2659

Scientific Newsletter of Voronezh State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering

Picture 4. Percentage of transformations at the level of text

The rhythm of the text

Loan translation

Specification

Modulation

Zero transformation

Partitioning

Change of part of speech

Change of part of the sentence

Change of type of the sentence

Explication

Compensation

Slide

Rearrangement

Addition

Omission

The proportion of the types of transformations is the following:

1)lexical transformations – 20%;

2)grammatical transformations – 31,8%;

3)lexical-grammatical transformations – 30,5%.

The equal distribution of the transformations shows that the rhythmization of the text is achieved by different means – words, grammatical categories, syntactical structures. Consequently, there is a variety of transformations used for the reproduction of the rhythm in the target text.

Having compared the source and target texts we can make the following conclusion concerning the means of expressing of the gender aspect in literary translation: the gendermarked units at every language level fulfill the certain function when reproducing the gender aspect of the work: at the morphological level these units make the context clear – the recipient can define the sex of the hero; at the lexical, syntactical and the level of text these units create the gender-marked (masculine or feminine) literary image by means of the words (appearance, psychological features, manners of behavior, social status), syntactical constructions (expressing the peculiarities of the speech of the hero/heroine) and the rhythm which emphasizes the gender components and creates the masculine or feminine image of Orlando.

The analysis of the source and target texts has shown that translation made by E. Surits is adequate. The translator identified the gender orientation of the text and reproduced the androgenous image of the main hero and the shift of the gender stereotypes manifested in the language – being a man the hero acts according to the female stereotypes and being a woman the heroine demonstrates masculine stereotypes. Thus, we are convinced that the gender aspect of translation is not unsolvable problem. Relying upon the classification of translation transformations made by V.N. Komissarov we showed that the gender-marked units can be reproduced by means of certain transformations. The analysis of the means of reproduction of the gender aspect of the novel in the Russian language indicates that the choice of the transformations depends on the type and the function of the gender-marked units.

144

According to the results of the research the difficulty of the reproduction of the gender aspect is that the language units of the literary text possess the simultaneous actualization of several meanings. The aim of the linguist is to interpret the image as accurately and correctly as possible [17]. Consequently, it is vital to identify and reproduce correctly the genderoriented associations which can be the integral part of the artistic stylistics of the original. The revealed peculiarities of the reproduction of the gender aspect in the language and the role of the gender component in translation can contribute to the improvement of translation and deeper understanding of the peculiarities of the gender aspect of the language. The translator should pay attention to the extralinguistic context and implicit information. It will help to find the appropriate equivalent corresponding to the gender requirement.

Bibliographic list

1.Komissarov V.N. Teorija perevoda (lingvisticheskie aspekty) / V. N. Komissarov. – M.: Vyssh. shk., 1990. – 253 p.

2.Fjodorov A.V. Osnovy obshhej teorii perevoda (lingvisticheskie problemy) / A. V. Fjodorov. – SPb.: Filol. fak. SPbGU; M.: OOO «Izdat. Dom «FILOLOGIJa TRI», 2002. –

416 p.

3.Maslova V.A. Lingvokul'turologija / V. A. Maslova. M.: Akad., 2001. – 208 p.

4.Vejlert A.A. O zavisimosti kolichestvennyh pokazatelej edinic jazyka ot pola govorjashhego lica / A.A. Vejlert // Voprosy jazykoznanija. – 1976. – № 5. – PP. 138–143.

5.Jespersen O. The Woman / O. Jespersen // The Feminist Critique of Language. – Ed. by D. Cameron. – London: [s.n.], 1998. – P. 225–241.

6.Zemskaja E.A. Osobennosti muzhskoj i zhenskoj rechi / E. A. Zemskaja, M. A. Kitajgorodskaja, N. N. Rozanova // Russkij jazyk v ego funkcionirovanii. – M.: Nauka, 1993. – PP. 90–136.

7.Kavinkina I.N. Projavlenie gendera v rechevom povedenii nositelej russkogo jazyka / I. N. Kavinkina. – Grodno: GrGU, 2007. – 153 p.

8.Krjuchkova T.B. Nekotorye jeksperimental'nye issledovanija osobennostej ispol'zovanija russkogo jazyka muzhchinoj i zhenshhinoj / T. B. Krjuchkova // Problemy psiholingvistiki. – M.: [b. i.], 1975. – PP. 186–200.

9.Lakoff R. Language and Woman’s Place / R. Lakoff. – New York: Harper and Row, 1975. – 85 p.

10.Potapov V.V. Sovremennoe sostojanie gendernyh issledovanij v anglojazych-nyh stranah / V. V. Potapov // Gender kak intriga poznanija. Gendernye issledovanija v lingvistike, literaturovedenii i teorii kommunikacii. – M.: Rudomino, 2002. – PP. 87–110.

11.Korostyleva N.N. Analiz gendernoj ierarhii v jazyke / N.N. Korostyleva // Nauchnyj vestnik Voronezh. gos. arh.-stroit. un-ta. Sovremennye lingvisticheskie i metodikodidakticheskie issledovanija. – 2004. – vyp. 2 (2). – S. 41-49.

12.Barhudarov L.S. Jazyk i perevod (Voprosy obshhej i chastnoj teorii perevoda) / L. S. Barhudarov. – M.: Mezhdunarod. otnoshenija, 1975. – 240 p.

13.Nida E. Towards a science of translation / E. Nida. – Leiden: Brill, 1964. – 331 p.

14.Smirnov, A.A. Metodika literaturnogo perevoda / A. A. Smirnov // Literaturnaja jenciklopedija. – URL : http://feb-web.ru/FEB/LITENC/ENCYCLOP/le8/le8-5121.htm. (vremja obrashhenija – 12.02.16)

15.Shvejcer A.D. Teorija perevoda: Status, problemy, aspekty / A. D. Shvejcer. – M.: Nauka, 1988. – 215 p.

16.Burukina O.A. Gender v perevode: Problema transformacii mentaliteta / O. A. Burukina // Gendernye issledovanija v gumanitarnyh naukah : sovremennye podhody. – Ivanovo: Junona, 2000. – PP. 63–72.

145

Scientific Newsletter of Voronezh State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering

17. Srebrjanskaja N.A. O nekotoryh aspektah lingvisticheskogo analiza hudozhestvennogo teksta / N.A. Srebrjanskaja // Nauchnyj vestnik Voronezh. gos. arh.-stroit. un-ta. Sovremennye lingvisticheskie i metodiko-didakticheskie issledovanija. – 2006. – vyp. 2 (6).

– S. 59-64.

Analyzed sources

1*. Woolf V. Orlando. URL: http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/w/woolf/virginia/w91o/ (Accessed 20 February 2016)

2*. Woolf V. Orlando: novel. St. Petersburg: Azbuka-klassika, 2004. 304 p.

146

UDC 8;81`37:811.11

Ulyanovsk State Technical University (UlSTU), Ph.D., Associate Professor,

Head of the Foreign Languages Department Of UlSTU

Nasima Saetovna Sharafutdinova e-mail: nassima@mail.ru

N.S. Sharafutdinova

THE HYPER-HYPONYMIC RELATIONS IN THE SECTORAL

TERMINOLOGICAL SYSTEM

(BY THE EXAMPLE OF GERMAN AND RUSSIAN AVIATION TERMS)

One of the main problems of modern terminology studies is semantic relations in terminological systems. This article deals with hyper-hyponymic relations in the terminological systems on the basis of German and Russian aviation terms. The notions of “hyperonym term” and “hyponym term” are determined; the criteria of singling out of hyper-hyponymic relations are described; the nature of relations both between hyperonym and hyponym terms as well as hyponym terminological units is analyzed. The similar type of the relation “instance –of” for the purpose of its presence in the sectoral terminological system is considered. The possibilities of the emergence of synonymous and antonymous lines of the terms united by hyper-hyponymic relations are studied. The distinctive features of hyperhyponymic relations allowing to differentiate them from other types of semantic relations as “part-whole” are singled out. For the aviation

Russian and German terminological systems formal-semantic hyper-hyponymic relations are characteristic. The results of our research show the fundamental nature of hyper -hyponymic relations on the basis of which the integrity of the sectoral terminology-cal system is formed.

Key words: hyperonym term, hyponym term, hyper-hyponymic relations, semantic relations, paradigmatic relations, terminological system, the “part-whole” relation, hierarchical relations.

The progress in a particular branch of engineering affects the terminological system (terminology system), since every scientific and technical invention gets its name and is included as a term in the terminological system of the respective area of knowledge or sphere of activity. We consider terminological system as the totality of the terms of a particular field of science and technology consciously formed on the basis of one concept and developing dynamically, ordered in a structure and united with a common function. Terminological system performs not only its nominative, but also communicative function. According to M. Ya. Bloch, any system has an internal hierarchy, which is expressed in the character of its components relations, and “there is no system without structural relationship of elements, as there is no structure without a system of elements, the relationship nature of which it expresses” [1, p. 16-17].

Between the lexical units of the sectoral terminological system there are semantic relations (paradigmatic relations, lexical-semantic relations). Semantic relations are divided into the following main types: synonymous relations, antonymous relations, hyper-hyponymic relations, the “part-whole” relations.

__________________________

© Sharafutdinova N.S., 2016

147

Scientific Newsletter of Voronezh State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering

Considering the issues of semantic relations in terminology, V. A. Tatarinov points out that hyper-hyponymic relations between concepts, the “part-whole” relations, speciesspecies relations are the most common forms of expressing objective relations between concepts, phenomena and items [2, p. 81]. Researchers of terminologies and terminological systems usually limit themselves to the analysis of polysemy, synonymy, antonymy and rarely consider hyper-hyponymic relations, though synonymous and antonymous relations affect only a part of a special vocabulary, but hyper-hyponymic relations cover the entire sectoral terminological system. The problem discussed in the article is important, all types of semantic relations in terminological systems are studied, hyper-hyponymic relations in particular. Hyper-hyponymic schemes allow to arrange visually and present the systematic character of sectoral terminology. The theme of the article is relevant due to the fact that, despite the rapid development of aviation industry in Germany and Russia, the aviation terminological system of German and Russian languages was not sufficiently studied and hyper-hyponymic relations in German and Russian aviation terms were not discussed in linguistic literature.

The aim of this work is to define the term “hyperonym term”, “hyponym term” and explore hyper-hyponymic relations by the material of the aviation terminological system of German and Russian languages.

The material for the study and the examples were taken from the Encyclopedia of Aviation [1**]; Russian-English-German Technical Dictionary “Aviation and Space”, comprising 35,000 terms (Technik-Wörterbuch. Luftund Raumfahrttechnik) [2**]; EnglishGerman Technical Glossary of Aircraft, consisting of 1583 terms (Luftfahrttechnisches Glossar: Englisch-Deutsch) [3**]; German-English Technical Dictionary of Aeronautics, containing 8,000 terms (Technisches Wörterbuch für die Luftfahrt: Deutsch-Englisch) [4**], and electronic information portal “Aviation” [1*].

Terminological units show the relationship of scientific and technical concepts in a particular field of knowledge on the basis of hyperonym and hyponym concepts. E. A. Konovalova points out that “the presence of terms that are grouped by subspecies features presupposes the existence of terms that are grouped by specific characteristics, and the existence of the latter, in turn, is determined by the presence of hyperonym terms, i.e. the elements are connected by relations of inclusion or hyponymic relations” [3, p. 83].

The basis of any terminological system is hyper-hyponymic principle. The relationship between the classes and subclasses of concepts, according to N. V. Lukashevich, can have “a different name depending on the field of the use of the resource: the taxonomic relation, hyper-hyponymic relation, IS-a relationship, a relationship of hyponymy and hyperonymy” [4]. Other names function to identify hyper-hyponymic relations, such as: hyponymic, inclu- sive-exclusive [5, p. 123], classification relations [6], relations of subordination and a superclass (the superset) relations (Relationen der Subordination und Überordnung) [7, p. 84]. In our opinion, the term “hyper-hyponymic relation”, widely used in the Russian language, is more convenient to use and suits better for the proposed study. German linguists M. Schwartz (Monika Schwarz) and E. Chur (Chur Jeanette) [8, p. 134-135] used “Genus- Spezies-Verhältnis”, “Beziehung Art-Gattung”, which are translated into the Russian language as hyper-hyponymic relation. In the linguistic works in the English language the term “hyper-hyponymic relations” is used. Hyper-hyponymic relations connect a lexical unit, denoting a generic term (hyperonym), with separate specific words (hyponyms), showing varieties of generic concepts. Defining the terms “hyperonym” and “hyponym”, germanist N. Katsaounis (Nikolaos Katsaounis) stresses subordination in this relationship: “Hyperonym steht für den Oberbegriff einer Kategorie, während die untergeordneten Hyponyme Begriffe dieses Oberbegriffs darstellen” [7, p. 84]. – Hyperonym calls a higher concept of the category, while the hyponyms express lower concepts in relation to that higher concept. (Our translation – Sh. N.). V. A. Tatarinov believes that “the generic term expresses the essential features of the genus and the species term has both the essential features of the genus and the

148

distinctive features of the species” [2, p. 81]. According to M. Schwartz and E. Chur, generic name contains the signs of all subordinate species names. Generic characteristics are the core of all species features, the species name has more specific characteristics than generic name [8, p. 134].

When establishing hyper-hyponymic relations it should be checked whether the lower and the higher notions belong to the same general semantic class. N. V. Lukashevich believes that “if class A is a super class of class B, then every instance of class B is also an instance of class A” [4]. For the purpose of establishing hyper-hyponymic features of a special concept V. D. Tabanakova suggests that a logical analysis of dictionary definitions should be made [9, p. 168]. Hyper-hyponymic relations can be simple when the concept can be divided only by one criteria, and they can be complex when the concept can be divided by several parallel ones. S. V. Grinev believes that “the division must be continuous, the transition from the generic idea should be only to the nearest species concepts, without "jumps". Violation of this rule will lead to errors in the classification schemes of concepts and the formulation of definitions” [10, p. 86].

Let us consider hyper-hyponymic relations by the example of names of military aircraft according to their purpose. Terminological units Abfangjagdflugzeug – истребитель-

перехватчик - istrebitel'-perehvatchik (fighter-interceptor), Jagdbombenflugzeug – истре- битель-бомбардировщик - istrebitel'-bombardirovshhik (fighter-bomber) are specific terms (hyponyms) to generic term (hyperonym) Jagdflugzeug – самолет-истребитель - samolet-istrebitel' (fighter [airplane]).

The following names of military aircraft:

Jagdflugzeug – самолет-истребитель - samolet-istrebitel' (fighter [airplane]),

Aufklärungsflugzeug – самолет-разведчик – samolet-razvedchik (reconnaissance plane),

Bombenflugzeug, Bomber – бомбардировщик - bombardirovshhik (bomber),

militärisches Transportflugzeug – военно-транспортный самолет - voennotransportnyj samolet (military transport aircraft),

Raketenträger – ракетоносец – raketonosec (missile carrier, rocket carrier),

Schlachtflugzeug – штурмовик – shturmovik (attack aircraft),

Betankungsflugzeug – самолет-заправщик - samolet-zapravshhik (air refueller),

Tankflugzeug – самолет-танкер - samolet-tanker (tanker [airplane]),

Beobachtungsflugzeug – самолет-корректировщик - samolet-korrektirovshhik (spotting-plane, observation aircraft),

Patrouillenflugzeug – патрульный самолет - patrul'nyj samolet (patrol airplane),

Flugzeugträger – воздушный авианосец - vozdushnyj avianosec (aircraft carrier),

Suchflugzeug – поисковый самолет - poiskovyj samolet (search airplane),

Luftabwehrflugzeug – самолет противовоздушной обороны - samolet protivovozdushnoj oborony (air defense aircraft),

Verbindungsflugzeug – связной самолет - svjaznoj samolet (liaison plane)

are hyponym terms to the term Militärflugzeug (military aircraft, military airplane)), which in relation to them is a hyperonym term. In turn, the word Militärflugzeug – военный само-

лет - voennyj samolet (military aircraft, military airplane), along with the lexical unit Zivilflugzeug – (civil aircraft, civil airplane), is a hyponym term in relation to the term Flugzeug – самолет - samolet (aircraft, airplane).

149

Scientific Newsletter of Voronezh State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering

Terminological unit Flugzeug (airplane), along with the names of Hubschrauber –

вертолет - vertolet (helicopter), Höhengleiter – планер - planer (glider), Raketenfluggerät

– raketa (rocket), Motorluftschiff – дирижабль - dirizhabl' (airship), Ballon – воздушный шар - vozdushnyj shar (balloon), Stratosphärenballon – стратостат - stratostat (stratosphere balloon), is a hyponym term to a hyperonym term Flugapparat –летательный ап-

парат - letatel'nyj apparat (flying vehicle).

As follows from the examples, for hyper-hyponymic relations a hierarchically subordinate type of relationship is typical. Hyper-hyponymic relations emerge only “when in the semantics of words linked by the relations of inclusion there are common semantic features constituting one of the compared values, and additional (at least one) features that distinguish one value from another of comparable values” [11]. Thus, the meaning of the term

Verkehrsflugzeug – пассажирский самолет - passazhirskij (passenger aircraft) includes the semantic features of the word Flugapparat – летательный аппарат - letatel'nyj apparat (flying vehicle) and the semantic features of the term Flugzeug – самолет - samolet (aircraft, airplane) specifying it. Its meaning also contains a number of features that distinguish it from other subspecies of the aircraft, for example Frachtflugzeug – грузовой самолет - gruzovoj samolet (cargo airplane). The hyperonym term has a more general meaning and is wider as to its extension than the hyponym term. The value of the hyperonym term is in the meaning of all its hyponym terms. The number of hyponym terms depends on the number of the concept features expressed by the hyperonym term.

A hyperonym term is specified both in its hyponym terms and on the following levels, where specific terms are hyperonym terms. Thus, hyper-hyponymic structure can be manytier and multi-step. In terminological system every element is interrelated in the line of ge- nus-species with a set of other elements. The authors of a famous book “Linguistic Basis of the Terms Study” B. N. Golovin and R. Yu. Kobrin believe that “the scan of each hyperhyponymic block shows the degree of complexity and elaboration of covered areas of reality: the more complex and studied some fields are, the more levels of generalization and therefore of tiers are in the unit” [12, p. 52]. In the article “Peculiarities of Abbreviation Field” U. S. Dubkova notes that due to the classification type of relationship the terms transmit strict hierarchy, interrelation, interconditionality of conceptual sphere [6].

The aviation terminological system of German and Russian languages is clearly structured and ramified since the conceptual system of this branch of industry is constantly evolving and ordering. Thus, the classification of airplanes can be made by various features [1**]:

by purpose, by takeoff weight, by the type and number of engines, by the number of wings, by wing location , by empennage location, by the type of fuselage, by undercarriage type, by flight speed, by landing aircraft bodies type, by the type of take-off and landing, by the stage of model development and implementation, by control method.

A great variety of classification features of the airplane (aircraft) suggests that hyperhyponymic relations of the term “plane” will be difficult in structure. We will give examples of some of these classifications, for example, the names of aircraft by the number of wings are:

Eindecker – моноплан - monoplan (monoplane),

Doppeldecker – биплан - biplan (biplane),

Eineinhalbdecker, Anderthalbdecker – полутороплан - polutoroplan (one-and-a- half plane),

Dreidecker – триплан - triplan (triplane),

Mehrdecker – полиплан - poliplan (multiplane).

150

The types of airplane by wing location are:

Tiefdecker – низкоплан - nizkoplan (low-wing plane),

Mitteldecker – среднеплан - sredneplan (mid-wing plane),

Hochdecker, Schulterdecker – высокоплан - vysokoplan (high-wing plane),

Parasol – парасоль - parasol' (parasol).

The names of airplane by undercarriage type are:

Schwimmerflugzeug – поплавковый самолет - poplavkovyj samolet (float plane),

Schlittenflugzeug – лыжный самолет - lyzhnyj samolet (ski plane),

Flugzeug mit Radfahrwerk – самолет с колесным шасси - samolet s kolesnym shassi (wheel-type-undercarriage airplane),

Radkufenflugzeug – самолет с колесно-лыжным шасси - samolet s kolesnolyzhnym shassi (wheel-ski-undercarriage airplane).

The main parts of airplane (fuselage, wing, empennage, control system, undercarriage, power plant) also have their species and subspecies. Thus, the wing of airplane is classified by its plane form and by the sweep type.

The types of the wing by its form are:

Rechteckflügel – прямоугольное крыло - prjamougol'noe krylo (rectangular wing),

Ellipsentragfläche, elliptischer Tragflügel – эллиптическое крыло - jellipticheskoe krylo (elliptical wing),

Trapezflügel – трапециевидное крыло - trapecievidnoe krylo (trapezium wing),

Parabelsegmentflügel – параболическое крыло - parabolicheskoe krylo (parabolic wing),

Sicheltragflügel – серповидное крыло - serpovidnoe krylo (crescent wing),

Deltaförmiger Flügel – дельтавидное крыло - del'tavidnoe krylo (delta wing),

Dreieckflügel – треугольное крыло - treugol'noe krylo (triangular wing),

Zylindrischer Flügel – цилиндрическое крыло - cilindricheskoe krylo (cylindrical wing),

Kreuzflügel – крестовидное крыло - krestovidnoe krylo (cruciform wing),

Gotik Flügel; ogivaler Flügel – готическое, оживальное крыло - goticheskoe, ozhival'noe krylo (ogival wing),

Quadratflügel – квадратное крыло - kvadratnoe krylo (quadratic wing),

Ringflügel – кольцевое крыло - kol'cevoe krylo (annular wing).

The types of the wing by its sweep are:

gerader Flügel – прямое крыло - prjamoe krylo (straight wing),

rückwärts (positiv, nach hinten) gepfeilter Flügel – крыло прямой стреловидности - krylo prjamoj strelovidnosti (swept-back wing, positiveswept wing),

vorwärts (nach vorn, negativ) gepfeilter Flügel – крыло обратной стреловидности - krylo obratnoj strelovidnosti (swept-forward wing, negativeswept wing),

151

Scientific Newsletter of Voronezh State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering

Flügel mit variabler Pfeilung – крыло изменяемой <в полете>

стреловидности - krylo izmenjaemoj <v polete> strelovidnosti (variable-sweep wing),

Tragflügel mit konstanter Pfeilung – крыло неизменной стреловидности - krylo neizmennoj strelovidnosti (constant-sweep wing),

Flügel starker Pfeilung – крыло большой стреловидности krylo bol'shoj strelovidnosti (highly swept wing).

Aviation includes not only airplanes but also other types of flying vehicle, such as helicopters, gliders, rotorcrafts, airships, autogyros, deltaplanes, paragliders, balloons. Thus, hyper-hyponymic relations in the aviation terminological system are numerous, hierarchical and interrelated.

Along with the relationships of subordination and domination in hyper-hyponymic lines there are the relations of equality, which are installed between hyponym terms submitted to one hyperonym term. Such hyponym terms in relation to each other are co-hyponyms. Cf.: „Die Hyponyme eines Oberbegriffs stehen miteinander in einer kohyponymischen Beziehung“ [7, p. 84]. – Higher hyponyms (generic) concepts are in cohyponymous relations to each other. (Our translation – Sh. N.). For example, regarding hyperonym term Militärflugzeug (military aircraft) cohyponyms are the examples of names of military aircraft by purpose mentioned above:

Aufklärungsflugzeug – самолет-разведчик – samolet-razvedchik

(reconnaissance plane),

Bombenflugzeug, Bomber – бомбардировщик - bombardirovshhik (bomber),

Schlachtflugzeug – штурмовик – shturmovik (ground-attack aircraft),

Beobachtungsflugzeug – самолет-корректировщик - samoletkorrektirovshhik (spotting-plane, observation aircraft),

Patrouillenflugzeug – патрульный самолет - patrul'nyj samolet (patrol airplane),

Suchflugzeug – поисковый самолет - poiskovyj samolet (search airplane),

Luftabwehrflugzeug – самолет противовоздушной обороны - samolet protivovozdushnoj oborony (air defense aircraft),

Verbindungsflugzeug – связной самолет - svjaznoj samolet (liaison plane).

Co-hyponyms have a common semantic part, but differ in differential features. General semantic part of these terms is “aircraft designed to solve problems of a defensive nature, of combat duty and combat operations”. [1**]. One or another type of military aircraft differs from others in their special characteristics, the appointment in particular. For example:

The reconnaissance plane is designed to conduct aerial reconnaissance.

The bomber is designed to defeat ground (underground) or above-water (underwater) objectives with aircraft bombs (torpedoes).

The ground-attack plane is a low altitude combat aircraft to destroy small and mobile ground (sea) targets, and manpower on the battlefield and in the nearer bases with the use of bombing, missile and rifle-gun weapons; it is intended for direct support of land forces and Navy.

The picket aircraft is designed for patrol service in a definite area of sea or ocean for the purpose of detecting and destroying enemy submarines, as well as for intelligence purpose. [1**].

152

N. V. Lukashevich offers to single out the relationship of the instance-Of type (in the English language literature it is instance-Of) [4]. In everyday language, for example, the words “country” and “Russia” are in such relations. The relation instance-Of is not revealed in the aviation terminological system of German and Russian languages. However, as a version of this phenomenon in the aviation vocabulary the relationship between a hyperonym term and a separate pragmonym (commercial name, trademark) can be considered. Pragmonym is not a term and it is not included in the terminology, but it is included in a special vocabulary of this or that branch of science and / or technology. For example: the airplane (hyperonym term) and “Ruslan” (specific special word – the commercial name of heavy long-range military transport aircraft An-124); the fighter (hyperonym term) and “Raptor” (specific special word – the commercial name of the American F-22); the fighter (hyperonym term) and “Berkut” (a specific special word – the commercial name of barely visible, painted black fighter C-37); on-board radar (hyperonym term) and “Mosquito”, “Arbalest”,

“Hucal”, “Topaz”, “Beetle”, “Spear”, “Pearl”, “Falcon” (species special words – commercial names of onboard radars for aircraft).

In linguistic literature formal-semantic and semantic hyper-hyponymic relationships are differentiated. According to our research, the majority of aviation terms combined by formal-semantic hyper-hyponymic relations are formed through joining of co-ordinated and unco-ordinated definitions to hyperonym terms, which are mainly adjectives or nouns. For example, the types of unmanned planes by control method are:

ferngelenktes Flugzeug – телеуправляемый самолет - teleupravljaemyj samolet (tele-controlled airplane),

funkgesteuertes Flugzeug – радиоуправляемый самолет - radioupravljaemyj samolet (radiocontrolled airplane),

automatically gesteuertes Flugzeug – автоматически управляемый самолет - avtomaticheski upravljaemyj samolet (automatic controlled airplane).

These attributive terminological word-combinations are of species character in relation to hyperonym term unbemanntes Flugzeug (unmanned plane) and are related to each other not only semantically, but also formally, because they contain a common element – the noun

Flugzeug (airplane).

In the semantics of terminological phrases and complex terms the integrating and differentiating components are distinguished. S. V. Grinev notes that “integrating component transmits a generic feature of concept and combines phrases into thematic groups <...>, and the differentiating component, having restrictive character (which is genetically inherent in the terminological word-groups), indicate a distinctive species feature of concept” [10, p. 150]. For example, in the terms Dreibeinfahrwerk – трехопорное шасси - trehopornoe shassi (tricycle undercarriage), Tandemfahrwerk, Zweibeinfahrwerk – велосипедное шасси - velosipednoe shassi (bicycle undercarriage), Mehrradfahrwerk – многоопорное шасси - mnogoopornoe shassi (multisupporting undercarriage) a differentiating component indicates the number of supports and the location of the main bearings as to the center of the aircraft mass.

According to our research, hyperonym and hyponym terms can be in synonymous relations [13, p. 215]. Thus, in professional communication hyperonym term Flugzeug (airplane) is used very often instead of hyponym terms such as Passagierflugzeug (passenger airplane), Frachtflugzeug (cargo airplane), etc. This is explained by the fact that the hyperonym term has a broader meaning than the hyponym term, and has all the features inherent in hyponym terms.

153