Добавил:
ivanov666
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Intercultural Approach of Professional Lexicon
.pdf
terms that describe animal disease (zoonosis) differ from specialized definitions in terms
of their depth and quality. The comprehension of the general-purpose reader is lower
than that of a specialist, so the general purpose definition will never exactly match the
specialized definition.
The common thread (or Archiseme) underpinning all of this linguistic and semantic
group of words - that they are all diseases manifested in animals - can be distinguished
using various factors including: the degree of hazard posed by the disease, the degree of
its contagiousness, external signs of the disease, which part of the body is affected, size
of the affected area, geographical epicentre, the cause of the disease etc.
Defining a disease linguistically does not capture all the possible units of meaning
(semes) of a disease. The characteristics to be highlighted are chosen selectively. For
example the general meaning of carbuncle contains two different semes: suppurative
inflammation (provides overall classification); inflammation of the skin (identifies the
affected area); inside the sebaceous gland (clarification of internal location). Of all the
features which objectively characterise a carbuncle, only those three features were
considered important enough in the minds of the Russian-speakers who drafted its
definition to be noted down in the dictionary. This then becomes the objective reality of a
carbuncle for everyone who speaks Russian.
In specialised dictionaries, entries tend to consist of a more detailed definition that
contains all the characteristics of a given zoonosis. Entries in specialised, subject-specific
terminologies tend to be highly uniform, and very often contain large amounts of
information. Analysis of several hundred specialised terms from an epizootiological
terminological system suggests that, in general, specialised definitions of
epizootiological terms display the same basic, common characteristics (sometimes
known as the 'hypothetical full interpretation') as are found in general-purpose
definitions of the same word. This can be illustrated using the specialised and
general-purpose definition of the same word from Ozhegov's Russian Dictionary and
from the Special Veterinary Glossary. Ozhegov notes: 'Tuberculosis: an infectious
disease caused by the bacteria called mucobacterium tuberculosis (discovered by Robert
Koch). It affects lungs, bones, joints, intestine etc.' (1973:748). The Veterinary Glossary
reads: 'Tuberculosis (Tuberculosis-lat.): bacterial zoonosis. Areas affected: lungs,
lymphatic nodes, miliary lesion of internal organs. Pathogen: mucobacterium tuberculosis.
Carrier: humans and domesticated animals (cattle, goats, pigs, cats and dogs), wild
animals. Risk groups: 1, 2, and 4.' (2002:82).
This suggests that veterinary medical terminology is a terminological system which
displays elements of both an empirical and linguistic conceptualisation of the world. The
following conclusions may also be drawn:
• Subject-specific terminological systems and their logical structure could
52
De consiaerea as a part of an empirical conceptualisation of the worl that
represents fixed, unvarying knowledge or information;
• Empirical and linguistic conceptualisations of the world are two
inter-related systems;
• Correlations between aspects of empirical and linguistic conceptualisations of the
world are established by content, which includes the logical structures of each
system, the level of detail of the definition of a specialised term; the structure and
volume of lexical meanings.
• The structure and depth of the meanings of specialised and general-purpose,
high-register words found in terminological sets (or micro-systems) are
determined by studying how specialised definitions have migrated from
specialised glossaries into general-purpose discourse.
Specialised terms can often be influenced by two linguistic communities: the
language in which the term was originally created, and a second language.
Traditionally, veterinary medical disciplines (zoology, botany and others) were studied
in Latin, which is why many of the same terms for zoonoses are used across the world.
However the worldwide tendency is for countries not just to adopt foreign veterinary
terms into their own language but also to invent domestic equivalents. This is the case
for Russian and Kazakh. The language of specialised and subject-specific terminologies
in Russian and Kazakh consists of two layers: Russian/Kazakh and international. The
tendency of the research world to neutralise semantic influence is one of the reasons
why there are so many terms adopted from other languages, including from Latin,
Greek, English, Italian, German, French and Arabic. Additionally, the creation of
modern terms has became fertile ground for considering issues of commonality between
Russian and English and Kazakh and English.
1.9. Derivative characteristics of specialised terminology
Derivation is the process by which linguistic units (known as derivatives) arise from
primary (or 'parent' words). Derivation is the common term for the formation of any
secondary elements from a primary word.
Meanings form and accumulate during the process of cognitive, verbal and
exploratory human activities; ideas and words are the staples of any empirical work.
Many see language as a factor that plays a key role in the process of learning. 'Empirical
processes are not only connected with the sum total of purely objective facts, but also
with how they are represented within a given environment, part of which includes the
language of academia." (Ilina, 1994:4).
The successful verbal expression of an idea helps it to take shape and to be become
embedded within academic discourse. The most successful terms used to express ideas
within academia are those that have a strong correlation between the word itself and the
meaning it should express within a given academic field.
As an integral part of human culture, academia could manifestly not develop
without sophisticated linguistic structures to articulate its ideas. 'By looking for patterns
and commonalities in the surrounding world, humans inevitably need words as well as
their intellect.' (Vernadskii, 1927:221).
'If terminologies did not continue to be developed, scientists would eventually stop
understanding each other. Language is not indifferent to the contents of academic
research.' (Budagov, 1972:43).
The internal form of a term does not always correctly guide its meaning in the right
direction. To motivate a term correctly, it is important that the information contained in
the term itself does not contradict the information linked to the terminological system of
any given linguistic unit. The veterinary terminological system in Russian and Kazakh
tends to use terms for zoonoses that have a clear, transparent internal content.
There are three types of terminological motivation: morphological, syntactic and
semantic. Morphologically motivated terms for zoonoses are strong competitors to
traditional Latin terms and go some way to demonstrating the symbiosis between
academic thought and its means of expression in any given general-purpose language.
The creation of terms acts as a link between the language of academia and
high-register general-purpose language. The terminological system of veterinary
medicine contains relatively new terms created on the basis of word forms taken from
general-purpose language. As a whole, it provides insights into the mentality of the
academic community from different linguistic traditions (including Russian and
Kazakh) and the language which that community uses within veterinary medicine.
2. Typology and classification
of subject-specific terminology
2.1. General typology of subject-specific terminology
One definition of typology could be: a conscious process of idealisation related to
the formation of concepts that categorise a variety of objects, which do not themselves
have a direct equivalent in reality (Karlinsky, 2003:56). In general academic discourse,
typology might also be described as a method of studying varied and internally complex
elements by: identifying their common characteristics; and on the basis of the extent to
which they are similar, grouping those elements into various classes and types. Across
the academic disciplines, there are differences in the exact form that research into
typology takes partly based on the principles underlying different disciplines.
Veterinary medicine is based on the principle of evolution. As part of the biological
branch of natural sciences, it has developed as a result of advances made in medicine,
physics, chemistry and other sciences. As a result, it is considered important to establish
a hierarchy of objects and how they relate to one another, based on the varying degrees
of similarity that they display. In this sense, object analysis as a discipline itself could be
considered to be a continuum of objects or classes of objects. An example of this sort of
continuum would be the World Health Organisation (WHO) epizoological table of terms
related to zoonotic terms.
A specialised terminology could be defined as the totality of individual
terminological units of a particular form of a naturally occurring language that signifies
or expresses specialised concepts (eg: from disciplines such as veterinary or human
medicine, and technical, economic or socio-political disciplines). According to research
from a variety of academic fields, there are more specialised terminological units in
existence than there are words used in everyday discourse. Specialised Terminologies
tend to belong to forms of language known as Language for Specific Purposes (LSP) (as
distinct from language for general purposes) and form part of a naturally occurring
language. The key factor that distinguishes specialised from general forms of language is
the fact that specialised language can signify or express specialised concepts. This allows
a typology of specialised terminology to be derived. A typology of specialised
terminology could be defined as: the categorisation of a given group of objects, which
are the subject of academic study. They are categorised by their essential, core
characteristics. These characteristics not only distinguish them from terminological units
found in more general-use forms of language; they can also divide an entire set of terms
into various types, according to those core characteristics. Typology could be seen as
being close to a natural system, as it
has close links to natural classification and displays a clear tendency to order objects that
occur in the real world. In contrast to typology, various methods of classification tend to
divide up the field of knowledge or activity under analysis according to individual
criteria. Each criterion displays a greater or lesser degree of artificiality.
One of the founders of the typology of specialised terminology was the linguistics
academic, P.N.Denisov. He called the types that he distinguished terminological classes
(eg: the class of common nouns; the class of designation (units of designation); the class
of proper nouns (1974:254). Drawing on dialectical logic, classes of specialised concepts
were developed alongside Denisov's classes, or types. This signalled the beginning of the
typology of specialised terminological units that we recognise today: common nouns
(most of which are terms) correspond to general concepts; units of designation
correspond to particular concepts; specific proper nouns correspond to individual
concepts. More detailed analysis reveals that units of designation can be considered as
terms in themselves. Although they can only be considered as terms of a particular type
(Shelov, 2007:76), that does not change the overall picture in terms of the typology of
specialised terminology. Units of designation, which are made up of terminological
elements known as designation markers, are not listed in dictionaries and academic texts
in the same way as standard terms.
General concepts tend to be designated using common nouns. These correspond to
classes of objects rather than just one object or subset of objects. Distinctions are first
made at the most general level, such as substance and consciousness as well as at the
level of their attributes. Within formal logic and research practice those attributes would
be designated as a category (eg: matter, time, quantity, quality, measure, phenomenon). At
each subsequent stage of the development of human knowledge and learning
(cognition), particular historical periods have seen particular levels of research-based
and technical concepts come into use, including concepts such as system, structure,
function and classification. A certain proportion of those concepts are used across a range
of research fields as interdisciplinary concepts. Each discipline defines those concepts in
their own specific way and highlights particular attributes. For example, law (the
Boyle-Mariotte law in physics and the law of vowel harmony in linguistics); method
(operational method in veterinary medicine or analytical method in Chemistry); or
morphology, which is defined differently in veterinary medicine, botany, geology and
linguistics. In each field of knowledge and endeavour, there are specific concepts with
various levels of commonality between them, from the very largest classes (sorts) to the
very smallest distinctions at the bottom of typological hierarchies and including
concepts which reflect aspects of those classes. E.M.Burt calls them sort- and
aspect-concepts (1984:36-43).
56
General concepts are essentially expressed by terms. These can be terms used in
general academic research, in the world of technology, across and within disciplines and
sectors, and within sub-sections of those disciplines and sectors. Some research has
suggested that the names given to categories do not constitute a terminology in itself,
but should be seen instead as a stand-alone set of vocabulary. The same research also
posits that terms should not be considered as specialised terminology, but should rather
be seen as a set of words with meanings, which only become properly defined when set
in combination with other terminological units. For example: product/products: interim
product (manufacturing); or material (flammable, lubricant). Some research concludes that
there are types of word, which belong to non-specialised word sets and are unrelated to
terminology. Others posit that the same sorts of sets occur in specialised academic and
technical texts. They include frequently occurring standard collocations, such as: in
particular, without exception, more or less, in the majority of cases etc. They are usually seen
as equivalent to a single word and also seen as a key element in the syntax of academic
discourse. Other discourses with similar attributes include: abstract vocabulary found in
contemporary high-register discourse, which is used in its original lexicographical
meaning (eg: interrelationship, importance, view, choice); academic meta-language, used to
a greater or lesser extent across the academic disciplines and other fields of activity (eg:
to adapt, contemporary issue, conceptual framework etc).
In addition to terms in the strict s^nse of that word, the class of common nouns
within specialised terminology includes a variety of terminological units. Although
those units are close to the definition of a term, for a variety of reasons, they do not fulfil
the requirements of a term per se. Various terminologists have made distinctions such as
pre-terms, quasi-terms and pseudo-terms (V.M.Leichik), proto-terms (S.V.Grinev), and
professional jargon or slang (Leichik, 2007:38-39). The process of designating each of
these units includes the naming of particular concepts. These are concepts that can be
distinguished from general concepts by some sort of second-order characteristic,
including form, size, colour and component structure. In the case of zoonoses,
specialised zoonosis-related terms can be derived, according to the type and class of
animal involved. Among those terms, sub-classes may also be derived, according to a
variety of models and modifications. As all these sub-types of specialised concepts have
a linguistic and lexical designation in different languages, they will tend to be assigned
various specialised names. These can be based on the outward appearance of the
disease, or on the area in which it spreads (eg: carbuncle; shingles). They may also take
their name from the person who first discovered or identified the disease - eg: Marek
disease. This demonstrates that units of designation contain two elements. The first is
made up of the term, which links it to a corresponding general concept; the second is the
designation marker, through which it becomes a particular concept. Proper nouns used
in
57
specialised terminology can be distinguished from proper nouns found in general
discourse by their content. Within socio-political LSP, for example, this could be the
name of state or international organisation (eg: World Health Organisation, United
Nations). In field of history, it could include the names of important historical events or
periods (eg: the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the Great Patriotic War).
As shown here, proper nouns and units of designation may be written with an
upper case first letter, while common nouns tend to be written all in lower case.
2.2. Classification of subject-specific terminologies within
Russian and Kazakh linguistics
The same terminological units can be approached in different ways, and within
different paradigms of classification. As the aim of this study is the analysis of terms, it
will focus on classification within the terminological layer of language. It will also
attempt to develop our understanding of other types and subtypes of specialised
terminological units. After an analysis of all these units, conclusions will be drawn about
the complexity and quantitative diversity of this layer of language. This will be done in
terms of the words, collocations and phraseological units that currently exist in both of
Kazakhstan's official languages, and which are currently being used in practical
situations for specific and specialised purposes.
Philosophical classifications should be dealt with first. These are divided into
observable terms and theoretical terms [88, p. 8-16]. For example: Immunising injection
(observable) [Russian: иммунизирующая субинфекция; Kazakh: kyzyl mai]; immunity
(theoretical) [Russian: иммунитет; Kazakh: kyzyl]. This distinction demonstrates that
observable terms form part of a class or sub-class of objects which exist in reality.
It is clear that units of designation consist entirely of observable terms. Similarly,
proper nouns consist of individual, observable objects that can be named. For example,
the names of individual political parties can be established through observation, while
the designation party (in the sense of political party), is an abstract, political term.
The classification system described above is sufficient to resolve terminological
questions within philosophy and philosophical research. But to resolve philosophical
problems within terminological research and the theory of specialised terminology more
widely, a very much more detailed classification system is needed. This is because the
level of abstraction found in specialised concepts and designated by theoretical terms
differs from that found in observable terms. As noted above within the various classes of
specialised concepts, there is a multi-layered hierarchy of class- and type-distinctions.
This
ranges from categories of philosophy and logic to those of general research and
technology, to highly specialised fields of technology, as well as to other concepts.
Related to this stratification of terms, there is a second content-driven classification
system for specialised terminology, in which concepts are categorised by terminological
unit. This terminological classification system was designed by the Austrian academic,
O.Wuster and the Russian academic and engineer, D.C.Lotte. It was first developed by
the Russian academic T.L.Kandelaki (1993:9-10), who evolved a paradigm that reflected:
'a system of definitions for research-based and technical terminology, consisting of the
following categories: objects; characteristics; size; units of measurement; research and
other sectors; professions and other activities.' Looking at the examples below, it is clear
that some terms belong to categories that are intrinsic to any class of object, while others
are specific to a particular field of knowledge or activity. These include object-terms
(mammals, medical history, panzootia); process-terms (reproduction, alimentary,
compression); indicative terms (ie: indicative of regimes and qualities -
cold-bloodedness, redness, tablet-based); amount- and unit-based terms (injection, dose).
This means a single group of terms and units of designation distinguished by their
conceptual category actually form part of a wider set of interdisciplinary terms, while a
second group belongs to a set of specialised and highly-specialised terms and
designations. This classification system does not appl^ to proper nouns.
In terms of the way objects are described within LSP, categorisation can be based on
academic disciplines (languages, astronomy, veterinary medicine, genetics) or on criteria
closer to the practical requirements of modern society. Many terminological units from
technical subject areas can be counted as both technical terms (or units of designation)
and terms from social studies, administration or politics (eg: act; archive). Linguistic
units from those subject areas such as medicine, meteorology (eg: weather) and
economics (eg: trade) often cross into common usage; and conversely specialised
language can often borrow from general-purpose vocabulary. Certain LSP sets rely
heavily on non-specialised sectors of social activity (eg: LSP used in print and broadcast
media, advertising, fine arts etc). These sets of vocabulary can only be defined as LSP on
the basis that, in describing those subject areas, they lead to the formation of specific
terms and other specialised terminological units. Examples include terms related to the
history of art, to the theory of journalism and to types of language found in the
advertising industry (as distinct from the language used in adverts themselves, such as
merchandiser and advertising agency).
Specialised terminologies that are classified according to the object being described
include a range of terminological sub-classes: they include sub-classes related to
academic research, technology, economics, social sciences, politics, management, art
history, journalism and various others. Within this
classification, a variety of sub-classes of designation can be distinguished that are related
to given fields of knowledge and activity: these can be designated as particular concepts
within those fields. These include brands of machine and other mechanisms, species of
plant, breeds of animal, types of foodstuff and other objects. The last set of LSP language
is composed of specific proper nouns, discussed above.
The key distinguishing feature of LSP is that it inherently contains both generalised,
semantic and formal characteristics, including: synonymy, polysemy, paronymy,
antonymy and the capacity for stylistic layering. Three types of linguistic unit can be
distinguished here: those that conform to norms of high-register discourse; expressions
found only in spoken form (professional jargon) and elements with more pronounced
informality (professional slang). In certain subject-specific fields, those three groups of
terminological unit can co-exist in both spoken and written texts (eg: in the practical
application of Information and Communication Technology).
The next classification system breaks down specialised terminology based on the
norms to which it does and does not conform. Certain linguistic units are considered as
a necessary part of the development of a subject area. Others are considered
inappropriate from generalised high-register, professional discourse, or from another
more specific language register (see V.P.Danilenko and L.l.Skvortsov). Terms can
therefore be divided into normative, or required (meaning that they form part of a
standard terminological set) and inadmissible (these terms will be marked as inad
[Russian: ндп]). Similarly, terms of academic research have been divided into
Recommended and Not Recommended. In collections of academic and research-based
terms, the latter are marked nrec [Russian: нрк]). For example, the recommended
Russian term for robotics is робототехника, while the non-recommended term is
роботика [89, p.7].
Units of designation related to academic research also divide into a normative
group (eg: names that are protected by the World Organisation for Intellectual Property
(WOIP) as well as patent authorities) and a non-normative group, whose use is
restricted (eg: the court case brought against the USSR when it manufactured a medicine
called aspirin which was already patented in the West. This led to a significant fine being
levied and the USSR being required to rename the drug. It is now called acetylsalicylic
acid). Required (normative) units of designation are identified in documentation by the
symbol ®. This is also the case with registered trademarks regarding economic units of
designation. The most widespread units of designation found in advertising (usually
known as brands [Russian: бренды]) are also protected by law.
Specialised proper nouns do not display normative or non-normative
characteristics. However, the use of political party names by other organisations can
result in court action and sometimes the imposition of a fine or an award for damages.
It is also worth noting the relationship between specialised vocabulary and
vocabulary on a more everyday basis, used in various naturally occurring languages.
The latter is known as language for general purposes. The distinctions to be made here
are:
(1) Words known as consubstantial (term coined by SV Grinev). These are words or
frequently occurring collocations that function as elements of a general-purpose set of
vocabulary, as well as specialised linguistic units, resulting from a process of becoming
or ceasing to be a term (terminologisation or de-terminologisation).
(2) The closely related unit sometimes known as the 'terminologism': these are
multiple-use terms, including multiple-word terms, which take on the meaning of
general-purpose collocations; conversely, they can also be general-purpose collocations
which start to be used as part of a specialised set of vocabulary. In the former case, these
may include linguistic units such as multiple-word chemical terms (eg: chain reaction),
which has started to be used in a wide variety of communicative situations; the phrase
dark horse, taken from the professional jargon of horse racing, is now used in political
discourse; the nautical term to drop anchor has now come to means to settle down, or to
become established. In the latter case, there are collocations such as бараньи лбы [sarsen
stone; literally sheep's rock] which has become a geological term to denote cliffs which
have become de-vegetated as a result of exposure to the wind. The interaction between
specialised and general-purpose language is generally thought to be beyond debate. For
example, some advertising vocabulary and phraseology, which has been widely used in
print and broadcast media has its origins in units of designation from the fields of
industrial and agricultural production; they are now used in general purpose discourse.
Semantic classification of specialised terminology is also critically important. It enables
words to be distinguished into: words, which have only one meaning (known as
monosemantic); those with two or more meanings within one terminological system
(known as polysemantic). There is a third small group of units, an example of which
would be court. Its three possible meanings are: the whole group of judges and others
present in a courtroom; a session or sitting of a judicial hearing; a building containing a
courtroom.
One of the first issues to be addressed in systematic classification is that of
definition: a method of setting out the meaning of specialised terminological units. A
large body of research has developed around this issue. It focuses on identifying the
optimum choice of definition for a given concept, after that concept has itself been
designated as a term [S.Shelov]. In terms of the process of designation, in each
individual case, a specific definition must be drafted for the terminological element of
every unit of designation. The identification of the
Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]