Добавил:
ivanov666
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Intercultural Approach of Professional Lexicon
.pdf
uur analysis of Russian and Kazakh veterinary medical language has provided an
opportunity to contribute to the gradual standardisation of subject-specific terminology,
including through:
• A systemic comparison of nationally-recognised terminology;
• A comparison between an aggregated classificatory system of concepts and all
concepts present in the terminologies of the linguistic communities being
compared;
• The creation and enhancement of internationally recognised definitions, on the
basis of which nationally derived definitions might be improved.
The ordering of veterinary medical terminology has been achieved through a
system of inventories (searching for, identifying and describing terms) as well through
the process of their normalisation, which generally involves work focussed on the
definition, form and content of terms.
This systemic and structured approach provides an opportunity to review the
terminology of veterinary medicine as a system in its own right, in which "it is the
internal links between the linguistic units which predominate over the movement of
those units and the forces and work within each."
In this thesis, veterinary medical terms have tended to belong to a linguistic
community and to have ancient Greek and Latin roots. The tendency of veterinary
medicine to precision in the definition of its concepts as well as to neutralising the
semantic influence of lexemes from general-purpose language is one of the reasons for
the extremely high incidence of terms that are borrowed from other languages. As they
make the transition into Russian or Kazakh, latinate and international terms undergo, to
a greater or lesser extent, an inevitable phonological and morphological change. At the
same time, these terms also become an integral part of the language into which they are
transferred. A comparison of veterinary epizoological terms in Russian with their Latin
and Greek predecessors revealed four types of similarity:
1. Fully borrowed terms, transferred without any changes to the original, with their
phonetic and grammatical characteristics from the foreign language preserved in
full. This term will therefore be of the same type as the original source term;
2. Borrowed terms which have not changed their phonetic characteristics during
transfer into Russian, but which have conformed to the requirements of Russian,
resulting in a change of type in comparison to the source term;
3. Words from other languages which have changed or undergone a loss of inflection;
4. Terms which have undergone significant change during transfer into Russian,
and have therefore changed in terms of form and type.
Kazakh terms display exactly the same types of similarity because latinate
borrowings all transferred into Kazakh through Russian.
In Russian and Kazakh veterinary practice, the designation of zoonoses is twofold:
the name of any disease is always given both in Latin and then in either Russian or
Kazakh. The Latin names are exactly equivalent in terms of their pronunciation and
structure; the Russian and Kazakh terms are therefore a transliterated version of the
source term without the Latin or Greek suffix. The analysis of the way in which foreign
words with Latin or ancient Greek roots are transferred into Russian and Kazakh
demonstrated a tendency to preserve the outer form of linguistic units with an ancient
linguistic root, as well as a tendency to unify of the process of assimilation. In addition
to direct borrowings from Latin and Greek terms, Russian and Kazakh veterinary
medical terminology also contains a large number of words with Greek and Latin roots.
Those differences between Russian and Kazakh, which are culturally based are
noticeable through the non-equivalent veterinary terms in both languages. Many of the
terms, which are borrowed from Greek and Latin also fall into the category of
non-equivalent specialised vocabulary. These terms point to an explanation of and
indeed symbolise those cultural differences. The material discussed in this study has
enabled nosological units of language to be categorised as either detailed or
non-detailed, which in turn can be broken down into the following groups: unilexical,
binary and complex (or descriptive).
Non-detailed nosological units of language belong to the unilexical group, where
terms tend consist mostly of nouns. One of the peculiarities of the specialised
terminology, which comprises the technical aspects of veterinary medical language is
the predominance of nominal parts of speech; verbs occur much less frequently in
research-focussed language.
In terms of Russian zoonoses, unilexical units of language tend to occur as
single-syllable nouns, whereas in Kazakh, most zoonoses consist of complex words,
formed from a combination of different roots, which generally display a noun + noun
structure. From a lexical and grammatical standpoint, zoonoses are clear examples of
binary nominal collocations, which display an adjective + noun structure. In Kazakh,
binary zoonoses occur within two types of collocation: either (a) noun + adjective or (b)
noun+ noun. In Russian veterinary vocabulary, complex collocations composed of up to
three parts are also possible.
In Kazakh, complex terminological collocations arose during borrowing processes, a
unique aspect of which was explicit borrowing, related to efforts within the academic
community to establish formal Terminological Systems. Terminological phrases in
Russian and Kazakh are examples of complex,
multi-element collocations, and are composed of elements of both the indigenous and
borrowed language. The existence of terminological phrases indicates a tendency to
precision within a language community. Terminological phrases lend a particular aspect
to the names of diseases and other signs. The existence of substantive analytical
designators in Russian and Kazakh allow for the possibility of observable objects from
the outside world to be described in more detail and more explicitly.
In Kazakh, complex terminological collocations arose during processes associated
with full and partial calque processes. Instances of incomparability between Russian and
Kazakh epizoological vocabulary in both real and conceptual terms indicate that the
following conclusions can be drawn:
• Veterinary medical terminology, as a system of designation and substantive,
functional definition, can provide languages from different systems with a wide
variety of options for word formation;
• In comparison to Russian, Kazakh displays a strong tendency towards
differentiated, explicit and detailed representation of non-linguistic objects;
• In line with the linguistic specificities of a given language community, terms
describe particular aspects of non-equivalent vocabulary;
• The difference in the Motivation of internal linguistic phenomena explains the
inadequate segmentation of objects as they occur in reality.
The linguistic characteristics of the Terminological Systems considered in this
comparative study are formed from semantic analysis and syntactic parameters.
One of the mechanisms which forms a Terminological System is that of contrast,
which is expressed through links of antonymy.
Syntactic means of expression reflect a hierarchy among different Terminological
Systems. Fundamental concepts are expressed by one- and two-word terms;
sub-concepts, which are on a lower level within the hierarchy, are expressed by threefour- and five-word terms.
There is a range of concepts within Terminological Systems, which do not have
their own terminological expression. This results in terminological gaps. They are
expressed through the use of professional jargon and non-terminological vocabulary.
This leads to tensions between terminological and non-terminological vocabulary within
language for specific purposes (LSP).
The lack of a theoretical basis for this work precludes the development of
terminological sets within the methodology of reptilian veterinary medicine. Due to the
particularly specialised nature of reptile biology, direct extrapolation from experiments
involving warm-blooded animals was not possible. Neither
Russian nor Kazakh has a representative terminological group of reptiiia^i zoonoses;
many nosological units of language do not have a sufficiently strong basis, are formal
calques, or are borrowed directly either from human medicine or mammal-based
veterinary medicine.
The overwhelming majority of pathological terms are not standardised and require
modification for reptiles. There are no systems of designation for medicinal products,
which are specially adapted for reptiles. The development of reptilian veterinary
medicine has been hampered by the fact that there are no handbooks or teaching aids
for this subject. There are also no publications on teaching theory and how to prepare
professionals to specialise in this area. This points to the need to develop a
Terminological System for reptilian medicine as a new discipline within veterinary
medicine as a whole.
This analysis of nosological units of language within reptilian medicine as a
sub-discipline of veterinary medicine provides suggests the following reasons why
subject-specific terminology in Russian and Kazakh does not extend to this subject area:
• The foundation and development of new academic disciplines;
• The non-applicability of theoretical and practical approaches to studying the
development of a sub-section of research within a larger field, resulting in the
absence of a full system of theory and methodology;
• A lack of theoretical and applied specialised research literature;
• A lack of educated specialists in that particular field.
The operation of terminologies within a professional community is connected to the
degree to which that particular field of knowledge has been developed, as well as the
degree to which professionals are able to communicate competently using a specialised
language, and the status of the professionals themselves within the academic
community.
Within the theory of terminology, analysis of terms and texts indicates that
distinctions can be made between scientific, technical, business and literary texts.
According to this theory, further distinctions can be made between texts in which terms
arise, in which they are used, and in which their use becomes widespread. The specific
way in which particular segments of discourse are structured is related to the typology
of the situation of the text, which may be: informative, analytical, polemic, descriptive,
illustrative, instructive, heuristic, problem-based or ironic.
The theory of applied terminology has a number of branches. The necessity of the
automation, storing and processing of large numbers of terms and specialised
information strengthens the case for the use of termbases, in which each term is
recorded, together with additional information about its meaning,
including the listing of equivalents and synonyms in other languages. The
standardisation of subject-specific terminology is best reflected in prescriptive
dictionaries: these list the normative and non-normative uses of terms, and collections of
recommended terms.
The encyclopaedia-based approach to modelling the language of subject-specific
terminology as a semantic structure has highlighted the information-based and semiotic
nature of Russian and Kazakh subject-specific terminology. This study of Russian and
Kazakh veterinary medical terminology established that modelling the
information-based and semiotic nature of Russian and Kazakh subject-specific
terminology made it necessary to take account of semantic relations of hyper- and
hyponymic, synonymy.
The process of compiling a dictionary of Motivated terms would require a focus on
the Motivational aspect of each Russian term. This study posits that the following
factors are relevant in this regard:
• the extent to which the cultural relevance of a unit of language can be deducted
from other semiotic codes, including folklore, mythology, and the presence in the
linguistic units of culturally meaningful substance;
• reduced usage in Russian of linguistic forms related to animals, probably
explained by the fact that crop farming has long been the main activity of the
Russian linguistic community;
• the availability of empirical data related to veterinary medicine;
• the occurrence in Russian of words with closely related definitions: this accords
with an essential aspect of Russian speakers' perceptions of the world, in which a
distinction is made between the historical and the everyday;
In Kazakh, especially distinguished concepts which denote zoonotic terms are
related to the cultural milieu of the Kazakh linguistic community, its agricultural norms
and practices. The issues of Motivation perceived by a native speaker of Kazakh
surrounding the concept tort tulik were demonstrated particularly effectively. One
Motivated word may contain a number of different Motivations, as was noted with the
example of the zoonosis anthrax, which has different designations in Kazakh,
determined according to the type of animal affected.
In Kazakh, the frequent use of the colour black [kara] within complex zoonotic terms
can be explained by the wider cultural associations that colour has with harm.
Zoonotic terms motivated by the idea of "being similar to other objects" is signalled
by the word worm [kurt]. An awareness of the essence of the products and phenomena
of the world is often impossible because of a lack of the
additional knowledge and tools required. In the past, communities had practical
experience of a large number of diseases, but were unaware of why they might arise.
Identification of diseases was also hampered by a lack of modern medical technology
(eg: microscopes).
The variety of motivational bases for zoonotic terms in Kazakh could be argued to
be influenced by the following factors:
• a highly developed awareness amongst native Kazakh speakers of elements
that have always surrounded them in rural settings;
• an unusually developed pool of synonymy for a single object, probably explained
by: the wide variety of figurative language available in Kazakh: certain
phenomena can be designated in different ways using and a range of suitable
signs available for the formation of a semantic unit.
The overall objective in harmonising subject-specific terminologies is to reach a
situation in which different Terminological Systems: refer to the same subject area;
contain an identical set of concepts, both in terms of quantity and their content; and are
expressed by related words, or at least words which have an identical meaning. The
process of harmonising must begin by establishing a unified system of concepts, based
on an agreed set of definitions. They must correspond in Russian and Kazakh in terms of
content, and differ only in the linguistic form by which they are expressed. A
harmonised system must include: all the concepts from the source systems from which
the harmonised system is derived; the quantitative and qualitative differences that those
source systems display. For each concept in every language, a term must be chosen
which expresses the individual elements and essential characteristics of the concept and
which is reflected in its definition. That said, it is also desirable to preserve the traditions
of Russian and Kazakh terminology, ensuring in particular that models of
terminological designation are not imposed if they do not meet the needs of those two
languages.
This brings to an end our multi-faceted analysis of subject-specific terminology in
two differently structured languages (Russian and Kazakh). Our analysis of the
terminology of veterinary medicine suggests that following conclusion might be drawn:
no research-based terminology can be considered in isolation, whether that be from
general high-register discourse, from other Terminological Systems that exist within the
same language, or from the terminological framework of wider research being
conducted into the same subject in other languages.
Further study that could develop these conclusions might be possible by applying
the principles and results of this research to similar lines of enquiry, but using material
in different languages. This could include using methods of
complex, systemic and contrastive analysis to conduct a study about the formation and
development of subject-specific terminologies in Russian and Kazakh as compared to
other languages.
Two particularly promising areas of further study may be: (i) to establish a
theoretical basis for the dynamics of various Terminological Systems, taking account of
the different situations of different language communities across Eurasia; (ii) to
investigate how new technology is harnessed in professional education and in the
establishment of specialised lexicographical sources.
To conclude, it is worth noting that the complexity of the issues discussed above has
revealed how enormous the challenges are which lie ahead for the theory of
subject-specific terminology, particularly in regarding comparative research. However,
the results of this work also bear witness to the effect of comparative terminological
research by native speakers of Russian and Kazakh on psychology, world outlook,
spiritual life, mentality and the establishment of a 'linguistic picture of the world'.
158
Bibliography
1. Melnikov G. M. Osnovy terminovedeniya. - M. : Izd-vo un-ta druzhby narodov,
1991. - S. 21.
2. Obshhee yazykoznanie. - M. , 1973. - K. 82.
3. Stepanov G. V. / Cit. Po G. P. Melnikovu: Osnovy terminovedeniya. - M. : Izd-vo un-ta
druzhby narodov, 1991. - S. 12.
4. Reformatskij A. A. Termin kak chlen leksicheskoj sistemy yazyka // Problemy strukturnoj
lingvistiki. - M. : Nauka, 1968. - S. 103-125.
" Tatarinov V. A. Leksiko-semanticheskoe varirovanie terminologi-cheskih edinic i problemy
terminologii: Dis. _ Kand. Filol. Nauk. - M. , 1987. - 234 s.
6. Kazarina S. G. Tipologicheskaya harakteristika otdelnyh terminologij. - Krasnodar:
KUBGMA, 1998. - 272 s.
7. Tatarinov V. A. Teoriya terminovedeniya. - M. : Moskovskij licej, 1996. - S. 311.
8. Xizhnyak S. P. Formirovanie i razvitie terminologichnosti v yazykovoj sisteme: Avtoref.
dis_ d-ra filol. Nauk. - Saratov, 1998. - 39 s.
9. Zharkynbekova SH. K. Konceptosfera kak obekt kognitivnogo analiza // Russkij yazyk i
literatura v XXI veke: teoreticheskie problemy i prikladnye aspekty: Materialy 1 mezhd.
Kongressa. - Moskva-Astana, 2007. - S. 87-92.
10. Golovanova E. I. Kategoriya professionalnogo deyatelya: Formirovanie. Razvitie. Status v
yazyke. - Chelyabinsk, 2004. - 330 s.
11. Sulejmanov A. X. O prirode nauchnogo termina: Problemy filosofii yazyka. - M. : Izd-vo
rudn, 1996. - 91 s.
12 Averbuh K. Ya. Obshhaya teoriya terminov. - Ivanovo: Ivan. Gos. Universitet -
2004. - 239 s.
13. Syzdyқova R. Tildik norma zhәne onyң қalyptasuy. Syn esim zhұmaқtardyң
terminzhasaudary sipaty // KazaK terminologiyasy zhәne bұқaralyқ aқparat құraldary.
Terminқor. - Astana, 2003. - 86-92 b.
1,. Eskeeva M. Infinitiv t^lraly terminder // Қazaқ terminologiyasy zhәne bұқaralyқ aқparat
құraldary. Terminқor. - Astana, 2003. - 64-67 b.
15. Iskakova S. Xalyқaralyқ terminderdi қabyldaudyң kejbir mәseleleri // Terminologiyalyқ
habarshy. - 2006.-№1.-32-34 b.
16. Volodina M. N. Teoriya terminologicheskoj nominacii. - M. : Izd-vo Moskovskogo
universiteta, 1997. - 180 s.
17. Kurmanbajuly SH. Қazaқ leksikasynyң termindenu yrdisi: Filol. Fyl. Doktory dis.
Avtoreferaty. - Almaty, 1997. - 55 b.
18. Mukanova Z. A. Inoyazychnye vkrapleniya v proizvedeniyah Chokana Valihanova:
Avtoref dis_ kand. Filol. Nauk. - Almaty, 2001. - 27 s.
19. Bizhkenova A. E. Lingvisticheskie osnovy kognitivnogo terminoobrazovaniya (na primere
deonimnoj terminologii). - astana, 2007. - 79 s.
2o Goncova S. A. Slovoobrazovanie nauchno-tehnicheskoj terminologii. - Alma-Ata: Izd-vo
«Rauan», 1990. - 92 s.
_i. Komarova Z. I. Peresekaemost leksiko-semanticheskih grupp glagolov v terminologiyah //
Russkaya glagolnaya leksika: Peresekaemost paradigmy. - Ekaterinburg: UGU, 1997. -S.
391-465.
__. Kulpina V. G. Lingvistika cveta: Terminy cveta v polskom i russkom yazykah . - M. :
Licej,
2001. - 470 s.
23. Shedrovickij G. P. Problemy metodologii sistemnogo issledovaniya. - M. : Znanie, 1964. -
48 s.
24. Baranov A. N. Vvedenie v prikladnuyu lingvistiku: Ucheb. Pos. - M. : Editorial URSS,
2000. - 90 s.
25. Lotte D. S. Osnovy postroeniya nauchno-tehnicheskoj terminologii: Voprosy teorii i
metodiki. - M. : Izd-vo akademii nauk SSSR, 1961. - S. 111-121.
26. Piotrovskij R. G. , Bilan M. N. i dr. Metody avtomaticheskogo analiticheskogo sinteza
tekstov. - Minsk: Vysshaya shkola, 1975. - S. 173-184.
27. Bolshoj illyustrirovannyj slovar inostrannyh slov: 18000 sl. - M. : OOO «Izd-vo AST»,
2004. - 143 s.
28. Ushakov D. N. Tolkovyj slovar russkogo yazyka. - 1972. - T. 4. - S. 689.
29. Kondakova N. I. Logicheskij slovar spravochnik. _-e izd. , Ispr. I dop. - M. : Nauka, 1975.
- S. 201.
30. Gajnullina N. I. Leksikologiya russkogo yazyka (sociolingvis-ticheskij aspekt). -
Alma-Ata, 1989. - S. 36-37.
31. Musabaev G. T. Sovremennyj kazahskij yazyk. Leksika. - Alma-Ata, 1959. - S. 54.
32. Zhubanov K. S. K issledovaniyu po kazahskomu yazyku. - Alma-Ata. 1966. - S. 273.
33. Kenesbaev S. , Zhanuzakov T. Til bilimi Іегшіпёегіпің oryssha-қazaқsha sezdigi. -
Almaty, 1966. - S. 12.
34. Superanskaya A. V. , Podolskaya N. V. , Vasileva N. V. Obshhaya terminologiya: Voprosy
teorii. - M. , 1989. - T. 1. - S. 88.
35. Volkova I. N. Standartizaciya russkoj nauchno-tehnicheskoj terminologii. -M. : Izd-vo
standartov, 1984. - 199 s.
36. Vinogradov V. V. Vstupitelnoe slovo // Voprosy terminologii. - M. , Izd-vo MGU,
1972. - 3 s.
37. Kajdarov A. T. Қazaқ tili tarihi leksikologiyasynyң mәseleleri. - Alma-Ata: Fylym, 1988. -
S. 64-73.
38. Ahmanova O. S. Slovar lingvisticheskih terminov. 2-e izd. , Stereotip. -M. : Sov.
Enciklopediya, 1969. - 606 s. ; 4-e izd. - M. : Dom knigi, 2007. - 11 s.
39. Konopatkin I. S. Veterinariya kazahstana. - Alma-Ata, 1970. - 483 s.
160
40.
Kandelaki T. A. Semantika i motivirovannost terminov. - M. : Nauka. Izv. Nan rk. - 1993.
- №2. - S. 3-17.
41. Veterinariya. - M. , 1996. - №2. - S. 17.
42. Zharshy. - Almaty, 2002. - №3. - S. 21.
43. Mechkovskaya N. V. Yazyk i obshhestvo // Obshhee yazykoznanie. - Minsk, 1983. - S.
118.
44. Stepanov G. V. Nauchno-tehnicheskie terminy na yazykah narodov SSSR // Yazyk.
Literatura. Poetika. - M. : Nauka, 1988. - S. 98.
45. Abylkasymov B. Alғashқy қazaқ gazetterіnің tili. - Alma-Ata, 1971. - S. 25-26.
46. Bajtursynov A. Til-құral. - 1926; Til zhymsar. - 1921.
47. Syzdyқ R. Termin zhasau - ahmet bajtyrsynuly ketergen tarihi zhyktin biri // Turan til.
-2008. - №1(07). - S. 24.
48. Ajtbaev U. Voprosy kazahskogo yazykoznaniya. - Almaty: «Arys» baspasy, 2007. - 618 s.
49. Zhubanov K. Issledovaniya po kazahskomu yazyku. - Alma-Ata: Nauka, 1966. - S. 24.
50. Averbuh K. Ya. Terminologicheskaya variantnost: teoreticheskij i prikladnoj aspekty //
VYA. - 1986. - №6. - S. 38-49.
51. Averbuh K. Ya. Standartizaciya terminologii: nekotorye perspektivy //
Nauchno-tehnicheskaya informaciya. - 1985. - Ser. 1. - №3. - S. 1-8.
52. Grinev S. V. Vvedenie v terminovedenie. - M: Moskovskij licej, 1993. - 309 s.
53. Golovin B. N. O nekotoryh zadachah i tematike issledovaniya nauchnoj i
nauchno-tehnicheskoj terminologii // Uchenye zapisi. - Gorkij: Izd-vo Gorkovskogo un-ta.
- 1970.
- Vyp. 114. Ser. Lingvisticheskaya. - S. 17-26.
54. Lejchik V. M. Elementy terminovedcheskoj teorii // Stereotipnost i tvorchestvo v tekste:
Mezhvuz. Sb. Nauch. Tr. - Perm, 2002. - S. 85. Osobennosti funkcionirovaniya terminov v
tekste // Filolog. Nauki. - 1990 - №3. - S. 80-87.
55. Reformatskij A. A. Chto takoe termin i terminologiya. - M: Institut yazykoznaniya
akademii nauk SSSR, 1959. - S. 14.
56. Reformatskij A. A. Nauchnye mysli o terminologii // Sovremennye problemy russkoj
terminologii. - M. : Nauka, 1986. - S. 165-198.
57. Popov R. V. Russkaya terminologiya: Dis. . . . Kand. Filol. Nauk. - Severodvinsk, 2003. -
S. 264.
58. Lotte D. S. Osnovy postroeniya nauchno-tehnicheskoj terminologii. Voprosy teorii i
metodiki. - M. : Izd-vo an SSSR, 1961. - S. 15-79.
59. Vinokur G. O. O nekotoryh yavleniyah slovoobrazovaniya v russkoj tehnicheskoj
terminologii // Trudy Moskovskogo instituta istorii, filosofii i literatury. Sb. Statej po
yazykovedeniyu. - 1939. - T. 5. - S. 3-54.
60. Moiseev A. I. K opredeleniyu terminov v slovaryah // Problematika opredeleniya terminov
v slovaryah raznyh tipov. - M: Nauka, 1976. - S. 243-250.
Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]