Добавил:
ivanov666
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Intercultural Approach of Professional Lexicon
.pdf
distinguishing features of an object is sufficient in terms of designation markers. Proper
nouns require the sorts of definitions usually found in encyclopaedias, dictionaries and
directories.
From a semantic point of view, lexical units can be divided into free-form word
groups (eg: infectious disease; infection of the alimentary canal) and established groups,
(including set phrases, such as: virulent fever; epidemic pulmonitis). Proper nouns generally
tend to develop around a specialised set of terms. As already noted, specialised word
sets display synonymy, antonymy, paronymy and semantic homonymy, in a similar
way to general-purpose vocabulary. Within different fields of communication, the use of
these lexico-semantic word sets is regulated by particular rules or requirements. This
means that the extent to which synonymous terms can be used for stylistic reasons (eg:
in professional jargon or professional slang) provides a case for closely scrutinising
relevant linguistic units as well as for avoiding the use of synonyms in different
documentation about the same specialised subject matter. The founder of soviet
terminological studies, D.S.Lotte developed a whole range of 'requirements to qualify as
a term' in which he postulated the following: '(1) a term cannot have more than one
meaning; (2) a term cannot display synonymy' etc. These requirements were
implemented by the various organisations that made up the now-defunct Госстандарт
СССР (USSR State Standards agency). They were set out in regulatory documents
produced by Gosstandart and the Committee for scientific and technological
terminology (KNTT) of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Today, Gosstandart standards
are rarely, if ever, observed. They tend to be used only during the process of normalising
(or standardising) terms. The semantic characteristics of units of designation can come
quite close to those displayed in general-purpose discourse. Where the classification of
plant and animal kingdoms are concerned, the phenomenon referred to above as
consubstantial words occurs.
The semantic classification of proper nouns, including specialised words and
phraseological units is not unique: much of it coincides with the way in which
general-purpose vocabulary is classified.
In addition to semantic classification, distinguishing specialised vocabulary is also
possible according to the motivation or non-motivation of its constituent linguistic units.
For example, a number of academics posit that terms should, as far as possible, always
be motivated (Beisenova, 1999:27). Modern terminology studies tend to define terms as:
(i) fully motivated (ie: that the definition of the term as a whole can be entirely
extrapolated from the elements that make up the term itself. Eg: virulent fever)); (ii)
partially motivated (which includes figuratively recast aspects. To take an example from
the veterinary medical world, the pneumogastric [блуждающий literally in Russian
floating] nerve); (iii) falsely motivated (eg: lightning conductor [Russian: громоотвод
[literally: thunder conductor] as opposed to the correct молниеотвод [literally: lightning
conductor);
(iv) fully non-motivated, figurative or euphemistic terms. (Eg: the medical use of the
word cancer.) It is possible to establish that if a term is non-motivated or weakly
motivated this does not prevent it or other specialised words from fulfilling their
functions. Units of designation are also motivated. However, their level of motivation
can vary considerably in terms of: the outward appearance of an object (or sub-groups of
objects - ie: that nomenclatures define distinct groups of objects); an object's function; an
object's similarity to other objects (which might be more familiar to users of the object);
sight- and sound-based associations of the creator of a particular unit of designation etc.
In other words, the motivation of a nomenclature includes semantic, formal, functional,
phonetic, structural, and psychological aspects.
The classification of linguistic units by formal structure is one of the most
sub-divided classifications within specialised language. Most primary-level terms
appear as words, because they are partly consubstantial with general-purpose words.
However, more recently, a sign^cant quantity of terms have started to appear as
collocations, in which their attributive or complementary aspects display signs of
specialised concepts. According to estimates from many studies, between 70 and 90% of
terms from different terminological systems are collocations, while some terminologies
consist entirely of collocations. Free form and established collocations both have their
place, with the majority being phraseological. The number of words contained in these
sorts of collocations varies from o to ten.
In terms of its formal structure, the classification of units of designation displays
high levels of granularity. It consists of twenty sub-divisions, the most widespread of
which are:
• Single words, which describe a relatively observable characteristic of a particular
concept;
• Collocations, which include a terminological unit and designation marker;
• A concept (or object) with distinguishing characteristics: various abbreviations,
including those combined with either whole words or often with numerical
indicators;
• Acronyms;
• Acronyms based on the name of a company or the surname of the inventor of the
object being described, and usually combined with a serial or model number;
• Acronyms based on the name or title of an item; or conventional symbols, aspects
of which do not directly correspond to an item's full name or title. There is an
argument to be made that the trade names of
drugs and other and medicinal substances belong to this category. Their formal
structure often consists of the full or shortened versions of the names of certain
plants and chemical substances, as well as a whole range of morphemes, either
based on or borrowed from Latin or ancient Greek. They serve a particular
function of presenting pharmaceutical products to the market. Examples in
Russian include флаван, флавон, хризацин, хризаэриол.
The formal structure of proper nouns has no defined limits.
Opinion is currently divided over what part of speech specialised terminology,
including terms, should be classified as. Many academics believe that it can only be
conceived of as a set of proper nouns or collocations of designation. The positions of the
Czech linguist, O.Mann, the Russian academic V.P.Danilenko and various Kazakh
linguists have predominated for the last decade: a term can also be an adjective, a verb
or a participle. O.S.Akhmanov's Dictionary of linguistic terms lists adjectival, participial
and verbal terms. In addition, there are many more terms, which designate objects that
are characteristics or actions. However in certain fields of knowledge or activity, the
qualitative and procedural nature of a specialised concept should be highlighted. It then
ceases to be designated by a particular word or collocation: the designation of the
characteristics of particular terms are often derived from the term itself (eg: symptomatic,
from the term symptom). Units of designation are, by their very nature, the names of
objects, ie: they are expressed as nouns or nominal collocations.
Most importantly, the classification of specialised terminology that is based on the
appearance or form of the unit of specialised language to be classified has a basis in
language. This can include a basis in ancient lexical units, borrowings, and international
words, collocations and abbreviations. In addition, there is a tendency for linguistic
units to make the change from general-purpose usage into LSP (the process of
terminologisation), as well as words (known as consubstantial) which remain in both
groupings. It is important to note that units of designation as a grouping arose later than
common or proper nouns. As a result, the way that each individual unit is formed is
borrowed from the way that elements of the first two classes are formed.
The different linguistic classifications found in specialised terminology include
stylistic and classificatory. As previously noted, specialised terminology uses linguistic
styles found in the fields of science and technology, business, religion and media. As a
result of their importance in highly developed societies, a number of these styles
develop yet further into complex functional languages, or Language for Specific
Purposes (LSP). For example, journalistic styles of writing have turned into a specialised
media language. There is evidence to
support the position that, at the turn of the century, LSP was gradually being divided
into different stylistic strata. For example, business and academic specialist vocabularies
developed from everyday language. As a result, specialised language can be divided
into terms that conform to norms of professional jargon (semi-specialised discourse
between those of the same profession, which is close informal language), and
professional slang (including those from academic disciplines) with links to low-register,
non-complex discourse. This issue is a rich vein of research (including work from
O.N.Trubachev, F.P.Sorokoletov, L.V.Uspenskii and L.V.Likholitov). The classification
of specialised language according to function is cross-disciplinary, comprising elements
of both linguistics and sociology. The linguistic units of a specialised form of language
fulfil the same function as words used for general and everyday purposes: those
functions might be communicative, informative or pragmatic. In addition, certain
terminological groups take on more specific functions: this might be a heuristic function
which, in the first instance, is fulfilled by predictive terms; it might be a classificatory
function, expressed by systemic terms (cf. N.V.Yushmanov: 'Knowing the term allows
us to know its place in a given system; knowing its place in the system allows us to
know the term.' (1979:77)).
A classification system for specialised terminology may be constructed according to
authorship by taking a sociological approach. Literature displays both collectively and
individually authored terms (Golovin, 1981:8-9). Another sociological classification - this
time, defined according to usage - divides terms or other units of specialised language
into three categories: universal (for a large number of allied areas), unique (for a single
area) and conceptually authored (for a particular position or viewpoint). Research-based
systems of classification allow the function of a specialised language to be made clear
through academic and technically specific vocabulary, or activities. Units of specialised
language may be used to clarify a particular piece of knowledge; or it may act as an
instrument of cognition, including in educational contexts (compare, for example, the
veterinary terms infectious and contagious).
By analysing how units of language are used within a variety of different types of
text, a sociolinguistic, statistical system of classification can be derived, which measures
the occurrence of units of language on a high- medium- and low-frequency scale.
Overall, this system of classification defines elements know as key contemporary words.
The various ways of classifying and designating common and proper nouns bears
witness to the wealth of types of contemporary language, including LSP, which are able
to express the most detailed and nuanced aspects of thought and feeling. They results
from close observation the outside world, and the inner world of mankind.
(л7
2.3. Principles of subject-specific terminology and its
formation
Analysing the current state of subject-specific terminology and its prospects for the
future involves considering the principles of how a given terminology might be formed,
including new and revised ones. These multifaceted principles may cover aspects of
logic and linguistics as well as terminology as a discipline in itself.
In principle, the concept of originality in a given subject area is relative. The length
of time for which a unit of language can be considered original is defined by a range of
objective and subjective factors: (1) When the unit was first used: modern veterinary
terminology has been developing since ancient times, and could be said to have become
a discipline in itself at the end of the 16th century. (2) What societal constrains are in
place: for example, the fundamentals of space travel were already in place at the end of
the 19th century, but the theory and practice of launching the first man-made satellites
capable of orbiting the earth came to fruition between the 1940s and 1960s. This, together
with the rise of new fields of knowledge, led to the development of entirely new terms,
that designated specialised concepts and theories within those fields, and which enabled
them to be described and conceptualised. The development of an entire terminology can
be a more or less lengthy process, just as the development of a new field of knowledge
itself may vary in length. The Canadian academic G.Rondeau (1980) distinguishes three
periods in the life of a term: the term is at first known as original; it begins to come into
mainstream usage; and then declines.
The period over which a term develops can be broken down by a number of factors,
covering extra- and intralinguistic aspects. The most important factor is the dependence
of the entire terminological set on the system of specialised concepts within a given
subject area. If the system is fully developed, and encompassed by one general theory,
then the full set of terms in question can function as a terminological system, with
explicitly drawn links between the terms within it. If a conceptual system and the
unifying theory to support it have not been fully developed yet, then its associated
terminological set tends to appear as an unstructured collection of linguistic units - a
Terminology. In the same way, the development of an entire set of terms is dependent
on the greater or lesser extent to which links between new and existing areas of
knowledge are established. Where there is a relatively dense network of links, the
developing terminology will tend to include a significant number of terms that already
exist, and which retain their original meaning. This is the case for anatomical and
pharmacological terms in veterinary and human medicine. In an article written in 1961,
D.S.Lotte noted: 'In 1907, the linguistic commission of the German union of pilots
decided that the new terms needed in aviation were to be based on the
66
terms of an existing specialist area: for the most part, this turned out to be shipping.'
And indeed, terms used to designate equipment relating to airports and aircraft tend to
have parallels in the world of shipping: a ship's crew and the crew of an aircraft; a
pilot-boat, and the pilot of an aircraft; a sea port and an airport; one can be 'on board' an
ocean-going liner and 'on board' an aircraft; an attendant and a flight attendant etc
(V.M.Leichik). Where a genuinely new field of knowledge is established, then
interdisciplinary borrowings also tend to occur, although the terms may acquire
different meanings within their new field, or else may become homonyms of words that
have already been designated a different meaning (eg: the terms logic and mathematics in
the field of mathematical logic). One of the non-linguistic factors that affects the
development of terminological sets is the way in which a new field of knowledge is
discovered and developed. If this happens in another country and in a different
language, then the choice of terms are more likely to be borrowed from the language
which, in that particular case, was the 'original' language, in which the terminological
system was established. Terms in veterinary and human medicine are good examples of
this, as so many are borrowed from Latin and ancient Greek.
A number of different linguistic tendencies can exist within one terminology.
Studying the processes around the formation of a terminology indicates that one
tendency tends to predominate within each terminology. There are different reasons
why one tendency comes to the fore over another, each with their own particular
characteristics. These may be related to whether the field of knowledge in question is:
historical (and related to the aim of making fields of knowledge more accessible); logical
(and dependent on knowledge structures); political and linguistic (and related to a
tendency towards purism within a given language at a given period) or internal (and
related to the structure of language). See A.K.Kaidarov and F.Ordokova.
The first principle in forming a Terminology could be called the Term Translation
Principle, or the Principle of the Translated Term. This principle is used most frequently in
circumstances where a new field of knowledge opens up and begins to develop in a
different country. In this case, the subject matter, theoretical basis, specialised concepts
and resultant terms will be borrowed from one or more different languages. This is the
case with veterinary medical terminology, which is rooted in Latin and ancient Greek. It
is also the case with computational and information technology, which developed
principally in the USA. Dictionaries of veterinary terminology in Russian and Kazakh
bear witness to the fact that practically all Russian and Kazakh veterinary terms are
translated from Latin, ancient Greek, Arabic or English. However, the application of the
Principle of the Translated Term does not always mean that a given terminology consists
entirely of terms taken from outside Russian and Kazakh. Terms such as водянка/аусыл
(edema), язва/бөген (ulcer), чума/делбе (typhoid), мешотчатый
расплод/жамандат (sacbrood disease), рожа/күл (erysipelas), сап/секіртпе (malleus),
мыт/сарып (strangles) bear out the fact that, under certain circumstances, direct
borrowing from the language in which the terminology developed, is not mandatory.
Moreover, when a terminology starts to reach full development, the number of actually
borrowed terms decreases sharply. The validity of terminology as a phenomenon is
difficult to argue against on the basis of this principle.
The majority of terms within veterinary medicine are collocations or complex units
of language. In both Russian and Kazakh, these terms tend to be calques from the
relevant Latin or Greek terms. For example: пневмония (pneumonia) - inflammation of
the lungs; ботулизм (botulism) - the poisoning of an organism, contracted through food;
гепятит/желтуха (hepatitis); оссифицирующий спондилит (ankylosing spondylitis);
идиопятическяя фиброзняя остеодисплязия (autopathic osteitis fibrosa) - a disease which
affects bone joints; стомятит (canker/stomatitis) - a disease affecting the gums; эзофягит
(esophagitis, gastritis) - gastric diseases; энтерит, колит, псевдомембрянозный колит
(black scour/enteritis, colitis, pseudomembranous colitis) - diseases affecting the intestines;
идиопятический илеус, клояцит (autopathic syndrome, cloacitis) - disease affecting lizards;
нефрокяльциноз, тубулонекроз, первичняя подягря почек (nephrocalcinosis, primary renal
arthragra) - diseases affecting the kidneys; гепятоклеточный липидоз, нефропятии,
фолликулярный стяз (nephropathy, follicular stasis) - diseases affecting iguanas etc. There
is also a semantic element to terms like these: якклимятизяция - привыкание
(acclimatisation); ядяптяция - привыкяние (adaptation); ялопеция - облысение (alopetia);
ястения - бессилие (asthenia); инвязия - зяряженность (infection).
A significant proportion of single-word terms are formed through a process known
as semantic convergence. This means that a word (more often than not, a term), which
already exists in either Russian or Kazakh, takes on a new meaning under the influence
of a term with the same meaning, taken from a third language. The terminological
system under analysis here has a very large number of direct borrowings of this kind.
The dictionary edited by E.K.Maslovskaia describes them as legitimated transliterations.
When used in Russian or Kazakh, terms based on Latin or ancient Greek morphemes
mirror the general forms of those two languages as exemplified here: ябортивный
(abortivus), явирулентный (avirulentus), ядинямия (adinamis), идиосинкрязия
(idiosyncrasies).
Within terminology, this process is known as terminological greco-latinisation.
Borrowings from contemporary languages are also very widespread. They are
observable in practically all terminological sets where borrowed linguistic units from
English, French and other languages are to be found. The examples quoted above could
also be considered as a method of creating hybrid terms - terms composed of indigenous
and borrowed or
international morphemes. This group includes terms, which are figuratively translated.
These are usually based on English metaphorical terms, the connotations of which are
either incomprehensible or alien to Russian and Kazakh terminologies and
terminological systems. For example: to bring to nought (in English: zeroize);
management by on-line means (English: on-line control). This analysis allows us to posit
that taking account of the principle of translated terminologies in no way implies that
such terminologies are composed entirely of terms not indigenous to Russian or Kazakh.
The variety of different ways in which those terms may be translated allows them to
function normally within a terminology and to be understood by those who use it.
There is no denying that, with Kazakhstan having made the transition to a
contemporary market economy, modern veterinary terminology is, to a significant
degree, dependent on 'transfusions' from English. A rich vein of academic literature and
popular science is devoted to that issue. For our purposes, it should be noted that terms
such as business, management, manager, marketing, marketing executive are widely used in
Kazakh private veterinary clinics. Terminology used to advertise veterinary services is
almost entirely borrowed from English. This is because, in the USA in particular, this
branch of the advertising industry has undergone widespread expansion. However the
unfamiliar nature of these terms in Russian and Kazakh has led to a high level of
variants forms. This is often the subject of debate at advertising seminars and other
public events. Examples of variant terms taken from the magazine Industriya Reklamy
(2001, p.61) include: art-direktor/art director [art director]; bryend/brend [brand];
deerekt-marketing/dairekt-marketing [direct marketing]; kopiraiter/kopiraitor [copy writer];
onlain(oviy)/on-lain(oviy) [online]. As with veterinary terminology, English terms based
on morphemes from ancient languages undergo greco-latinisation when transferred into
Russian and Kazakh. For example креатор (with a variant form криэйтер) is based on
the English creator.
The second principle engaged by the formation of a Terminology centres around the
use of a given language's own resources. This could be called the Principle of Support
through a Language's own Reserves. Current methods of term formation described in study
manuals and research works on terminology tend to be based on this principle.
Semantically, they are based on a re-working of indigenous words. For example in
Russian: рожа (erisypelas), копытная гниль (foot rot), краснуха карпов (red spot disease),
стригущий лишай (ringworm), бешенство (rabies), холера (cholera). Borrowing also occurs
between related subject areas: остеосинтез трубчатых костей у мелких ящериц (small
lizard long-bone osteosuture); грудо-поясничная ламинэктомия и корподез (thorocolumbar
laminectomy), остеотомия с пластикой нижней челюсти у игуан (iguana osteotomy, using
a prosthetic lower jaw). There is the possibility of compound words: гепатоклеточный
липидоз (hepatocellular lipidosis); остеодисплазия
69
{osteoaysplasia). Lastly, there are two- three- four- and five-word collocations:
вторичный гиперпаратиреоидизм (secondary hyperparathyroidism); нейроэктодермальный
гистогенез опухолей (neuroectodermal histogenesis of a tumour); капиллярный рак
щитовидной железы (subpapillary cancer of the thyroid gland); инфекционное воспаление на
фоне пиелонефрита с исходом в интерстициальный нефрит (infective inflammation of the
pyelonephritis, leading to interstitial nephritis); гиперурикемическая нефропатия с
тубулярн^ім некрозом и висцеральной подагрой (hyperuricemic nephrosis with glandular
necrosis of the arthragra).
The third principle in forming a Terminology is known as Terminologisation. This
involves the using words and collocations taken from the general-purpose vocabulary of
one's own language as terms in themselves, without their being re-worked. Examples
include: transferability of skills; warm-blooded creatures; blood test; quarantine zone; terminal
disease; local focal point; district animal cemetery; crusted ringworm; bird flu; malignant anthrax
affecting large horned animals etc. The overwhelming majority of these terms are set
phrases and display the minimum conditions for being considered a phraseological unit.
However, it must be noted that, within veterinary terminology, this principle is not so
widely used as it is within the social and political sciences, for example. This is because
the World Health Organisation (WHO) established that the international language for
veterinary medicine was to be Latin. As a result, only a small number of sub-fields of
veterinary medicine can be based on this third principle.
The fourth principle of the formation of terminological sets has come to be known
as the Unifying Principle: two or more fields of knowledge within one subject area are
brought together in one terminological set. This group of complex terminologies brings
together terms from the disciplines of land economy, general economics, agriculture,
animal husbandry, zoology and veterinary medicine. Examples include: animal trading
regulations, animal import and export regulations; the control of removal of species from their
natural habitat; observation of market regulations on the breeding of reptiles, the role of zoology
in agricultural production. Ascertaining which of the four principles should apply
depends on a number of factors. Within subject-specific fields of knowledge which have
formed over a relatively long period of time, all four principles of terminology
formation tend to be present.
2.4. Terminological variation
Academic and research-based language is an open and dynamic system, capable of
encompassing formal and semantic variation within the meanings of terms.
Terminological variation is understood to mean the ability of terms to have
alternatives. E.D.Suleimenovaia's Dictionary of Linguistics gives the following
definition of the concept of variation: 'Variation: a fundamental and universal
characteristic of language and linguistic units, which enables both to function and be
preserved.' At the same time as a linguistic unit remains unchanged, it exists in a
multiplicity of varied forms, because language itself exists in a variety of different
territorial, social, stylistic, functional and other forms. A variant is a modified secondary
element, the preservation of which is the basis of any given system. It provides grounds
for the word pair variant/invariant (1998:61). Terminological variation allows words to
develop new content during its use in general discourse: the lexical aspects of a word
can therefore be susceptible to rapid modification, while the fundamental basis of a
word remains unchanged.
Within contemporary discourse, there is no agreed position on issues associated
with terminological variation, although terminological research has long been an area of
academic interest (see the works of V.M.Leichik, S.l.Khizhniak, S.D.Shelov, E.A.Tolikina,
V.P.Danilenko and W.Wils). For example S.P.Khizhniak posits the existence of a certain
level of specificity within the systemic organisation of terminology. lt focuses in
particular on the weakening of the principle of linguistic and sign-based assimilation as
an overall terminological tendency, as well as the absence of systemic opposites, e.g. a
lack of stylistic and ideographic synonyms (Khizhniak, 1999:5). Khizkhniak's
conclusions are supported by terminologists from different countries. For example,
W.Wils, an academic from the western German school conducted an analysis of the
linguistic nature of term^. He concluded that profession-specific vocabularies are
impersonal, and display systems of self-preservation and self-governance within a given
context. ln principle, these sorts of specialised languages should not display synonymy,
while terminological pairs are not encouraged (2006:103-104). In A short methodological
handbook of the formation and classification of scientific and technological terminology,
S.P.Korshunov and G.G.Samburova do not, in the author's opinion, go far enough in
their practical recommendations for term formation. They place terms at the periphery
of current debate over a number of principles of language development. They do not
take into account the phenomenon of variation, which, as stated above, is a universal
characteristic of any system of language (1979:5, 18). A.l.Domashnev, one of the founders
of variation theory, holds that: 'the ongoing and consistent variation within one
language - its entire set of distinctive characteristics - that touch on various aspects of
that language (including its lexical and semantic system, its grammatical order, its
pronunciation and spelling system are all things that its speakers are aware of and
continue to practice.' (1981:112-115). D.Brozovich supports the position that variation is a
naturally occurring phenomenon in all nationally-spoken, non-homogeneous,
standardised languages.
A second commonly held position is to see terminological variation as an objective
aspect of any given system of specialised language. In his study The
Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]