that calquing is used more frequently in equivalent- finding methods adopted by the APLL. Calquing is used in finding equivalents for 1437 words. These words constitute 61% of the whole studied words. Moreover, conceptual equivalent-finding was used to find equivalents for 917 words, constituting 39% of them.

The above-mentioned graph was used to compare the equivalent- finding methods in general. However, a more detailed comparison can be drawn for each SL prefix (see figure 2):

Figure 2

In 32 cases, constituting 80% of words, calquing method was more favored. However, in seven instances, equal to 18% of words, conceptual method was more frequent. In one case, the number of calquing was equal to conceptual method.

The present study investigated the frequency of two term-formation methods, namely structural (or calquing) and conceptual. Calquing was used in 1437 cases (61%) while conceptual equivalent-finding was applied in 917 cases (39%). This indeed supports what was suggested by Tajvidi (2005), that analytic-compositional method has been the most frequent equivalent-finding strategy in recent decades. The results for each of the English prefixes are even more markedly contrastive. The most frequent equivalents (the modes) were formed structurally in 80% of cases while they were produced through conceptual method merely in 18% of cases.

The higher frequency of calquing sheds light on another issue. It shows that morphemes are more frequently considered UTs in Persian term- formation than words. This is indeed a counterexample of what was discussed in the background section that smaller UTs are generally neglected. It can be resolved that smaller UTs are adopted in areas such as term-formation and perhaps continue to be.

As a summary, the present study dealt with the UTs adopted in Persian term-formation and their frequencies. It was noted that calquing or structural analysis of words was more frequent than conceptual equivalent-finding. This means that smaller UTs (e.g. morphemes) seem to be more favored by APLL in finding equivalents for SL terms than conceptual equivalent-finding (when UT is the whole word). Moreover, in calquing, the amount of translating prefixes into prefixes or lexemes was very close. Consequently, derivation and compounding were close.

When it comes to the higher frequency of calquing, it can be concluded that the current norm in term-formation is structural analysis of words. This might be interpreted in another way. Calquing involves focusing on smaller UTs such as morphemes. However, in the conceptual method, the whole word is the UT. Therefore, it might be claimed that the terminologist’s higher preference for calquing is related to their analytic personality. As noted by Dewey (2004), analytic types of characters pay attention to the parts (morphemes here) while holistic ones see something as a whole (the whole word here), not a collection of parts. Therefore, for instance, holistic people might choose UTs at higher ranks while analytic people may analyze words morpheme by morpheme. As a suggestion for further research, conducting a correlative study on the relation between holistic or analytic personality and the adopted UT is recommended.