Добавил:
ivanov666
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Intercultural Approach of Professional Lexicon
.pdf
1П3
motivoiogical model, motive, motiveme.
In motivology the relative seme, which joins tne motivated word and tne
motivatum appears as a potential element of motivating semantics, which issues from it:
for example the value of the Russian word чума (plague) includes the seme 'болезнь'
('disease'), from which comes the relative seme 'заболевший' ('diseased' or 'ajflicted'; as in
'заболевание чумой'; 'afflicted by plague'). The movement of the motivational value at the
abstract level is predetermined by the fact that the motivating function of words is one
of their secondary functions (in relation to nomination), and that the motivating base is a
familiar diversion from the intrinsic lexical status of the word.
The motivating function of a motivator does not exist independently, but only in
relation to the motivator. The absence of this relationship indicates the absence of a
motivator, and signifies the irreality of the potential motivator. When we explore the
motivation of a word we rely completely on the defined components of the word - the
aural articulation of the word and its lexical value form the initial stages of
motivological analysis.
A review of linguistic literature and our own research enables us to make certain
formulations and take as a basis the definitions of different scholars. Following Blinova
and Berketova, by motivational form we understand the significative aural articulation of
a word, caused by its motivation, and by motivational value we understand the value, or
synthesis of value.
In the naming of an object or concept on the basis of an existing name or attribute
we assume the presence of three factors: 1. the actual motivating attribute of the object,
which is to say the non-linguistic basis of naming; 2. the linguistic expression of the
motivating attribute; 3. the means of creating a new name on the basis of linguistic
material, with the aid of which the motivating attribute may be expressed. The main
thing in any form of worldview shared by a particular group of people as the basis of
any individual consciousness is completeness of integration of the people's experience in a
holistic picture with a defined level of detail.
In the same way, a review of contemporary linguistic theories enables us to define
the linguistic framework of motivation in veterinary medical terms as a property of
nominative units from the moment of their inception and a metalinguistic basis for their
motivological analysis.
3.4. The principles and methods of motivational aspect in
Russian and Kazakh terms
There are gnoseological (internal) and verbal (external) aspects to the motivational
activity of objects. The very process of motivation in design and innovation is universal
in nature. Encompassed within any word is the basis of an aural portrait for that word,
which is identified in speaking. This points us to
the motive, the expression of a given value through a particular combination of sounds,
providing an answer to the eternal question 'why is it called that?' This is a universal
quality of language. Particular motivological models in motivological analysis tend to be
generalised, and this quality is secured by universal principles of motivology like
motivemes. As a first step in comparing the motivation of Russian and Kazakh terms,
we emphasise that the actual process of motivation is a universal phenomenon of all
human languages. Language is a social element and one could not imagine a society
which does not establish connections between cause and effect. The second step in
motivological analysis will involve highlighting the differences between the superficial
structure of names in zoonotic terminology in the Russian and Kazakh languages.
In their univocation, terms possess a specific form, function, and character: one of
their basic characteristics is the motivation of terms by the attributes which lie at the
base of the term and create their 'literal meaning'.
To take the example of zoonotic terms, we see in the formation of specialized
vocabulary that conditionality and motivation in language are the result of its
dependence on linguistic, cultural and social factors. The process of motivation relies on
defined analogies and associations. Conditionality, being based on the natural
connections of words and the objects named with their help, is especially prevalent in
specialised vocabulary, as it is secondary to common vocabulary. At the level of the
expression of terms from the words of natural language, meaning is generated by their
motivation. Motivated terms establish associative connections with other terms and
phenomena and are easier to remember.
Motivation in the creation of terms is an extralinguistic field of study. A motivated
term as an individual word joins together two extralinguistic pieces of information - the
motivating and the motivated concept. Thus formed, the term begins its own
independent life in its own terminological field. Research into the process of stabilizing
meaning within a phonic unit reveals that there are associative paths, which come
together in the conscious naming of the concepts around one object with the concepts
around another object, as a result of which these conceptualisations are later included in
the totality of knowledge in the conceptual content of a new word. The more
information there is in the properties of the newly cognized object, the higher the
probability that particular word will be elected to signify the named object. The motive
essence of terms consists in the the fact that by accumulating general and specialised
information, they become items of linguistic and professional academic knowledge.
Term-creating is connected to the search for the necessary sign-oriented information
through stabilising a given linguistic sign 'in a particular terminological field of
language'. This self-formed 'informational-terminological search' (as defined by
M.N.Volodina) may have both a national and international character. One of the most
widely used methods of term formation
is employing commonly used words as terms. By enabling communication between
specialised fields, such terms become part of different term systems, forming their own
informational terminological field in the national language.
The use of common words as terms is based on the summary nature of words and
the potential possibilities contained in their conceptual structure. 'The lexical value of a
commonly used word in the concept currently mapped over it, and which is attained in
the sum of practical world knowledge, is either interlocked with a new terminological
meaning without any particular semantic shift, or specialised as a result of different
levels of transference in the basic meaning' (Volodina, 1989:4, 43).
Motivation, or the direction toward a motive, conditioning the expression of a given
meaning, is an integral part of the internal content of terms.
As noted above, motivation, as an act of reflecting a particular attribute of an object
in its naming through language, is a linguistic universal with it own universal
principles, called motivemes. So there are several reasons to consider the phenomenon
of motivation as the highest level of universals, a summary model, which when applied
to a distinct language allows us to shed light on the specificity of information in
comparative languages, which is to say the motivation of terms in the Russian and
Kazakh languages is compliant with the general theory, touching on the very makeup of
natural language.
At the first stage of motivological analysis veterinary medical terminology in
Russian and Kazakh is made up of universal units, derived from their use by human
beings in naming and describing diseases of animals and the methods of treating them.
The second stage of motivological analysis of zoonotic terms in Russian and Kazakh
is to show up their superficial and deeper, hidden structural differences.
In both Russian and Kazakh, nosological units are used to signify the names of
diseases in animals to identify the concepts of non-linguistic objects.
The structures of the following Russian zoonotic terms are characterised by the
non-detailed meteme of coding at the superficial level of structure: оспа (variola), ящур
(foot and mouth disease), рожа (erysipelas), столбняк (tetanus), лихорадка (fever), туляремия
(tularemia), лейкоз (leucosis), грипп (influenza), брадзот (bradsot; braxy), ринит (rhinitis),
гепатит (hepatitis), ботулизм (botulism), мастит (mastitis), бруцеллез (brucellosis),
трихофития (ringworm), фавус (favus), дизентерия (dysentery), анемия (anemia), бронхит
(bronchitis), мелиодоз (meliodosis), сальмонеллез (salmonellosis), некробациллез
(necrobacillosis), лептоспироз (leptospirosis), пастереллез (pasteurellosis), герпес (herpes),
энцефаломиелит (infectious encephalomyelitis), паратиф (paratyphoid), чесотка (mange),
трипанозомоз (trypanosomosis), эхинококк (dog tapeworm), пироплазмоз (piroplasmosis). In
both Russian and Kazakh, these zoonoses share the same name irrespective of the
animal. In Kazakh the zoonotic terms may be non-detailed as they are in Russian: аус^іл
(foot and mouth disease), құтыру (rabies), безгеқ (fever),
қ^ілау (paratyphoid), көршиқан (carbuncle). These zoonoses are common to an animals.
Lev Shcherba stresses that 'the vast majority of word-concepts in any language are
not comparable with the word-concepts of any other language' (1974:74,140). Different
languages are different views of one and the same thing. Languages give us different
means of thinking and perceiving. Reflecting in their own consciousness the phenomena
of reality, human beings may articulate them in different ways. Thus, in Kazakh, the
names of animals are precisely differentiated, and correspondingly the names of the
diseases of animals are differentiated depending on the form and duration of the
disease, and the physiological and psychological condition of the sick animal. It is our
contention that the detailing of disease names in Kazakh can be explained by the
particular relationship of the Kazakhs to animals, to the cult of animals, which since
ancient times have symbolised material welfare, life and prosperity, satiety and spiritual
calm for the Kazakh people. We can also speak of the ethno-psychological nature of the
language and the specific verbal behaviour of its language users, determined by the
cultural specificities of the community.
At the first stage in the motivological analysis of zoonotic terms in this research we
will look at motivological conception at the level of semantic motivation in nosological
units.
We will look at the motivological activity of the Russian and Kazakh languages as a
cognitive process in ttie preparation and denotation of ideal meaning by virtue of
selecting and conceptualising realia. In the process of motivological activity the
nosological units of the epizoological term system will bring to light such attributes as
infectiousness and noninfectiousness, detailedness and non-detailedness. On the basis of the
named attributes we will develop a matrix for the Russian and Kazakh languages.
So for example the attributes of the Russian term чума, and Kazakh оба (plague) are
derived from the universal matrix pestis, meaning 'pestilence', 'death' or 'curse'. In
Russian the word чума may be applied for example to sheep and horses, while the
Kazakh оба applies only to pigs and dogs. We can think of this motiveme as deriving
from a universal language, and being unified in both languages through the universal
rule of selection.
The Russian zoonotic terms чума лошадей (equine plague), чума овец (sheep plague),
чума КРС (cattle plague) and the corresponding Kazakh terms жылкы обасы, ешкі обасы,
and сиыр обасы have the primary universal attribute 'fatal disease', but the term чума
лошадей/жылкы обасы (equine plague) is not characterised by the same attributes as чума
овец/ешкі обасы (sheep plague), or чума КРС/сиыр обасы (cattle plague). The reason for this
differentiation is down to the different symptoms of the diseases, their duration, and
dependence on the species of animal. In textbooks we find the following descriptions of
cattle plague and swine fever: 'cattle plague (pestis bovum) - an acute viral disease,
progressing in the form of septicemia, with high temperatures and inflammatory
necrotic trauma of mucosal membranes, predominantly in the gastrointestinal tract';
'swine fever (pestis suum) - a highly contagious infectious viral disease, characterised by
acute periods of septicemia and hemorrhagic diathesis, fibrinous pneumonia and
diphtheritic colitis' (Konopatkina, 1984).
Cognitive mapping of the motiveme 'чума' (death, pestilence) brings about a generic
difference in Russian and Kazakh, because the tag 'чума' in the two languages can apply
to various species, given that the main hosts of this disease are 230 different species of
rat around the world, and also dogs, cats and other domestic and wild animals. Diseases
which are common to several different species of animal will display different
symptoms: tuberculosis, brucellosis, rabies, pasteurellosis, smallpox, tularemia, tetanus, favus,
foot and mouth disease, influenza, salmonellosis, leucosis, hepatitis, also have motivemes
deriving from a universal language and are joined in these two languages through the
universal rule of selection.
The latin names of animal diseases are metalinguistic, hence the aim of the present
study to define motivation as a specialised unit of the terminological system of
epizoology. 'If we have a reference language and a known rule for transferring it onto a
set of designated languages, then we can unequivocally describe and characterise these
languages using this reference language'. As a tertium comparationis metalanguage, Latin
is an ideal reference for comparing the attributes behind the motives in generating
particular zoonotic terms in Russian and Kazakh.
The intellectual act of choosing motives sufficient to represent objects and
phenomena gives words their internal form. The subjective relationship of the naming to
the named object comes into being in the act of motivation on finding an attribute at the
core of the motivated zoonotic term. So each veterinary medical term in Russian and
Kazakh represents in miniature the subjective form of the objective world. As in other
lexical units, the means of motivation in zoonotic terms is their internal form. Motivation
in zoonotic terms gives them their internal form as a means of bringing out the most
visible aspect of the denotatum. Zoonotic terms are a combination of form and
substance, and their internal form exhibits this duality. The external form of the zoonotic
term is sounds pronounced in a particular combination, but the physical appearance of
its internal form is the more significant part of the word. The allocation of internal form
is an intellectual operation, whereby the concept allocated in the first place is refined, as
one or two attributes are selected to represent the object or phenomenon.
For example, the interlingual correspondence in the internal form of the nosological
unit бешенство is the result of a calque from the Latin rabies in Russian and Kazakh. The
specialised meaning of common words is based on metaphorical links fixed to the
internal form of terms. In this case, we have the
106
prefix бес; the first rule of palatalisation dictates that when 'с' is followed by 'ъ' it
becomes 'ш': thus бесънство becomes бешенство. The Latin rabio, rabere has the Russian
equivalent беситься, бесноваться ('to be in a frenzy'). Along with the definition of the
term, the internal form 'informs' us about the existent attributes of the named animal
disease. In this example, the internal form is recognised in the contemporary linguistic
consciousness of the Russian or Kazakh language user and is known as the living internal
form.
The Greek word icterus, meaning jaundice (in Russian желтуха) is 'the name of a
yellow bird, to look upon whom one may, apparently, cure oneself'; the name of this
disease is formed by its definition (the word желтый in Russian means 'yellow'; the
Kazakh equivalent сары ауру means 'yellow disease'). Such similarities in internal form
also motivate zoonotic terms taken from the meaning of the word мор (blight), formed by
the meaning of the Latin word pestis, in Russian чума, in Kazakh оба (plague); from the
word цветок (small flower) we get the Russian оспа and Kazakh күл (variola); from the
word сопеть (to wheeze) the Russian сап and Kazakh маңка (malleus); from the word
неподвижный (immovable) as in the sense of being 'stiff as a post', the Russian word столб
(post) becomes столбняк, in Kazakh cipecne (tetanus); from the word чесать (to itch) we
get the Russian чесотка and Kazakh цыш^іма (scabies); from the word горячий (hot,
fervent), the meaning of which also forms the basis of the Greek coryza gangrenosa, we get
the Russian злокачественная горячка and Kazakh зілді ц^ізба (malignant fever).
More common are the interlingual differences between the internal form of Russian
and Kazakh terms. The choice of a motivating basis for new concepts is often dictated by
specific national internal and external linguistic facts. Information in the internal form of
terms helps us to reconstruct the history of the formation of corresponding concepts and
ascertain the specific national or historical conditions in the development of a given
society, in which a particular term is brought about. A sufficient and necessary
motivating attribute, disclosing the essence of the termed concept, will be found in the
process of creating new zoonotic terms. Which attribute is selected will depend a lot on
the breadth of the informational and terminological field of that language. Russian and
Kazakh ethnic groups possess their own distinct history of developing veterinary
medical vocabulary as much of it uniquely national as borrowed from other languages.
The psychological qualities of naming objects influence the motivation of their original
inception through the gnoseological activity of the language user. The accumulation and
expansion of knowledge about objective reality comes about gradually in the motivation
of zoonotic terms. A look at the internal form of zoonotic terms enables us to pick out the
existent interlingual differences, fixing incongruities in the interpretation of defined
fragments of the world by Russian and Kazakh communities. In terms of content,
zoonotic terms contain two aspects: their actual meaning, and figurative composition. In
order
to demonstrate the existence of motivation in the nosological units being studied here, it
will be necessary to look at figurative composition, because it is here that we will
encounter the nontrivial differences between the languages, and these kind of
differences are most likely to be culturally motivated. This will be clarified in the
following examples. The actual meaning of the Latin zoonotic term aphtae epizooticae (foot
and mouth disease) in Russian is ящур, and in Kazakh аусыл; Latin anthrax (splenic fever),
Russian сибирская язва, Kazakh топалаң (in sheep), жамандат (in horses), цараталац (in
bovine cattle), царабез (in camels); Latin variola, Russian оспа, Kazakh күл; Latin adenitis
equorum (adenitis), Russian мыт, Kazakh сацау; Latin rabies (rabies), Russian бешенство,
Kazakh цұтыру; Latin erysipelas (erysipelas), Russian рожа, Kazakh тілме; Russian
мешотчатый расплод (sacbrood disease), Kazakh шіру; Russian водянка (edema), Kazakh
шемен; Russian грыжа (hernia), Kazakh жарық; Russian брюшина (peritoneum), Kazakh
көк шандыр; Russian выкидыш (miscarriage), Kazakh іш тастау; Russian воспаление
воздухоносных мешков (aerosacculitis), Kazakh ауалы қаптын; Russian ковыльная болезнь
(feather grass disease), Kazakh бетеге ауруы; Russian лихорадка (fever), Kazakh цызба;
Russian яремная вена (jugular vein), Kazakh куре тамыр. Not only are they loaded with
cultural-historical associations, but they are unique in relation to other languages. The
denotatum is in this sense is unique and culturally marked. The internal form of these
zoonotic terms alludes to a concept which plays an important role in both Russian and
Kazakh. For example in the tertium comparationis aphtae epizooticae (foot and mouth
disease) the aural articulation ящур is the internal form; the motivological meaning is 'a
disease identified by the appearance of scales as on the body of a barbel fish (ящур)'; the
linguistic meaning is 'an acute infectious disease with aphthous inflammation of the
mucosal cavities of the mouth and skin. One of the symptoms of the disease is the
formation of apthae or ulcers on the body of the animal, similar to fish scales.
Trubachev writes that 'a ящур is a type of mouse or dormouse.' He explains that the
word is derived from the word щур (the pine grosbeak species of bird); 'the
interconnection in meaning between mouse, dormouse, salamander, otter, and lizard is
explained by the closeness of these animals in mythology' (Trubachev, 1987).
Dal notes that 'a ящур is a breed of mouse or dormouse; the ящуръ (barbel) and
ящеръ (scaly anteater) are milky-coloured animals from hot countries; the чешуйникъ
(silver fish) has a body covered in large scales' (Dal, 1982). To take this example from the
Russian language is like observing an ancient relic of the world's creation. The internal
form of the nosological unit specifies the concept it reflects, 'a disease, identified by
symptoms [...] and the formation of ulcers' in associative and metaphorical connections
with the body of a lizard, covered in scales. A contemporary language user is unlikely to
be aware this connection with mythology. This picture is maintained in the people's
culture, it is an
expression of internal form through their own peculiar stereoscopic vision in their verbal
representation of the world. The people named the zoonotic term this way, and for
Russian language speakers ящур will always have associations with the scaly body of a
lizard. The internal form of the zoonotic terms in Russian сибирская язва (splenic fever), in
Kazakh царабез (in camels), цараталац (in bovine cattle), etc. also lend an element of
variety to this picture of the world. The internal form of the Russian сибирская язва
contains an allusion to the disease itself and an attribute of the object, a язва (ulcer) on the
body of the sick animal. In Kazakh the internal form of the terms цараталац and царабез
contain allusions to a concept which plays an important role in the linguistic
consciousness, that allows us to talk about the cultural specificity of the expression цара
as a fact of the Kazakh language in comparison with Russian. The word цара signifies 1.
the colour black; 2. the imperative 'look'; 3. an object which is visible (and black); 4.
cattle; 5. guilty, criminal; 6. mourning; 7. dry, shrill; 8. putting across something negative
(Kashaganova, 1967:205). The common semantic thread here, the main attribute, is the
colour black.
As their everyday companions the Kazakh people distinguish domestic animals
from wild animals, using the name цара, as in ipi цара (bovine cattle). Thus all of these
different meanings have a single semantic ordering. It should be noted that цара was
originally only used to refer to bovine cattle (smaller animals are signified as усак мал).
Their economic value as both a source of livelihood and a means of getting about made
them more important than smaller cattle. In this example the correspondences in the
internal form of zoonotic terms in Kazakh are expressed through the double allusion in
motivational meaning: to the attributes of цараталак (lit. black spleen), and царабез (lit.
black lymph nodes).
This example of internal form points to the divergence of motivated zoonotic terms,
possessing a common concept in both Russian and Kazakh. In Kazakh, zoonotic terms
extract an attribute of the disease, while in Russian the disease itself becomes an
attribute. This fact once again emphasises the dissimilarity in the choice of linguistic
material, deriving from the differences between the invariable cognitive structures
behind these lexemes. The conceptual differences in the above zoonotic terms are a
result of culturally important linguistic elements. The day to day life of Kazakh
language users gives us some indication of their use of these terms, in particular their
relationship with animals and all things connected with animals. A.Bezhbitsky
postulates a link between the linguistic expression of conceptual structure and national
culture. The cultural relevance of language may be brought to other semantic fields such
as folklore, religious credos, myths and their culturally significant concepts.
Concerning the question of the origin of identifying terms as a whole, there are the
following types of correlation:
• the use in both languages of their own specific names, in Russian often
traceable to Common Slavic vocabulary, and in Kazakh to Turkic
vocabulary;
• the use in both languages of their own specific nominations, possessing different
phonetic structures;
• the use in both languages of loan words;
• the use in one language of its own specific terms, and in the other of loan words
Although it is not the aim of the current study to carry out a full statistical analysis
of the influence of the quantitative correspondences between the above mentioned types
of correlation, it should be noted that these correspondences manifest themselves in
different ways.
The question of whether or not internationally used terms (internationalisms) possess
internal form is debatable. And does an international nosological unit possess
motivation? We can probably refer to international zoonotic terms as semi-explicit,
viewing them as derivative words by virtue of morphemic analysis. For example
colibacteriosis can be broken down into the morphemes coli > bacteri > osis. From the point
of view of a non-specialist, internationalisms appear to possess an intrinsic internal
form, while for the specialist who has studied the corpus of international morphemes,
complex zoonotic terms acquire a distinctive type of internal form in the act of
motivation. For example the internal form of the zoonosis colibacteriosis expresses the
motivological meaning of 'a disease from intestinal bacteria' (the prefix coli comes from
the Greek kolon; colon). The internal form of complex and derivative international
zoonotic terms must be of another type, which are called semi-explicit internal forms. In
absolute internationalisms in Russian like бруцеллез (brucellosis), туберкулез
(tuberculosis), фавус (favus), лейкоз (leucosis), лептоспироз (leptospirosis), гепатит
(hepatitis), etc. the morphemes match both in terms of internal form and sound; then
there are fragmentary, or partial internationlisms like ку-лихорадка (Q fever), псевдочума
(pseudoplague), рожистая септицимия (erysipelatous septicemia), where one element is
reflected in the internal form and sound, but the other only in the internal form. Implicit
international zoonotic terms are characterised by their occurrence in comparable
languages in the internal form only. For example: Tetanus, in Russian столбняк, in
Kazakh cipecne; Bradsot, in Kazakh ак, топалаң (in both languages the term signifies an
instantaneous sickness in animals: Bradsot is derived from brat ('sudden') and sot
('sickness'); топалаң is derived from топ ('group') and алаң ('sudden' or 'quick').
The internal form of Russian and Kazakh nosological units forms the basis of
motivation. This in turn foregrounds that aspect of lexical value which defines the limits
of motivation. Motivation is a characteristic part of internal form, but does not reveal all
aspects of a word. It should be studied as one element that provides consistency and
reliability in the functionality of nosological units in
epizoological terminology. There is a metaphorical link at the level of motivation
between the semantic elements of zoonotic terms and their corresponding lexical value.
This link is put together by the intellectual workings of Russian and Kazakh
communicants. Motivation relates only to complex morphemic formation and is not
characteristic of non-derivative words. Non-derivative morphemic zoonotic terms such
as the Russian сап (malleus), in Kazakh маңка; and the Russian мыт (adenitis), Kazakh
сақау, м^ілцау may be motivated in consequence of a semantic shift. Motivation in
derivative zoonotic terms comes about as the result of a process of purposive word
formation, defined by its presence in the nosological unit, alongside its non-derivative
root, even if it is just one word-forming formant, which is to say the minimal word
forming properties, in the formal and semantic sense, by which a particular word is
distinguished from words related to motivation (Ulukhanov, 1974:8).
Semantic motivation displays itself differently depending on language usage. There
are different demands on words in common usage and terminological words in terms of
their motivation. This is connected to the peculiarities of their function at the lexical
level. D C Lotte writes that 'the formation of a bona fide scientific term should preempt
the confirmation of the corresponding scientific concept and the isolation of those
attributes which create its uniqueness' (1961). The semantics of a term are formed in a
particular specialist field of knowledge. Terminological phrases are often used as the
basis of motivation, for example in IRussian: эмфизематозный карбункул
(emphysematous carbuncle), злокачественный отек (malignant edema), парез мускулатуры
рубца (paresis of the ruminal muscle), спинной мозг (medulla spinalis), соединительная
ткань (connective tissue), патологическая физиология (pathological physiology), переливание
крови (blood transfusion), etc.
As such, motivation in terminological nomination and the formation of term
systems can be seen as a secondary phenomenon, which takes place later on from the
formation of the lexical composition of separate languages, but also in the primary
nomination of everything around us. The meaning of a term relates to intralingual
activity, artificially formed in a given knowledge system, while the expression of a term
comes in the linguistic elements of one's own or other languages and the artificial
selection of terminological elements.
The typology of motivation in specialised units of the terminological systems of
veterinary medicine is constructed on the basis of typological analysis of the principles
of motivation - motivemes - and particular models of motivation, generalising the most
characteristic aspects and attributes by which the naming of zoonoses takes place in the
specific national systems of motivation in Russian and Kazakh, the correlation of
motivemes to the most essential biological and clinical attributes of animal diseases.
Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]