Добавил:
ivanov666
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Intercultural Approach of Professional Lexicon
.pdf
41
links between these qualities and knowledge of where that definition sits within the
appropriate hierarchy of definitions.' (Kutina, 1976:22).
Definitions, related to formal meanings (the set of necessary and sufficient qualities)
are inherent to both general-purpose and specialised, or terminological, vocabularies.
They are distinguished by the fact that general-purpose vocabulary tends to undergo
verbal or lexicographic approximation. This is achieved through a range of tools used to
derive definitions that are compliant with the standards (eg: lexical, semantic,
grammatical) of general-purpose language. This means definitions in this category
should be easy for non-specialists to understand (Kutina, 1976:24). It is widely held that
general-purpose language may contain terms, but that these terms can only be described
by commonly-used words and expressions (Kiyak). A subject specialist in any given
field of knowledge tends to be interested primarily in the content of the definition,
whether it properly describes the object or element in question, as well as its qualities
and its relationships with other units of language. Criminologists however must decide
whether the full range of requirements have been met for a given linguistic unit to be
deemed a term. They will also tend to check whether the term satisfies the requirements
of the terminological set of which it forms a part.
When terminology is ordered and systematised, this may lead to the creation of new
terms. More often, however, terms are selected from among a range of overlapping
terms which will have developed naturally over time. Usually there are a lot terms with
overlapping meanings to choose from. Terminological systems tend to describe a
'picture of the world' as perceived from the viewpoint of academic research. Its main
features are order, completeness, relative exactness in definitions and being up to date.
1.6. Terms and terminological systems as aspects of the study of
terminology
Issues surrounding the formation and development of terminology tend to be
discussed within three categories: individual terms, followed by two similar types of
grouping - a terminology and a terminological system.
A terminology is a semantic core of specialised linguistic units, mostly used within
academia, but which also forms part of general-purpose language. The groups of terms
that form a single terminology cannot be created: they form naturally. Deliberately
created groups of terms are called terminological systems. For example, in veterinary
medicine, specialised units of language form veterinary terminology, a group of terms
that has been added to over time since antiquity. However within veterinary
terminology, there is a deliberately created terminological system of epizootiology,
made up of veterinary terms ■hat relate exclusively to that subject.
Not all linguists agree with the distinction between terminology and terminological
systems. B.Golovin uses terminology and terminological system interchangeably
(1981:3-10). The spontaneous and unstructured way in which a terminology is formed
can not adequately express the linguistic needs of a specialised area of knowledge: the
individual terms within a terminology may not be systemically structured and may
retain inaccurate and outdated semantic elements. Terminologies develop in a similar
way to that of general-purpose language. Academic terminologists do not create terms,
but harness an existing pool of specialised words, in a way that facilitates the accurate
exchange of information between professionals in the specialised area of knowledge.
Such pools have been called 'ad ho terminologies' or 'organic terminologies.' According
to G.Melnikov, the job of a terminologist is to structure ad ho terminologies and convert
them into terminological systems so that they can be of use to the research community
(1991:115). He enumerated the stages of this structuring process as follows: analysis,
explication of units of logos, classification of objects that need naming, drafting
definitions, organising the lexis.
The order in which these stages are completed is problematic, as it is not clear how
to classify an object if it has no name, how to define an object if it is not classified, and
circularly how to classify one if it has no clear definition. However terminological
practice has developed ways of tackling this logical cul-de-sac.
Our analysis of veterinary terms has highlighted a number of equivalents or
near-equivalents: pneumonia/lung infection; tuberculosis/consumption. Some relationships
of partial synonymy were also noted: disinfection/detoxification, pleurisy/pleurisy.
Polymerase is inherent to terminologies: the same terminology can use the same
words but with different meanings. For example, agricultural vocabulary may use the
word khozyaistvo in three different ways, to denote: the business of agricultural
production in general (sel'skoe khozyaistvo); a type of specific production - eg: logging
(leskhoz[yaistvo]); a mode of organisation - eg: rational agricultural production
(rational'noe vedenie khozyaistva). Common linguistic roots are also widespread across
terminologies. For example, the root 'nos' [carrier / carrying] occurs in veterinary terms
such as: anthroponosis; zoonosis; anthropozoonosis.
Works covering the origins and development of various terms in Russian and
Kazakh have been published, including by E.Fedorchenko, L.Novikov, V.Danilenko and
A.Bizhkenova. They provide numerous illustrative examples of phenomena based on
common linguistic principles that are found in a large number of terminologies.
Gradation is a special type of semantic relationship and occupies a particular place
within the subject-specific terminologies. Gradation opens up the possibility of creating
a subject-specific terminological system that measures
ceriai^i aspects of a system. Veterinary and human medicine use the same terms for
anamnesis (the construction of a preliminary case history) such as: examination, test,
diagnosis, treatment etc. Some glossaries remain incomplete (eg: anatomical terminology
logically lacks the names of parts of the body which have not yet been discovered).
Incomplete terminologies act as a starting point for the formation of terminological
systems.
A typical element in the formation of new terms is the use of loan-words from other
terminologies or specialised subjects. For example the sociological term isolation, the
term from mechanics dynamics, the psychological term depression, and the military term
devastation have all be adopted as loan-words within veterinary medicine.
It is posited that this linguistic approach to the analysis of subject-specific terms
leads to the conclusion that subject-specific specialised language in Russian and Kazakh
constitute ad hoc groups of linguistic units. These units present common semantic and
formal structures, which themselves play a similar role in both languages and express
similar definitions for many specialised units of language.
Terminological systems can only be created in certain subject areas if that area is
sufficiently developed in terms of theoretical background and practical knowledge.
Unlike terminologies, terminological systems have the following features: they serve a
specific subject area within an overall discipline (eg: epidemiology, anatomy, or
pathology within veterinary medicine); they have an agreed system of definitions in a
given subject area (eg: epizootiology); academic concepts can be identified within the
system; the system is expressed in general-purpose language (in the case of this study,
Russian and Kazakh) and includes examples of Language for Special Purposes (LSP).
Unlike terminologies, terminological systems are compiled rather than developing
naturally. There are two known terminological systems: systems that are purposely
designed in their entirety; and systems that are based on the re-structuring of a
terminology that has naturally developed over time. The second type of system is found
more often in natural sciences, including veterinary medicine. As animals diseases were
gradually differentiated from each other, the designation of nosological terms
transformed into a terminological system that is logical and systemic. Constructing a
terminological system can be done using a hierarchic, genetic, functional or multi-aspect
method. Unlike terminologies, terminological systems represent a higher degree of
organization among units of language. They tend to be formed from linguistic units that
have developed naturally and have undergone some sort of selection to remain part of
general-purpose language; but at the same time, they could serve a specific set of LSP
needs. Terminological systems are complex structures, consisting of words, collocations
and linguistic units of a particular general-purpose language, which has been adapted
for special purposes. They
are both a natural and artificial creation. They serve as method of expression for a
particular area of specialised knowledge.
1.7. The linguistic-cognitive basis of studies in the modern
terminological space
Cognitive sciences conduct research into the rules of language, including their
organisational principles, their means of communication and the comprehension of
information such as memory, and the coding/decoding of information.
Cognitive-communicative terminology is one of the disciplines of the cognitive sciences.
Cognitive linguistics represents a clear and consistent direction in modern linguistics. It
could be described as a transition from a past tendency of describing linguistic
phenomena in terms of formal structures to a new tendency to describe them in terms of
new linguistic concepts and of cognition. Cognitive linguistics overlaps with the
definition of the 'cognitive-discursive paradigm of linguistic knowledge.'
(Kubryakova:2005). Works published in Kazakhstan have tended to stress the
anthropological focus of Cognitive Linguistics. The essence of the discipline is an
exploration of the human mind that would not be possible without language and an
ability to use and understand it. The conclusion is that without cognitive abilities and
without cognitive science to study those abilities, it would become impossible to answer
questions about how human consciousness is organised, how a human explores the
world, sees and comprehends their environment and subsequently converts the
information into knowledge (Kubryakova 1999:186-197). Popular subjects on cognition
include: the processes of creation and understanding within a given language
community and the linguistic phenomena associated with that community; types of
conceptual structure and their linguistic manifestations. One of the main disciplines of
cognitive linguistics is cognitive-communicative terminology, which describes linguistic
phenomena differently from earlier disciplines. It has resulted in stricter and more exact
definitions of key terminological concepts. New methods and tools have developed that
allow the terminological systems of certain fields of knowledge and human activity to be
described from a more modern point of view. Leichik notes six semantic and formal
methods widely used by cognitive terminologists and which are applied to both
terminologies and terminological systems:
1. Historical description: traces the process of how terminology developed;
describes the creation and evolution of epizootiological terms and theories;
2. Complex analysis: identifies the common components of definitions among any
number of inter-related units within the same terminology;
4. Semantic multiplication: allows the designation of terms through the semantic
analysis of tested definitions, and through the establishment of the degree of
semantic proximity between terms within the same terminology or system;
5. Definitive analysis: based on linguistic logic, which analyses the definitions of
terms. This enables a graph to be drawn, which maps the relationships between
particular features of specialised terms.
6. Distributive analysis: considers how terms within the same text occur and are
treated.
7. Inclusive analysis: brings together linguistic units from various formal
paradigms into one terminology or terminological system.
Cognitive terminology is a natural step in the development of the discipline of
terminology and represents a new direction of research. From the outset, cognitive
disciplines have chosen terms as one of their objects of analysis, because terms and
terminologies are the products of human speech and verbally expressed cognitive
activities. The application of the cognitive approach allows terminologists to broaden
and deepen their research and arrive at a wider range of practical solutions to current
issues of terminology. Modern terminology is also actively developing in other
directions as well. Regarding terms as the main object of study within the discipline of
terminology, it is worth adding to our existing definitions with Leichik's comment that:
'a term is a quantum of cognition, it is a unit of special knowledge that functions within
a view of the world as perceived by the academic research community. When
connecting the essence of any term to the functions it performs, it is important to
emphasise, despite views to the contrary, that those functions are not nominative or
informative, but cognitive. That is, they fulfil a knowledge function, followed the ability
to fix that knowledge.' (Leichik, 2007:124).
Changes in the language of professional communication reflect elements of wider
social change. The basis of the language of professional communication is made up of
various terminologies. The entire set of terminological systems used in professional
communication is called the terminological space. The dynamics of its development in
recent decades has caused academia to start paying close attention to the factors and
processes of these dynamics. Danilenko notes: 'Terms are created by an author or a group
of authors according to necessity.' (1977:211).
Unlike the development of words in general-purpose language, the creation of
terms is a cognitive process. A number of terminologists (Danilenko, Leichik, Grinyov,
Alekseeva et al.) have noted that subjectivity play a significant role in the formation of
the terminological space. Terms are created by specialists from specific fields of
knowledge. The process of designating terms is likely to be influenced by the
professional background of those involved in term
46
designation, as well as other human factors.
In modem terminological studies, there has been a rise in the popularity of the
anthropological approach, something which has been inherent to many field of research
in general over the past decades, particularly in the cognitive sciences. It suggests that
the development of the modern terminological space could be studied through the
prism of cognitive linguistics.
According to Novodranova and Mishlanova (1988:13), the process of terminological
designation within specific fields of knowledge should be understood not just as a
process of nomination, but also as one of learning. The decision about any given
designation determines the adequacy of the information expressed by the term to be
designated; and ultimately designation will affect how people conceive the world in
their own minds. In the terminological space, which is socially oriented and socially
driven, the process of designation could be said to be closely connected to the cognitive
activity of humans. From the perspective of individuals, involved in activities that affect
the world, designation reflects elements of how objects, their connections and
relationships, are perceived. The terms created through designation not only describe
the objects they are designed to describe, but also incorporate interpretation of those
objects.
Terminological designation of verbs involves the interpretation of an object or
phenomenon through the eyes of those engaged in designation. Their view is subjective
because, to an extent, it reflects a personal interpretation of the object they are
designating. This interpretation will likely be influenced by research-based theories and
methods. Creating a new term involves consideration of a wider scientific discourse as
well as interpretation of the verbal activities of those who speak the professional
language within which the new term is created.
The creation of terms by a professional in any given field of knowledge provides an
opportunity to study the logical patterns that may arise. It also allows an analysis of
how existing information is processed and how newly created terms are presented. As
noted by Kubryakova, newly created terms and collocations could be said to exist in the
space where cognition and communication meet (1997:4).
By performing cognitive activities, a human could be said to be 'sculpting' meaning
into the shape of a term. Consequently, terminological processes may provide insights
into cognitive processes and serve as invaluable evidence for research into the human
intellect. Moreover, when a new term is created, human ways of thinking could be seen
as the dominant cognitive model of how terminological designation takes place. There is
no definitive modern cognitive models regarding terminological designation. But we
posit that studies such as these are capable of expanding our knowledge of how the
world is perceived by the academic research community.
A further argument in favour of the cognitive study of the terminological space is
the fact that terminological systems within some fields of knowledge do not have
sufficient linguistic resources. This hinders the effective structuring of their
terminologies and stops an adequate evaluation of the effectiveness and communicative
potential of the meta-language in that particular research area.
There has been relatively little linguistic research into the aspects of subject-specific
terminologies that would enable us to see how concepts within academia and the image
of the world as viewed by academic has been changed by the action of terms and
terminologies. Humans think and act conceptually: concepts are their global units of
structured knowledge. Behind all terms are basic concepts of human thought - an object,
a process, a product, an instrument. In addition there is an array of basic concepts that
are specific to academic research or a specialised field of knowledge. For some scientific
disciplines, clarification of the structure of the discipline's concepts can be a prerequisite
for bringing order to is terminological system and forecasting how the discipline might
develop in the future.
In line with Stepanov, we posit that the definition of a concept is a cultural and
mental linguistic unit: 'A concept is an accumulation of culture in human consciousness;
it is the way in which the culture enters the intellectual world of a human. A concept is
also the means by which a human enters culture himself and in some cases influences it.
A concept is a basic cell of culture in the human intellectual world.' In the modern study
of cognitive science, a definition differs from a concept: 'definitions are understood,
concepts are experienced.' (Stepanov, 1997: 103).
In line with a number of linguists, we also posit that definitions (and subsequently
their names - terms) differ from, but do not contradict, the concepts they describe. This is
because the aim of terminology is to express the concepts of academic and cultural facts.
Considering that culture is a semiotic creation and consists of sub-cultures with their
own linguistic specificity, concepts could be said to reflect specialist knowledge. By
distinguishing between culture-based concepts and specialized concepts, the specialized
concept could be seen as an objective product of academic research (see Alekseeva,
Kubryakova, Manerko, Fesenko et al).
Existing subject-specific terminologies could therefore be said to accord with
cognitive approaches, as they are the result of the cognitive activities of specialists in a
given discipline, who have engaged in the conceptualization and verbalization of their
specific, professional field of knowledge. The structure of knowledge in any given
terminological system represents a multitude of concepts, set out within a particular
hierarchy.
48
1.8. Subject-specific terminology as a part of a research-basea view
of the world
How the world is viewed or conceived is one of the fundamental concepts that
reflects the specificity human existence, our relationship with our environment and with
the world. These relationships are very diverse, and therefore give rise to many different
conceptualisations, including: scientific, philosophical, artistic, virtual and others.
Different conceptualisations of the world consist of a distinctive social and ethical
element. Those conceptualisations interact with language as a result of and as a
pre-condition of cognitive activity. Every language forms its own conceptualisations of
the world driven by its history and its role in social processes including self-identity.
Since the 17th century, different academic disciplines have been forming their own
conceptualisations of the world. Successful conceptualisation requires academics to
interpret the world they are investigating through language. Works describing the role
of language in the conceptualisation of the world fall into three broad categories: (1)
Those who subscribe to the ideas of von Humboldt and the neo-Humboldtians
(Vaisberger, Kassirer et al): these focus on language's internal contents. (2) Those who
draw on the ideas of American ethno-linguistics, with its focus on the hypothesis of
linguistic relativity (Sapir and Whorf). (3) More recently, the Humboldtian and relativist
schools have been combined by the philosophical works of Plank, Engels, Lenin and
Verber
(i)
.
Today, one widely accepted conceptualisation of the world could be described as a
combination of many different images and projections of reality, that have evolved
throughout history and among different cultures.
Humanity's attempts to understand the real world through an image, created in
their imagination and reflected by their scientific theories have been described by great
thinkers such as Einstein, Vernadsky and Planck. Einstein identifies that humans tend to
create a simple and clear picture of the world for themselves which, to some extent,
replaces 'real' reality with an invented reality (1967:136). Planck proposed that the
conceptualisation of the world happens in two stages: (1) Understanding the world by
using our senses; and (2) understanding though amassing objective and universal
knowledge. Planck wrote: 'How people perceive the external world using their senses
may not be the same, even if they perceive the same subject. Transition from using the
senses to the creation of an empirically-derived image can appear to be replacing a
(i)
Further works on linguistic conceptualisations of the world have been written by Y.Lotman, Y.Apresyan,
Y.Karaulov, G.Kolshansky. E.Kubryakova, A.Vezhbitskaya, N.Shaimerdenova and E.Kogay. Further works on
scientific conceptualisations of the world have been written by A.Einstein, P.Dyshlevoi, O.Kornilov et al.)
colourful, diverse and subjective picture with a dry, objective order, or replacing
anarchy with law_ ' (1958:44). This highlights that the empirical image of the world is
created by factual research and investigation.
The empirical image of the world covers all aspects of activity within human society
and provides an opportunity to draw out broad trends within it. More detailed
discussions of different conceptualisations of the world can be found in a variety of
modern philosophical writings. For example Kravets analyses existing viewpoints on
how the world is best conceptualised. He comes to the conclusion that a
conceptualisation of the world could be described variously as: being an ontological
element of philosophy; containing integral aspects of the basis of modern science; being
a summary of the recurring aspects of paradigms, projects and other research activity.
(1983:5). Dyshlevoi and Yatsenko, propose that conceptualising the world is best done
through the creation of separate academic disciplines and the general accumulation of
empirical knowledge about the world (1983:5-37). Kornilov makes the following
proposal: 'Conceptualising the world could be seen as encapsulating all knowledge
about the world derived from different academic disciplines as it stands at today's stage
of human social development... The empirical image of the world is imprinted in the
terminologies of different academic disciplines: they study various aspects of the world
from different angles. Terminology itself is structured by breaking this image down into
separate terminological systems.' (2003:11).
Collective empirical knowledge about nature, society and humanity is an integral
part of the language of research and academia. At its core is a body of concepts and
categories expressed by the terminologies of various empirical disciplines.
The main aspect of a conceptualisation of the world that linguists tend to highlight
is the fundamental difference between the linguistic and empirical view of the world.
The latter is prone to constant change, driven by the continuous development of science.
The former, however, remains largely unchanged: an empirical conceptualisation of the
world would never be equal to an objective image of the world, unless the philosophical
axiom about indefinite knowledge was breached. We posit that an empirical
conceptualisation of the world is the same worldwide, as science is free from linguistic
subjectivity. In every language an empirical conceptualisation of the world is expressed
through the terminological systems of that language. However this can only be the case
with those languages which have sufficiently developed terminological systems and a
system or process for revising existing and creating new subject-specific terminologies.
Russian and Kazakh have sufficiently developed traditions of empirical research
and institutions for recording and passing on the knowledge derived from this research.
This means that Russian and Kazakh both have sufficient
linguistic resources to express an empirical conceptualisation of the world.
An empirical conceptualisation of the world can be expressed in any given
language in full, partially or not at all, depending on how developed empirical research
traditions are. If they do not exist at all, then there will be no findings which the
language can be used to express in the first place.
The expression of more specialised segments of empirical knowledge in any given
language can be complete, partial or absent, subject to how much empirical research has
been carried out by those who express themselves in that language, and by the presence
of appropriate language to express the results of whatever research has already been
carried out.
The differences between an empirical conceptualisation of the world and a
linguistic one becomes clear when considering the way in which certain subject-specific
terminological systems express empirical knowledge.
One of the most interesting subject areas that illustrates the differences between an
empirical conceptualisation of the world and a linguistic one and which has become the
subject of terminological designation work by the linguistics community as well as the
wider research community, is the world of animals. Theory and practice of veterinary
medicine forms part of this subject area, because it deals with the prevention and cure of
animal disease, it protects humans from zooanthroponosis, deals with health and safety
issues for farming produce and fulfils a hygiene and environmental protection role.
A typical phenomenon associated with veterinary terminology is morphological
growth in: processes found in animal biological systems when they are healthy or ill and
at different stages of the disease; diseases and pathological conditions of animals, their
forms, stages and symptoms; pathogens and carriers of disease; environmental factors
that affect animal physiology, and hygiene standards; methods of diagnostics,
prophylactics and disease management; types of surgical intervention; institutions of
public health and epidemic control; devices, instruments and other technical aids;
veterinary hardware, medicines, medicinal plants etc.
The entirety of veterinary medical terms could be considered a 'macro-system'
which includes a micro-system of terms dealing with epizootiology. This is an example
of how the logical structure of an empirical conceptualisation of the world is more
complex than the logical structure of a linguistic conceptualisation. The epizootiological
terminological system operates with the systemic categories of zoonosis and
anthropozoonosis. Empirical data about anthropozoonosis was created many years ago:
it was logically organised and coded, and reflected elements of taxonomy and
epizootiology. By contrast, the taxonomy of zoonosis is not coded or outlined as
lexico-semantic group.
Specialised definitions of terms related to zoonosis are listed in specialist veterinary
glossaries. General dictionaries provide less detailed descriptions that are sufficient for
use in general discourse (Gak, 1971:95). Common definitions of
Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]