Добавил:
ivanov666
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Intercultural Approach of Professional Lexicon
.pdf
lechnology lead to an increased need for language to respond by creating new
terminological systems (1988:64-73).
There are parallels between lexicology and the general theory of terminology. In O
Akhmanova's Dictionary of Linguistic Terms, lexicology is defined as: 'the branch of
linguistics that studies the vocabulary of the language' (1969:11). Lexicology also
involves designating objects with names and studying the meanings of the words.
General terminology focuses on names, something which is only possible within the
framework of a particular concept.
All the words within a subject-specific terminological set are designated a
specialised value. They can only be understood within the context of this value and are
distinct from the value of the same word in a traditional context. If a word used in
general discourse becomes a specialised term, this places significant limits on it.
Examples would be: sty, yellow fever, scabies, coenurosis, sputum, fever, polyp
As they migrate from general-purpose discourse to specialist terminologies, the
specialised meaning of words such as these gradually became understandable only to
specialists in their particular area of expertise (in this case, veterinary medicine). When
not connected to the concept of disease, these words are not considered to be specialised
terminological units.
Systems of designation are inherent to academic terminology. Specialist words are
not homogeneous in their composition and purpose. Some of them are closely related to
research and reflect the stages of a given research process: those are terms. Other words
simply name objects that scientists deal with: those are units of designation. Their
connection with the meanings of objects is not as close as that of terms. Terms are closely
related to specific objects or qualities of an object; they are designed to express
theoretical ways of thinking. Units of designation do not have a direct relationship with
linguistic theory in the same way as terms do. Their function is limited to serving as
labels within a specific subject or discipline. Examples include brands of high-tech
equipment and the names of registered drugs. Terms usually have a long life span,
whereas units of designation can quickly be replaced or become obsolete. In veterinary
medicine, units of designation fall into various groups: anatomical, histological,
embryological, botanical, microbiological, parasitological etc. Each is grouped (according
to the specific paradigm and represents a collection of objects) to a research-based
classification system. In the medical world, the designation of symptoms and medicines
are often mentioned. Therefore designators often represent definite, tangible objects as
well as abstract concepts such as zoonoses or pathological processes.
In veterinary medicine, epizootiological terms are connected to designators
(i)
[Russian/Kazakh transliteration]: yachmen' /karatalak, zheltaya nemoch/ ak-shelek, korosta/kul, vertyachka / sakay,
mokrota / kyzba, likhoradka /kulbirei, polip/ ak.
that denote infectious animal diseases. 'Any infectious animal disease should be defined
by the bacteria that causes it. In order to ensure that any newly discovered infectious
disease is properly classified, the aspects which are particular to that disease alone
should be identified. The designation of infectious diseases should be built on the same
principle as its classification.' (Konopatkin, 1970:483).
In Kazakh veterinary legislation the nomenclature of infectious diseases is classified
according to the type of animal and written in both Russian and Kazakh:. For example:
Equine diseases: rabies; botryomycosis. Large cattle diseases: leucosis; leptospirosis.
Small cattle diseases: black disease (braxy); goat-borne infective pneumonia; porcine
diseases: erypsipelas, dyssentry etc
(i)
Lists of designators tend not to be closed, strictly organised system of terms: there is
always the possibility of adding or removing elements without re-arranging the system
as a whole. According to T Kandelaki, designators are 'closely linked to terms and
grouped around generic terms' (1993:19). Even though these links are not as strong as
those found between terms, designators are still linked to the specific qualities of those
objects, as shown by the nosological designators discussed above. As previously noted,
the lexical meaning of a term usually matches its definition. Designators do not usually
require a definition. Their meaning is usually explained by their specific form and
appearance, and can often be eff^ ctively described in pictorial form. In veterinary
medicine, when describing the symptoms of a disease, images showing the external
signs of the disease often supplement any text. For example, when describing the
symptoms of cow pox, the detailed description of the symptoms is often accompanied
by an image of an infected organ together with written a description such as "On
average, cow pox has an incubatory period of 5 days^ Typically, roseolas appear on the
cow's skin, udder and nipples, but rarely on other parts of a body. Roseaolas transform
into papules, vesicles and crusts. Pocks appear and mature during the duration of the
disease, which is 14-20 days (Konopatkin, 1970:38).
The swift rise of new professions, technologies and branches of research has been
accompanied by a demand for new terms and terminological systems to describe the
new concepts that have arisen from these new fields of knowledge. In turn, this has
exposed weaknesses in the relatively informal methods of designating new terms used
in the past, and highlighted the need for a more structured system of research-based and
technological terminology. The current system of epizootiological terms in veterinary
medicine shows that, in some
(i)
Russian / Kazakh transliteration: beshenstvo / kutyryk; botrimikoz / botrimikoz; leikoz / leikoz; leptospiroz /
leptospiroz; bradzot / ak topalan; infektsionnaya pnevmonia koz /kobenyok; rozha / shoshka tilmesi; dizenteriya / ish otui;
etc.
cases, the name of an animal disease is derived from the name of the parasite that
caused it (eg: Pasteurellosis, or Gambaro disease: an infectious poultry disease.) In other
cases, the names have evolved more slowly. The journal Veterinaria notes: 'The antidote
to hyperimmune-specific anthrax (known in Russian as Siberian pox) can quickly detect
spores that cause anthrax.' The third way that disease names can be derived is from the
symptoms they cause: 'Infectious atrophic rhinitis is common in many countries of
Europe, America and Asia.' (Veterinaria, 1996, No.2: 17).
N.Mechkovskaya discusses how non-equivalent linguistic units and lacunas are
affected by cultural differences (1983:118). For example the Kazakh name si-auru entered
the list of Russian diseases because the infection was first discovered in Central Asia.
The absence of a word in general-purpose language to denote an object can also be an
issue in more specialized terminologies (Stepanov, 1988:98). There are gaps and
inconsistencies in the terminology of animal diseases (sinology) in both the Russian and
Kazakh terminological systems. Thus, the Russian word for anthrax (Siberian pox) has a
number of equivalents in Kazakh, depending on what animal is infected. For example:
zhamandat or talak (equine anthrax); akshlek or karabez (for camels); topalan (for sheep);
karatalak (for cattle).
Terminology first began to be considered in modern Kazakh at the end of the 19th
century. The first known public discussion dates from an 1888 edition of the newspaper
Dala Ueleyatynyn Gazeti. Th^ newspaper published a critique of the purity and style of
the Kazakh language (see Abilkasymov, 1971:25-6). One of the writer's recommendations
was that Russian and Kazakh should be studied more intensively to enrich Kazakh
veterinary and legal terminology, including by adapting terms from other languages.
The process of working towards universal literacy, including publishing study texts for
schools and universities, translations of fiction, scientific and other literature into
Kazakh, all created a need to invent subject-specific terminologies: this was one of the
cultural objectives of the [Bolshevik] revolution. At the beginning of the 20th century,
Kazakh terminology underwent a period of accelerated progress, with academic
publications on the development of Kazakh language for specific purposes by renowned
writers and researchers including: A.Baitursynov, Sh.Kudaibergenov
H.Dosmukhamedov, J.Kuderin, M.Dulatuly, M.Zhumabaev, J.Aymautov, S.Kozhanov,
E.Omarov, T.Shonanov, N.Torekulov and K.Zhalenov.
A.Baitursynov played a particularly special role within Kazakh terminology
studies. Baitursynov argued that every branch of academic research should have a
terminological system, within which individual terms behaved in a standard way. He
was instrumental in the creation of an array of new Kazakh terms. Baitursynov had two
guiding principles. His key principle was to always ensure that the resources of the
Kazakh language had been used to the fullest extent before turning to other languages
for claques, loan-words and other types of
inter-linguistic borrowing.
Unlike some later studies, Baitursynov's terminological system displays a complex
psycho-social and linguistic side. All aspects of his analysis broke new ground: with no
previous research available, Baitursynov relied entirely on his own experience and
detailed knowledge of his mother tongue. When he formulated new terms for linguistic
terminology in his works Til Kural and Til Zhumsar [Тіл қүрал and Тіл жұмсар] he used
traditional Kazakh words, so they could be understood by any native speaker of Kazakh
(Baitursynov, 1921; 1926). This is potentially one reason why the linguistic terminology
suggested by this great Kazakh academic has lasted so long. Even today the legacy of
Baitursynov plays an important part in Turkic linguistic research. At the very least, it is
a contributing factor to the new level that Kazakh and other Turkic languages have
reached in their literary and functional development (Aitbaev, 2007:317).
The existence of terms with the same meaning (parallel terms) has attracted a good
deal of focus within the linguistics community of Kazakhstan. K Zhurbanov used
principles of term formation similar to Baitursynov's: the internal resources of the
Kazakh language must come first, aided by loaning and adaptation from international
sources: 'Thus the Kazakh system of terms will consist on the one had of unique terms
recognised as such at an international level, and on the other, of terms based on Kazakh
words.' (Zhurbanov, 1966:24).
A number of principles of Kazakh terminology are outlined below. They are used
by the State Terminological Committee:
• Terms used in general discourse. These tend to be international names and
should not be translated. Examples include theory, medicine, surgery. They should
be used in Kazakh as they are known internationally and without being
translated into Kazakh. (This is how some Latin-based words related to zoonoses
came to be used in Kazakh);
• International terms. These tend to be used in the form in which they are used in
Russian.
• Various non-Kazakh affixes should be used to harmonise with
international terminology. These include -ez/-ез, -oz/-оз-, -itX-rar-, -is/-ис-,
-im/-им etc. For example: bronkhit, gepatit, plevrit, sepsis, leptosiroz.
The problem of how to designate terms still remains relevant. Many more related
topics have an important theoretical and practical value and merit further study. These
include challenges such as: correlating national and international influences in the
process of terminological designation; studying the impact of international loan words
and other influences on Russian and Kazakh; and considering how far the verbal
description of reality is affected if this is done using terms adopted from other
languages.
There are numerous works about how national and international terms function
including by prominent Kazakh scientists U.Aitbaev, A.Kaidarov, K.Kaliev and
Sh.Kurmanbaituly. Russian linguists who wrote on the same subject include
A.Superanskaya, M.Volodina, N.Avilova and T.Kandelaki. Their collective analysis
covers a wide variety of topics such as looking at similarities between cognate terms in
different languages, and considering how far this might be explained by a common
human way of thinking reproduced in similar ways across different languages. A theory
developed by a number of Russian and Kazakh linguists and philosophers
(i)
was long
regarded as the basic approach to the problems of how to satisfactorily explain the links
between mental outlook, its linguistic expression and the practicalities involved in
forming and designating terms for the first time.
When designating terms, it is important to maintain a balance between nationally-
and internationally-based new terms. Two factors that recommend the adoption of
international words are: (1) national languages have always evolved, and always will,
by adopting foreign words; and (2) the international nature of academic research
facilitates international cooperation and influences both Russian and Kazakh languages.
A key trend within Russian and Kazakh modern terminological studies is the
process of internationalisation. It affects many parts of life outside terminology, and is
typical of a wider trend in the way languages have developed since the turn of the
century, under the influence of globalisation. Within the framework of comparative
terminology this study seeks, as far as possible, to find the means to overcome the
differences between languages, including oppositions, absence of equivalents and
lacunas.
There is a rich literature and lively discourse within terminological studies today
both in Kazakhstan and further afield. And this serves to underline how relevant
terminological issues and challenges continue to be. Recently, new areas of
terminological research have shifted the traditionally set boundaries of the discipline
and widened the field of possible study. Rapid progress in computing and
telecommunication technologies has aroused particular interest from the linguistics and
terminology research community (Reformatsky described this as 'the zone of the
intellectually-driven social environment' (1968)).
As one of the most intensively developing parts of any language's vocabulary,
terminology attracts significant interest. This is why the study of the terminological
systems that have developed within various academic research areas is of such wide
value: terminology can shed light on theoretical questions about the common patterns of
development between different terminological systems; it can add value to the practical
business of regulating, harmonising
(i)
These include: T.Kolshansky, B.Serebrennikov, Z.Akhmetzhanova, L.Zhanalina,
N.Shaimerdenova, K.Khusainov, B.Khasanov and others.
36
and standardising subject-specitic terminological sets, as well as the compiling and
editing of dictionaries.
The growth in the number ot academic journals, research and academic conterences
devoted to terminology signals its importance within academic and a bright outlook for
its future. The work of Kazakh and Russian terminologists have made an invaluable
contribution to the development ot terminology as a discipline.
(i)
Those areas ot academic study which tavour an interdisciplinary approach tend to
use newer research methods. Terminological studies could be said to lack certain
elements which evaluate the development and tunctioning ot terms in relation to the tull
range ot their internal and external connections and relationships which, in turn, may
shed light on the nature ot a given linguistic community's development. An important
indicator of a community's development is the presence ot written language, on which
the development ot the whole language depends. In general, written language is a
prerequisite for the development ot a tradition ot academic research within any
linguistic community. There is still insufficient focus on certain elements of the
development ot language in this context, which includes gaps in our knowledge ot the
lexical, semantic and syntactic characteristics ot terms trom many linguistic and cultural
communities. There is no set method of evaluating the points ot commonality and
reciprocal intluence between communities on the evolution ot language or the
development ot terminology in relation to the wider development of each community.
The history ot any language should never be viewed in isolation, but in the context
of the history of all languages. Inter-linguistic comparisons can be facilitated by using a
cultural community approach. Wide-ranging and interdisciplinary studies ot
terminological processes may provide the necessary conditions tor the development ot a
new scientitic sub-discipline in terminology - a cultural community approach.
Taking into account modern trends in terminological research and new historical
evidence about the development ot cultural communities, there is a strong argument to
say that a culturally-tocussed interdisciplinary research path could turn out to be a rich
vein tor terminological research with signiticant interdisciplinary opportunities.
(i)
Their names are: A.Baitursynov, H.Zhubanov, N.Sauranbaev, A.Aitbaev, A.Kaidarov, B.Kaliyev,
Sh.Kurmanbayuly, O.Wuester, E.Dresen, D.Lotte, G.Vinokur, A.Reformatsky. Their work was continued by wide
range of modern terminologists including: V.Vinogradov, B.Golovin, V.Danilenko, T.Kandelaki, L.Kapanadze,
R.Kobrin, V.Leichik, N.Kotelova, S.Shelov, G.Abramova, K.Averbuch, L.Alekseeva, M.Volodina, A.Gerd,
N.Grinyev, S.Kazarina, Z.Komarova, V.Kulpina, Y.Marchuk, S.Mishlanova, R.Piotrovsky, V.Prokhorova,
L.Ruposova, F.Sorokoletov, A.Superanskaya, V.Tatarinov, E.Abdrasilov, A.Bizhkenova, B.Omarov,
I.Zholshibekova, J.Tokenbaeva and others.
3Q
When terminological systems start to be compared with each other, it quickly
becomes apparent that no academic set of terminology is isolated from other aspects of
that same language, from literature to other terminological systems in other subject
areas, as well as subject-specific terminologies from languages. Despite the number of
terminological studies that exist, none argue that terms should be viewed in the context
of their being part of a terminological space.
To conclude this section, we posit that terms and terminological systems are distinct
from other known systems. Every term represents an independent part of a conceptual
field, which itself is part of a certain scientific discipline. A terminological system can
only be completed as a result of studying and defining the special network of
connections between those terms.
1.5. The scientific aspects of terms
Modern terminology could be argued to be a discipline that emerged at the
crossroads between logic, linguistics, IT, concept studies, psychology and a variety of
other applied disciplines. Similarly to linguistics, terminology includes two major
sub-divisions - theoretical and applied terminology. Studying certain subject-specific
terminological sets presents some challenges because of the number of unresolved basic
terminological problems encountered.
Theoretical terminology analyses the structures and functioning of individual terms
and groups of terms. This discipline also includes comparative and historical
terminology, terminological theory of written language and the history of terminology.
Applied terminology is concerned with lexicographic descriptions of terms, unification,
standardisation and harmonisation of terms.
Terminological sets from various subject-specific, professional fields contain the
following linguistic features: they serve the communication needs of practitioners within
a professional community; they form links that connect terminological elements. These
can be classified as material, semantic, paradigmatic, functional and genetic. Simple
terms differ from the words of general vocabulary by their semantic organization.
Simple terms tend to comply with the common rules of general-purpose language.
However complex terms can be distinguished by their semantic structure.
The features identified in terminological sets from different subject-specific fields
allow us to decide whether to define them as systemic. In the research world, a systemic
set could be defined as a number of inter-related and inter-connected elements that form
a complex and internally organised unit.
There are no generally accepted definitions of term or terminology in the academic
world. For the purposes of this study, we use the following definitions of
subject-specific terminological systems:
• Subject-specific terminology is a system of verbal signs from a certain area of
human knowledge or professional activity. It is a relatively isomorphic system of
definitions that serves a specific set of communication needs.
• Term is a linguistic unit of designation. It has a strict definition and is itself
included in a terminological system.
• A terminological system is associated with the standardisation of definitions
within a certain area of human knowledge or professional activity.
The above definitions are based on the assumption that 'the terminological system
comes first and its constituent elements second (the term exists only within the
framework of the system)' (Averbukh, 1986:38-49). The definition of a term might also
usefully include the notion that a term can be used to name anything from areas of
professional activity to scientific or technological objects. A term of veterinary medicine
firstly becomes a term because of its use in a professional context as a unit of
professional, specialised vocabulary.
Terminology (the study of terms) is often presented as a well-researched branch
academia; but it is surprisingly young as a discipline. According to Averbukh:
'Nowadays, complaining about the number of theoretical issues that have not been
researched makes no sense.' (1985:1-8). And it could well be argued that issues which
have often been discussed still present researchers with a range of challenges to tackle.
Key questions within terminology seem to have formed around five main subject
areas, each containing a pair of contrasting ideas (1) General versus specialised
vocabulary; (2) Linguistic versus encyclopaedic or specialised definitions (in terms of
how best to present definitions in dictionaries; (3) General versus specialised
terminological sets; (4) Specialised terminology as an independent area or sub-system of
general-purpose language; (5) Terminology as either an independent branch of
linguistics or an interdisciplinary research area.
These contrasting pairs are, according to N.llyina, the 'constructive principles' of
modern terminology and their contents are represented through a network of detailed
questions. Discussions still continue about the nature of a term; about what the
requirements are across different disciplines for a word to qualify as a term (see D.Lotte,
K.Averbukh, Sh.Kurmanbaytuly and others); about the role of terms in the written
language (V.Leichik); and about how far different parts of the speech can be considered
to be terms (V.Danilenko, T.Kiyak, A.lbraeva).
Today, there are still a range of open questions within the discipline of terminology
including about the place of parallel and synonymous terms; how
to distinguish terms, exact synonyms (duplicates) (Grinev 1993:309) and partial
synonyms (Tatarinov 1996:311); and questions of wider synonymy, which is typically
found in the early stages of a system's development and tends to gradually reduce and
eventually disappear. Other topics that have been studied have centred on spoken
language (Golovin: 1970:17-26); the structure of a term's meaning (although not all
linguists acknowledge the existence of this concept); connotation and meanings; and
stylistic and functional labelling (Leichik 2002:85).
Nevertheless, the issue of defining the basic terms of most academic disciplines
remains a live one, as research continues to develop. Averbukh rightly points out that,
in modern terminological studies, 'the increasing volume of knowledge about terms and
terminological systems leads directly to a discussion of how to understand the nature
and the function of these terms (in Leichik, 2002:45).
According to A Reformatsky, terms belong to two systems: logos (Greek - a word,
language, knowledge or science), which we could call a system of scientific knowledge;
and lexis (Greek - a word), which could be seen as a lexical system (1959:14).
Reformatsky concludes that a term cannot be 'the ideal example of one element of a
wider lexical system' (1986:122); instead, he posits that a term should be seen as 'an ideal
example of a terminological system.'
(2003:264).
Both logos and lexis are equally important for understanding the nature of a term,
irrespective of whether it became a term through 'semantic transformation' from
general-purpose language or was specially created.
Reformatsky's ideas about the nature of terms were subsequently developed into a
tripartite model: logos, lexis and logic (the meaning of a term). Two other modern
terminologists (V.Leichik and A.Superanskaya), whose views initially varied, came
independently to the same conclusion.
Dealing with terms by ordering and standardising them is known as the
'prescriptive approach'. The founders of this approach are well recognised in the world
of terminology and include D.Lotte, S.Chaplygin and E.Drezen. The terminological
working groups, created in the 1960s by the Committee for the development of
research-based and technical terminology at the Soviet Academy of Sciences also
adopted a 'prescriptive and normative approach to terms and their designation.'
(Lotte:1961:72-79). The main tasks of the Committee were to compile dictionaries of
recommended terms and to develop terminological standards in different areas of
research- and technology-based disciplines. In order to achieve this, those who
subscribed to Lotte's school of thought created an 'ideal' set of criteria to work to. Some
researchers saw these standards as necessary to ensure any given term's semasiological
qualities was clearly specified.
Lotte, who was one of the first to develop this line of thought, listed the key criteria
for a word to qualify as a term. He posited that a term should: (1) be absolutely
unambiguous; (2) have no synonyms (3) have a link ('motivation') between its meaning
in high-register general discourse and its specialised meaning; (4) fit clearly into a
system and be capable of systemisation; (5) be concise; (6) be simple and
comprehensible; (7) be exact; (8) be useful; (9) Be independent of context; (10) prioritise
terms based on lexis from the official language(s) of one's home country before turning
to loan-words from other languages (botte, 1961:15-16).
Other researchers have added to this list, proposing that a term should also be: (11)
'intellectually pure,' including in terms of being detached from emotional influence
(Vinokur, 1939:3); (12) able to follow conventions (Tolikina); (13) part of a specialised
language (Leichik); (14) linguistically accurate; (15) derivable (capable of creating new
words); (16) internationally recognised; (17) pleasant-sounding; (18) modern (Vasileva).
All these requirements for the 'ideal' term should, if possible, be fulfilled, and should
certainly serve as a guideline in any attempt to standardize areas of terminology.
In the 1970s and the 1980s, the Soviet Union worked actively on organizing and
standardising its various research- and technology-based terminological sets. This was
also a time when a large number of subject-specific national and international
terminological standards, definitions and terminological dictionaries were agreed and
compiled. The overall results of this work could be said to lead to the conclusion that, in
general, terminological systems can be organised, systemised, controlled and
intentionally altered.
According to the prescriptive approach, terms are defined as special words,
collocations, abbreviations, symbols, or various combinations of words, letters, symbols
and numbers that have a particular terminological meaning (A.Gerd). Features inherent
to words found in general-purpose language (polymerase, synonymy, stylistic marking
etc.) either do not apply to terms or differ significantly. It is important to note that this
viewpoint does not deny the lexical nature of terms, but simply emphasizes their
specificity compared to words used in in general-purpose language. The prescriptive
and normative approach described here reflects the position of some terminologists,
who posses in-depth knowledge about a given terminological system, and who are
involved in creating and revising that system in their particular area of expertise.
More recently, however, the normative approach has become somewhat more
controversial (Moiseev, 1976:245).
Within the academic world, the definitions of a concept and of a term are not
necessarily identical: the definition of term does not match its description within
academic research, similarly to the way in which particular interpretations of a word
differ from its root meaning: 'Academic definitions are complex: their formulation
requires the enumeration of a number of qualities as well as the
Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]