Sinoniminių dvižodžių terminų struktūrinis semantinis nuotolis

ASTA MITKEVIČIENĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language ORCID id: orcid.org/0000-0001-5508-1555 Research areas: terminology, terminography. DOI: doi.org/10.35321/all89-07 STRUCTURAL SEMANTIC DISTANCE OF SYNONYMOUS TWO-WORD TERMS Structural Semantic Distance Between Synonymous Two-Word Terms ABSTRACT The article examines, for the first time, the distance between Lithuanian synonymous terms as reflected in their structure. The object of the research is two-word synonymous terms recorded in two terminology dictionaries. The synonyms are compared according to their roots (the formal criterion) and the semantic similarity of the meanings of the words serving as the differing components (the semantic criterion). The study attempts to determine the lexically explicated semantic distance of two-word synonymous terms and its relation to types of synonyms. KEYWORDS: complex term, synonyms, semantic distance, variation, semantics. ANNOTATION The article discusses the distance between synonymous terms in the Lithuanian language and how this distance is reflected in their structure. The study focuses on two-word synonymous terms listed in two terminological dictionaries. The comparison of synonyms is based on two criteria: their roots (formal criterion) and the similarity in meaning of the words that differentiate synonyms (semantic criterion). An attempt is made to elucidate the lexically explicable semantic distance between two-word synonymous terms and its correlation with the types of synonyms. KEYWORDS: complex term, synonyms, semantic distance, variation, semantics. Straipsniai / Articles 145 ASTA MITKEVIČIENĖ INTRODUCTION The narrative about term synonymy and, more broadly, about variation and variability in Western terminology has changed over the past more than two decades. Term variability (including synonymy) is considered a natural phenomenon of language; accordingly, the linguistic, cognitive, and communicative mechanisms of variability are analyzed. The terminology work standard (ISO 704:2022) still emphasizes (appropriately, bearing in mind the context of standardization) that ideally one concept is designated by one term, while in terminology research synonymy and term variability in the broad sense currently occupy one of the central positions as an object or aspect of research1. Quite a lot has also been written in Lithuanian linguistics about the synonymy of Lithuanian terms during the last decade alone (e.g., Mitkevičienė 2015, 2020; Auksoriūtė 2018; Vaskelaitė 2021 and others; see also the literature and research overviews cited there). The most recent work worth mentioning separately is Ramunė Vaskelaitė’s scholarly study (2022), which provides a detailed analysis of the causes of synonymy in Lithuanian economic terminology. This article will examine a previously unexplored aspect of the synonymy of Lithuanian terms—the distance between synonymous terms as reflected in their structure. Theoretical basis. Terms not only designate but also signify: designations provide semantic information by directing one toward a concept in a certain way and expressing (explicating) only selected semantic features (Freixa 2006: 67). Changes in designational (denominational) forms can affect concepts because they orient the audience toward a particular understanding. They can bring out both an entirely different understanding of a concept and subtle changes in meaning that can scarcely be treated as changes in the concept (Freixa, Fernández-Silva 2017: 168). Taking into account the consequences of denominational term variation2, the possible effect on how the addressee will understand the concept can be distinguished as term variation without cognitive consequences and term ¹ In Lithuanian terminology, terms designating the same concept are generally considered and called synonyms, whereas a variant is usually understood narrowly—as a modification of the same term, a variety of the term having minor formal (orthographic, phonetic, morphological, or syntactic) differences. This is the traditional and dominant approach, which is also followed in this study. On the other hand, in linguistics the term variant is used ambiguously (see Miliūnaitė 2009 for a detailed discussion), and consequently more than one concept is designated by variant in terminology as well. In general, variation and variability are also used freely to mean variation and diversity. ² In this article, when reviewing foreign literature, the concepts of variant, variability, and variation are used so as not to distort the meaning or cause confusion between concepts (it seems that even in minimal studies variation is understood differently; moreover, it is not always possible to determine precisely the scope of this concept in scholarly works). 146 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX Sinoniminių dvižodžių terminų struktūrinis semantinis nuotolis variation with cognitive consequences. Terms of the first type convey identical information about the concept; their meaning does not differ, e.g., sea product and marine product, whereas the second type emphasizes different characteristics of the concept; the meanings of the terms themselves differ, although the same concept is named, e.g., marine product and fishing product (Fernández-Silva, Freixa, Cabré 2009: 22–23). Recognizing that conceptual distance (English conceptual distance) tarp įvardijamųjų variantų nustatymas tebėra iššūkis, didžiausias nuotolis pastebimas tada, kai variantai yra sudaryti iš skirtingų leksinių vienetų³ (Freixa, Fernández-Silva 2017: 168–169). Sabela Fernández-Silva (2016; see also 2022) presented a classification of term variation according to the semantic distance (English semantic distance) of variants from the base term, determined by comparing the conceptual information conveyed by the variants (their forms). She distinguished three categories of semantic distance: 1) minimal semantic distance, 2) medium semantic distance, and 3) maximal semantic distance, encompassing eight types of variants. Variation involving formal variation and synonymy is assigned to minimal semantic distance. It should be emphasized here that formal variation (as far as can be understood from the explanation and examples provided) would include variants distinguished in Lithuanian terminology in the narrow sense (see footnote 1) and same-root synonyms, as well as terms and their abbreviations, whereas synonymy would include only lexical synonyms with different roots, including synonyms whose components are expressed by synonyms with different roots. The variants with minimal (at least non-zero) semantic distance are considered semantically equivalent by S. Fernández-Silva, because they do not express changes in conceptual content. Medium semantic distance is associated with changes in the subordinate component, and maximal distance with changes in the head component. Variation involving medium semantic distance includes reduction, a change in a non-defining feature, and a change in a defining feature; maximal-distance variation includes a change in category, the selection of a hypernym or hyponym, and a change in conceptual configuration. This classification is based on research into the textual use of terms, and a term and its variants are associated with the same referent, but not necessarily with the same concept. It may be thought that variants with medium and maximal semantic distance would correspond to contextual synonyms, textual variants, or variants in the broad sense. On the other hand, it is clear from the examples provided by the researchers that they also include designations of the same concept, such as a pair of this type, HIV/AIDS and HIV/AIDS disease, which is assigned to examples of maximal semantic distance (the type of variation is a change in category; the classification perspective is emphasized by the added word disease). S. Fernández-Silva analyzed not the semantic but the cognitive distance (English cognitive distance) of terms together with Koen Kerremans (2011). Cognitive ³ Examples of complex terms are discussed in which one of the components is expressed by different lexemes. Straipsniai / Articles 147 ASTA MITKEVIČIENĖ In that study, distance is understood as differences in the conceptual information of terms, reflected in the structure of the terms. They examined the similarities and differences between equivalents—exploring the relationship between varying terms in the source language (Galician) and the target language (English), and expressing their cognitive distance in three numerical values (0—no cognitive distance, 0.5—partial cognitive distance, 1—minimal correspondence). Edward Clay (2022) wrote about the terminological distance (English terminological distance) of terms, but he likewise examined not the distance between variants or synonyms, but between terms in English and Italian. He distinguished three types of terminological distance—semantic, morphosyntactic, and connotative; the latter was probably determined by the specificity of the subject field of the terms studied—migration. What is considered semantic distance and how it is determined is not explained. The works cited prompted a comparison of Lithuanian synonymous terms according to their semantic equivalence. It is worth emphasizing that these studies are only a point of departure, since this article examines systemic synonyms rather than variants in the broad sense (as the overview shows, the latter do not necessarily designate the same concept) or equivalents. Thus, the category of term distance is here applied to synonyms for the first time—to designations of the same concept in one language. Naturally, the nature of the material under study also requires a somewhat different approach: the studies discussed are based on the textual use of terms, whereas this article analyzes data from terminology dictionaries. Object and methodology of the research. The article examines two-word synonymous terms from two newer, large-scale terminology dictionaries—the Explanatory Dictionary of Psychology Terms (PsichŽ, 2019) and the Library, Information and Book Science Lithuanian–English Dictionary of Terms (BIK, 2021). These are works in the field of social sciences. The data of the first dictionary are published in the Lithuanian Republic Term Bank (LRTB), while those of the second are published in the Lithuanian Terminology Collections Portal. The PsichŽ synonyms were selected automatically from LRTB. In the term-relations field of LRTB, variants and abbreviations are also presented as synonyms. The BIK synonyms were collected using the cross-reference see; according to the dictionary preface, it links synonyms (and, as is apparent from the dictionary itself, also narrow-sense variants and sometimes a term and its abbreviation). This dictionary’s structure is distinctive in that a synonym (cross-referenced term) is no longer provided alongside the main term (there are several exceptions). Thus, BIK standardization is stricter than that of PsichŽ, since the synonym is not recorded in the term entry (cf. the preface: “it is proposed to use another, more customary term or one that better conforms to the norms of the Lithuanian language” (BIK viii)). Synonyms recorded in terminography rather than in texts were deliberately chosen for analysis. This avoided doubts about the synonymy of the terms (there was no need to address the issue of contextual synonymy), as well as about their terminological status (to consider whether a linguistic unit is or is not a term). These are the principal and most problematic 148 Acta Linguistica Lituanica LXXXIX Sinoniminių dvižodžių terminų struktūrinis semantinis nuotolis issues in the selection of material in terminology research, which require the assistance of subject specialists. Only terms with the same number of components4 were selected for the research, in order to focus on lexical and semantic differences and leave aside the issue of shortening and lengthening terms, which is unavoidable when examining synonymously used terms differing in the number of components. The study was limited to two-word terms5 (222 pairs were analyzed). Complex terms were deliberately selected: they predominate in the terminology of any field, often include one-word terms, and it is precisely complex terms that most often serve to illustrate term variability (León Araúz, Cabezas García 2020: 214). Complex terms are considered more prone to variation than other fixed combinations because the former are less lexicalized (ibid., 212). The aim of the article is to determine the lexically explicated semantic distance of two-word synonymous terms and its relation to types of synonyms. The aim is to compare synonyms according to two parameters—the formal one (the root) and the semantic one (the semantic commonality of the components). An attempt is made to establish what determines greater and lesser semantic differences between synonymous terms and to assess their semantic equivalence. The principal research method is analytical-descriptive. Using the opposition method, synonyms (their differing components) are compared with one another. Semantic differences are determined not from the meaning of the complex term, but from the semantics of its structural components—the words. The meanings of the words are established on the basis of dictionaries. The study is qualitative; no quantitative-analysis objective was set. Since subjectivity is difficult to avoid when examining semantic matters, quantitative data could at best be approximate. Although in both dictionaries the order of terms designating the same concept according to preferred usage is clear, in this study the synonyms are not compared according to linguistic and terminological suitability; they are examined as equivalent designations of a concept. 1. FORMAL CRITERION OF OPPOSITION: (NON-)IDENTITY OF THE ROOT In Lithuanian terminology, it has become customary (and convenient) to classify synonymous terms according to whether their roots coincide. Alongside the number of components of the terms, this is 4 Among synonyms that do not differ in the number of components, two-word terms constitute the largest group in BIK, whereas one-word terms do so in PsichŽ. This is influenced not only by the specificity of the science and its terminology, but also by the nature of the dictionary, the criteria for selecting and presenting terms, the authors’ intention, and other extralinguistic criteria. 5 Function words are not considered separate components. Straipsniai / Articles 149 ASTA MITKEVIČIENĖ one of the most general criteria for distinguishing synonyms. Which other criteria of synonym opposition are relevant depends on whether the roots of the synonyms coincide. Since the object of the research is dictionary terms (the terminology selected and/or proposed by their compilers), as might be expected, among synonymous two-word terms there are clearly the most whose differing components have different roots (are non-cognate). The material under study allows five subtypes of two-word synonyms to be distinguished according to root opposition: 1) one non-cognate component (the most numerous type in the material under study); 2) both components non-cognate; 3) half of a component non-cognate; 4) no non-cognate components; 5) cognate, but differing in the number of roots (see Table 1). Synonymous terms with non-cognate roots are characterized by a greater lexical semantic distance than those with cognate roots. The latter are linked by the same root and derivational relations and, moreover, belong to the same thematic paradigm, whereas the former do not necessarily belong to the same paradigm. Thus, based solely on the root criterion, it can be stated that the greater the number of non-cognate components, the greater the distance. Accordingly, lexical semantic distance increases across the subtypes in the following order: 4, 3 and 5, 1, 2. The fifth subtype reflects the divergence between the criterion of the lexical structure of terms (the number of components) and the root criterion—a compound component expresses more features of the concept than the corresponding non-compound one. This subtype should be regarded as an intermediate variant between synonymy of terms with the same number of components and synonymy of terms with different numbers of components. Accordingly, the lexical semantic distance of such synonyms is greater than that of other cognate synonyms; on the other hand, this group of synonyms is not homogeneous either. Most of these synonym pairs consist of non-synonymous cognate words as the mutually differing components (cognitive psychotherapy and cognitive therapy, physical dependence—physiological dependence PsichŽ), whereas the semantic distance of such synonymous terms is greater than that of those whose differing components are synonymous words (adjacent text—parallel text BIK). When synonyms were compared according to their roots, it emerged that the head component of one of the terms may be cognate with the subordinate component of the synonym, e.g., psychological well-being—good feeling, graphomotor apraxia—apraxic agraphia, residual hearing—auditory afterimage PsichŽ and others. Such synonyms are structurally and semantically distant from one another; they convey different information about the concept, and since the head components (the semantic dominant and the classificatory denominator) are not synonyms, they designate different concepts—the distance between the synonyms should be considered maximal (see Section 2.2). As can be seen from the examples in Table 1, the opposition in synonym pairs is formed by both subordinate and head components, and two-word synonyms are also determined by the synonymic relations of the corresponding one-word terms (edition, issue → 150 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX Sinoniminių dvižodžių terminų struktūrinis semantinis nuotolis supplemented edition, expanded edition; subseries, serieslet → subseries data, serieslet data). According to S. Fernández-Silva’s typology of variants, such cognate synonyms would be treated as variants with minimal semantic distance (the type of formal variation). The formal criterion is insufficient to establish which cognate components—head or subordinate—produce a greater semantic distance between the terms themselves (and indeed whether they do). TABLE 1. Opposition of two-word synonymous terms according to the roots of the differing components Type Examples non-cognate synonyms 1) appendix heading—alternative heading, website structure—website tree BIK, emotional constancy—emotional stability, cognitive incongruity—cognitive dissonance PsichŽ 2) regional agnosia—psychic blindness PsichŽ 3) interfacial relation—interfacial relation BIK cognate synonyms 4) patent application—patent application, supplemented edition—expanded edition BIK 5) cognitive psychotherapy—cognitive therapy PsichŽ, adjacent text—parallel text BIK 2. SEMANTIC CRITERION OF OPPOSITION: (NON-)SIMILARITY OF THE LEXICAL CONTENT OF THE COMPONENTS A certain—explicit—part of a concept, its features, emerges from the lexical meaning of the term’s components, the structure of the term, and motivation. As is well known, motivation is significant in terminology because it helps realize the requirements of precision and systematicity through expression and makes it possible to implement the extralinguistic principles of effectiveness (impact) and logical systematicity. Motivated terms open the door to understanding concepts because they allow them to be identified quickly and effectively (Fernández-Silva, Freixa, Cabré 2009: 24), which is particularly relevant to complex terms—all complex terms are considered motivated (Gaivenytė 2000: 20). It is worth emphasizing that terminological motivation (of a term as a member of a terminology system) and linguistic motivation (of a lexical unit that performs the function of a term or a term component) must be distinguished. A term or one of its components may become Straipsniai / Articles 151 ASTA MITKEVIČIENĖ both a motivated and an unmotivated word. Complex terms are characterized by structural (morphological, syntactic) and semantic motivation and combinations thereof6. To determine whether synonymous complex terms express the same feature of a concept, or, more precisely, whether the concept is designated on the same basis and from the same aspect, the commonalities and differences in the lexical meanings of the words serving as the differing components of the synonyms were first established. In this way, three types of synonyms were identified: 1) synonymous terms with differing components having identical or very similar lexical meanings (i.e., synonymous components); 2) synonymous terms expressed by differing components having different lexical meanings; 3) synonymous terms with differing components having related lexical meanings (see Table 2). The semantic distance of the types distinguished also differs accordingly: it is smallest among the synonyms of the first type and greatest among those of the second type. 2 TABLE. Opposition of two-word synonymous terms according to the relationship between the lexical content of the differing components Type Examples semantically equivalent terms synonyms with synonymous components emotional constancy—emotional stability, echo memory—echoic memory PsichŽ; body of knowledge—universe of knowledge, straight arrangement—vertical arrangement BIK semantically non-equivalent terms synonyms with components of different meanings everyday psychology—lay psychology, general intelligence—general factor, classical conditioning—Pavlovian conditioning PsichŽ; office paper—printing paper, adhesive binding—threadless binding, targeted thesaurus—secondary thesaurus BIK synonyms with components of related meanings business game—professional game, conceptual thinking—categorical thinking PsichŽ; consultation site—consultation point, graphic information—visual information BIK 2.1. Synonymous terms expressed by synonymous components designate the same features of a concept. According to S. Fernández-Silva’s typology, they 6 There are various classifications of motivation (for overviews, see Gaivenytė 2000, Gritėnienė 2006 and others). An extended typology of motivation was compiled by the terminologist Johan Myking (see Myking 2009, also Myking 2020). He also drew attention to the fact that understandings of motivation vary, and that the term motivation itself represents at least four concepts (Myking 2009: 41). 152 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX Sinoniminių dvižodžių terminų struktūrinis semantinis nuotolis are assigned to variation with minimal semantic distance. Such synonyms can be systematized according to origin by comparing their differing components: Lithuanian component—loanword (emotional constancy—emotional stability), Lithuanian component—Lithuanian component (user guide—user manual), loanword—loanword (authentic spelling—original spelling)⁷. It may be assumed that the criterion of word origin is significant only in the opposition of synonyms in this group. The components are represented not only by lexical synonyms, but also by items that, strictly speaking, would not be classified as lexical synonyms—non-cognate adjectives or adjectival words and genitives of nouns, such as social norm—societal norm PsichŽ. In linguistics, synonyms are considered words belonging to the same part of speech (L’Homme 2020: 17), as well as words belonging to different parts of speech that perform similar grammatical functions (Jakaitienė 2010: 122), while syntactic synonyms are conventionally understood as syntactic constructions with identical (or nearly identical) lexical composition (Valiulytė 1998: 3; Župerka 2012: 47). Thus, synonyms such as social norm and societal norm are a mixture of lexical and syntactic synonyms (neither purely lexical nor syntactic synonyms). Nevertheless, such synonyms are not only formally but also semantically more distant from one another. In the pair cited, the genitive construction has a more prominent possessive meaning, whereas the adjective has a classificatory meaning. Consequently, the semantic distance between synonymous terms is not zero. Returning to motivation, it cannot be claimed that words serving as synonymous components are motivated in the same way, cf. sound film—silent film (nebylus ‘2. figuratively quiet, not speaking’ DLKŽ), depersonalized data—anonymized data BĮK and others. There are semantic differences among such synonyms. Nevertheless, in the context of term synonymy, it does not seem expedient to go further and analyze the motivation of the components of complex terms. Without denying the semantic difference of such combinations, what is significant is that in synonymous terms expressed by synonymous components, the concept is designated from the same aspect and the same feature is expressed. As stated, the identity of the explicit feature of a concept in synonymous terms is determined from the lexical meaning of the differing components. When those components, especially attributive generic ones, are more widespread general-language words (comprehensive indexing—detailed indexing), the feature of the concept expressed by them can readily be understood even without subject knowledge of the particular field. The synonymy of such complex terms is based on the synonymy of general vocabulary. When the feature of a concept designated by the generic component is expressed by a special-language unit of restricted use (limited to a particular subject field), especially an internationalism (haptic ⁷ Loanwords here also include hybrid words with a borrowed root. Straipsniai / Articles 153 ASTA MITKEVIČIENĖ agnosia⁸, cf. the main term stone agnosia), it may be assumed that the feature of the concept is clear from the meaning of such a lexeme, but clear only to subject specialists. This illustrates that the strength (transparency) of the motivation of complex terms depends not only on their lexical structure but also on the communicative situation. The synonymous components of compound terms include not only units of general or specialized vocabulary but also terms, e.g., social perception – social perception, although there are few such examples in the research material. One may discuss whether it is worthwhile to compare the lexical meanings of those components; it would probably be more appropriate to examine whether the terms functioning as those components are themselves synonyms, especially if those terms belong to the same or a closely related field as the compound terms formed with them. Essentially, in determining whether the meanings of the differing components are synonymous or not, both factors were taken into account; no discrepancies were found in the research material. However, when comparing synonyms of this type, it again became apparent that the motivation of the one-word terms functioning as synonymous components may differ markedly, cf. search by hashtags – search by linkwords BIK (cf. the synonyms hashtag, linkword BIK, and also BLKŽ). It may be thought that such compound synonymous terms are also named according to the same feature—through the same concept, named by the one-word synonyms hashtag and linkword. Of course, the one-word terms themselves express different features of the concept, but that is already a matter of one-word term synonymy. 2.2. Synonymous terms expressed by lexemes of different meanings name the designated concept from different aspects (the term aspectual synonyms is gradually becoming established for designating them in Lithuanian terminology; see Mitkevičienė 2020, Vaskelaitė 2022). One must understand the subject-field concept system to realize that terms such as adhesive joining and seamless joining, targeted thesaurus and secondary thesaurus, etc., are not equonyms (which their structure would initially suggest) or terms denoting different hierarchical levels of concepts, but synonyms. Synonymous terms with lexemes of different meanings are mutually compatible, complementary, and non-exclusive (see Freixa, Fernández-Silva 2017: 169), because they denote different features of a concept and together convey more features of one concept than either does separately. In some synonym pairs, the basis of the opposition can be distinguished and described fairly easily, e.g., office paper [LOCATION] vs. printing paper [PURPOSE (ACTION)], but explicit features are usually difficult to abstract, and it would probably be appropriate to attempt this only within a specific semantic or terminological group of terms. ⁸ The adjective haptic included in TŽŽ is marked as a unit of medical vocabulary and explained by the Lithuanian equivalent grasping. In psychology, it has a different meaning—related to touch, the tactile sense; cf. also the article haptics in the Database of Lithuanian Neologisms (ND). 154 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX Sinoniminių dvižodžių terminų struktūrinis semantinis nuotolis Special mention should be made of synonyms, one of which is an eponymous term: classical conditioning – Pavlovian conditioning, forgetting curve – Ebbinghaus’s curve PsichŽ. Eponymous terms are traditionally considered to have opaque motivation; therefore, when standardizing terms, preference is proposed for their more transparent synonyms (ISO 704:2022). Such synonyms are one of the most obvious types of aspectual synonyms. Which synonym is used depends on the context (Lončar, Ostroški 2014: 43). Aspectual synonyms perform the function of additional nomination; within the boundaries of one language, the basis of their relationship is cognitive. On the other hand, one of the synonyms may also result from the pursuit of clarity or purity in terminology, i.e., terminology standardization and management, cf. selective amnesia, catathymic amnesia PsichŽ (cf. the term catathymia ‘dependence of perceptions and judgments on imagined or currently experienced needs, desires, emotions, and feelings’ PsichŽ), daylight vision – photopic vision PsichŽ, marbled paper – ebru paper BIK, etc. However, if we compare Lithuanian synonyms with their equivalents in other languages, it becomes apparent that the equivalents themselves also often have synonyms, cf. English daylight vision, photopic vision, Russian дневное зрение, фотопическое зрение, and daylight vision, photopic vision in Lithuanian; thus, synonymy could not be based on Lithuanianization (terminological purification). Nevertheless, without examining further the reasons for the emergence of each synonym pair (they often overlap; see Freixa 2006: 69–70; 2022: 410, 420), it can be stated that a difference in the register of the synonyms is perceptible—in a less specialized context, the synonym with more transparent motivation would be preferred. Non-synonymous words most often function as secondary components of synonymous terms (see the preceding examples), and much less often as primary components or both, e.g., stroboscopic movement – stroboscopic illusion, recapitulation theory – biogenetic law, visual agnosia – psychic blindness PsichŽ (cf. the definition ‘agnosia characterized by impaired or completely lost ability to recognize and understand visual stimuli’, where agnosia is ‘a partial impairment or complete inability to perceive and recognize an object or phenomenon’) and others. A terminologically particularly interesting example of synonyms with no coinciding component is recapitulation theory and biogenetic law, because the nouns functioning as the primary term components, theory and law, may be considered to have a partonymic relationship; thus, the term biogenetic law is linked to the general scientific term theory by a partonymic relationship, whereas with the compound term recapitulation theory it has a synonymic relationship (see also section 2.3). On the basis of the equivalents provided in the source (PsichŽ), cf. English recapitulation theory and Russian биогенетический закон, it can be argued that this synonymy arose under the influence of other languages—the names of the concepts are motivated differently in different linguistic communities. This merely confirms the idea that aspectual synonyms are complementary designations of a concept. Straipsniai / Articles 155 ASTA MITKEVIČIENĖ Synonyms whose primary components are expressed by lexemes of different meanings are likewise not identical with regard to semantic distance. Although those lexemes are usually linked by at least the most general category (for example, the category of qualities: psychological well-being – good state of health), sometimes the primary components belong to different categories, e.g., defensive mechanism – psychic defense PsichŽ. As stated, when the equivalents of synonymous terms in the same sources are compared, it can nevertheless be seen that most often those equivalents also have synonyms corresponding to the components of the Lithuanian synonyms. However, in terminography, Lithuanian term synonymy must be assessed cautiously on the basis of equivalents in foreign languages, because not all equivalents are necessarily provided. An obvious example is stroboscopic movement, stroboscopic illusion. The source (PsichŽ) provides one English equivalent—stroboscopic illusion—although Google Scholar contains numerous instances of the terms stroboscopic motion, stroboscopic movement. The English–Lithuanian dictionary of psychology being translated (Bagdonas, Rimkutė 2013) includes the term stroboscopic motion, whose Lithuanian equivalent is stroboscopic movement. The research material also reveals synonymous terms that are semantically unmotivated in Lithuanian—calques boulevard literature – yellow literature, which it seems inappropriate to compare by lexical composition, although it is obvious that the concept is named according to entirely different features. 2.3. Through synonymous terms with non-synonymous components of related meaning, concepts are named according to features linked by a logical or ontological relationship and expressed by members of the same semantic (terminological) paradigm. First, among the words functioning as differing components of such synonyms, hyperonymic / hyponymic relationships can be discerned, e.g.: scientific edition – academic edition, graphic information – visual information BIK, conceptual thinking – categorical thinking, hypnopompic imagery – hypnopompic hallucinations PsichŽ, etc., as well as partonymic (meronymic) relationships, e.g., site bibliography – website bibliography BIK, genital character – genital personality PsichŽ, etc. In addition to these two types of relationships, the non-synonymous components of synonymous terms are linked by non-hierarchical (associative) relationships, such as activity and object (cartographic paper – map paper BIK, cf. cartography ‘the science that investigates the properties of maps and globes, their compilation, printing, and use; the technique of compiling maps and globes’ TŽŽ), the denoted entity and the sign (website structure – website tree BIK, cf. tree ‘a representation of a hierarchical structure’ LRTB from the 2008 Encyclopedic Dictionary of Computing), etc. On the other hand, when associative relationships are not particularly prominent or are more difficult to recognize, synonymous terms may be treated as having no semantically related components, or that semantic connection may be understood as extremely remote. 156 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX Sinoniminių dvižodžių terminų struktūrinis semantinis nuotolis The relationship between synonymous terms whose components are linked by hyperonymic, partonymic, and associative relationships can linguistically be explained by metonymy (including synecdoche as a variety of metonymy). In typologies of term variation grounded in term usage (e.g., Faber, León–Araúz 2016; Cabezas–García, León–Araúz 2023), metonymic term variation is distinguished (cf. the compound-term examples provided by Melania Cabezas–García and Pilar León–Araúz, accidental water pollution and accidental marine pollution). Nevertheless, from the perspective of priority in the nomination of a concept, it is not necessarily possible to discern a change of the actual (or primary) name by metonymy. However, when synonyms are compared with one another independently of their origin and context of use, the synonymy of terms of the type under discussion can be grounded in a linguistic factor—metonymy. The research material shows that synonymous two-word terms may also be semantically related through both components. For example, citation rate – citation index BIK—the property and the process are expressed by the secondary components (an associative relationship), while the primary components are linked by a hyperonymic relationship. The research material revealed a rather unexpected type of synonymy—synonymous terms whose components are lexical converses: borrowing register – issuing register, borrowing registration – issuing registration BIK. With lexical converses, “we can form sentences that are synonymous in terms of information” (Maskaliūnienė 2013: 22), and on the basis of the research material it can be argued that terms with converses are also synonymous. The semantic distance of such synonyms is presumably smaller than that of aspectual synonyms (see section 2.2), because converses are linked by the same process (as in the examples provided) or by a unified logical whole (see Jakaitienė 2010: 134). On the other hand, the same concept could be named by a compound term containing both converses together. It is worth considering whether synonymous terms with components linked by hierarchical and non-hierarchical relationships (including cases of conversion) can be treated as aspectual synonyms. When hyperonymic or partonymic relationships are reflected in a pair of synonymous terms, it is probably most precise to say that those synonyms differ in the detailing or realization of the aspect, rather than in the very aspect of nomination. 9 In Šavçkų’s typologies, hyperonymic / hyponymic relationships correspond to generic relationships, while partonymic relationships correspond to partitive (whole–part) relationships. In terminology, Anita Nuopponen’s typology of concept relations is considered the most comprehensive (see Nuopponen 2011 et al.). It distinguishes generic (logical) and ontological relationships, the latter including partitive relationships. ISO 704:2022 classifies concept relations into hierarchical (generic and partitive) and associative relationships. The commonalities and differences among classifications of concept relations are discussed in Nuopponen 2022, where it is also stated that the relationship between a concept and a semantic relationship is not an artificial terminological distinction (ibid., 84). 10 In some linguistic works, lexical converses are classified as antonyms, as a special type (e.g., Ermanytė 1995: 10; Jakaitienė 2010: 139), while in others they are distinguished from them (e.g., Maskaliūnienė 2013). Straipsniai / Articles 157 ASTA MITKEVIČIENĖ When the differing components of synonyms are linked by other types of relationships, differences in aspect are perceptible, those differences can be categorized, and such synonyms can be considered aspectual. The boundary between synonyms with components of unrelated meaning and those with components of related meaning is not clear-cut; it also depends on how broadly the connection itself is construed. The terminological boundaries of the subject field are also an important factor. Without context, synonyms such as subject specialist – subject librarian BIK (another synonym, subject librarian, is also recorded in the dictionary) appear to be names of different concepts, although semantically specialist and librarian are certainly related. This section discussed non-cognate synonyms, while the preceding section stated that a greater distance is characteristic of such cognate synonyms as cognitive psychotherapy and cognitive therapy. The synonym pair library technician and librarian technician BIK illustrates that even with cognate synonyms, a concept is named on a different basis—not in this example by location and by person (profession), respectively; that is, metonymy can be discerned. Thus, although cognate synonymous terms differ mainly in morphological or morphosyntactic features, the dictionaries also record some that are not semantically equivalent. APIBENDRINIMAS IR IŠVADOS Although synonymous terms name the same concept, they are characterized by an interrelation distance of varying magnitude, reflected in their structure. According to the formal criterion of synonym opposition—the (non-)identity of the root—cognate and non-cognate synonyms are distinguished; non-cognate synonyms are precisely those more distant from one another, because they do not share the same root and, accordingly, similar lexical composition. Since two-word synonyms were examined, not only the (non-)identity of the synonyms’ roots itself is significant, but also the number of (non-)identical roots. In the research material, five synonym subtypes were distinguished according to root opposition, and those subtypes differ in lexical-semantic distance. The opposition of synonymous terms according to the semantic criterion—the (non-)relatedness of the lexical meanings of the words functioning as components—showed that synonymous terms name a concept both on the same basis (when synonymous lexemes function as the components of synonymous terms) and on an entirely different basis (when lexemes of different meanings function as the components of synonymous terms). The latter synonymous terms—aspectual synonyms—are complementary, mutually supplementing designations of the same concept, and their difference lies in the cognitive basis. The interrelation distance of aspectual synonyms is much greater than that of synonymous terms with 158 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX Sinoniminių dvižodžių terminų struktūrinis semantinis nuotolis synonymous components, and their synonymy can be identified only from the system of concepts and terms. Between these two types of synonyms—terms with synonymous lexemes and terms with lexemes of different meanings—in terms of the magnitude of semantic distance lies a group of terms with lexemes of related meaning. They are linked by hyperonymic, partonymic, or associative relationships (including even converse relationships), so the synonymy of terms formed with them can be grounded in metonymy. Two-word synonymous terms exhibit various combinations of synonym types according to root and component meaning—they differ in their secondary components, primary components, or both. The study confirms the idea that when the words functioning as the primary components of synonymous terms are not synonyms, the semantic distance between those terms is greatest. The same methodology can also be used to study other compound terms, not only two-word terms; naturally, the more components there are, the more varied the combinations of synonym types. The results of the study can be applied in practice, for example, in terminology management, when one synonym must be selected or a new concept named. Account was taken of the fact that synonymous terms may be both semantically equivalent and non-equivalent; they explicate the same features of a concept, features linked by logical or ontological relationships, or entirely different features. ŠALTINIAI BIK – Bliūdžiuvienė Nijolė, Valukėnas Vytautas Jonas. Bibliotekininkystės, informacijos ir knygotyros (BIK) lietuvių–anglų kalbų terminų žodynas, Vilnius: Lietuvos nacionalinė Martyno Mažvydo biblioteka, 2021. Prieiga internete: https://terminija.lki.lt/ [paieška 2023 m. kovo mėn.]. PsichŽ – Bagdonas Albinas, Bliumas Remigijus. Aiškinamasis psichologijos terminų žodynas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos centras, 2019. Prieiga internete: https://terminai.vlkk.lt/ [paieška 2023 m. kovo mėn.]. LITERATŪRA Auksoriūtė Albina 2018: Informatikos ir kompiuterijos terminijos raida ir sinonimija. – Lietuviškos informatikos ir kompiuterijos terminijos tyrimai, aut. A. Auksoriūtė, J. Gaivenytė-Butler, S. Labanauskienė, A. Mitkevičienė, R. Stunžinas, A. Umbrasas, P. Zemlevičiūtė, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 247–307. Bagdonas Albinas, Rimkutė Eglė 2013: Anglų–lietuvių kalbų psichologijos žodynas, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Straipsniai / Articles 159 ASTA MITKEVIČIENĖ BLKŽ – Bendrinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas, red. kolegija D. Liutkevičienė, D. Murmul aitytė, V. Sakalauskienė, A. Gritėnienė, A. Gaidienė, D. Daugirdienė, L. Jonušys, vyr. red. D. Liutkevičienė, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2013–2022. Prieiga internete: https://ekalba.lt/bendrinės-lietuvių-kalbos-zodynas/ [žiūrėta 2023 m. balandžio mėn.]. Cabezas-García Melania, León-Araúz Pilar 2023: Term and Concept Variation in Climate Change Communication. – The Translator 28(4), 429–449. Clay Edward 2022: A Corpus-Based Approach to Examining Terminological Variation in EU Law. – International Journal of Language & Law 11, 142–162. Prieiga internete: https://www.languageandlaw.eu/ill/article/view/136. DLKŽ – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas, vyr. red. St. Keinys, 8-asis patais. ir papild. leidimas, e. variantas, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2021. Prieiga internete: https://ekalba.lt/dabartines-lietuviu-kalbos-zodynas/. Ermanytė Irena 1995: Priešybė kaip semantinis ir loginis antonimijos pagrindas. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 35, 9–31. Faber Pamela, León-Araúz Pilar 2016: Specialized Knowledge Representation and the Parameterization of Context. – Frontiers in Psychology 7(196), 1–20. Prieiga internete: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00196/full. Fernández-Silva Sabela 2016: The Cognitive and Rhetorical Role of Term Variation and Its Contribution to Knowledge Construction in Research Articles. – Terminology 22(1), 52–79. Fernández-Silva Sabela 2022: Cognitive Approaches to the Study of Term Variation. – Theoretical Perspectives on Terminology: Explaining Terms, Concepts and Specialized Knowledge, eds. P. Faber, M.-C. L’Homme, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 435–456. Fernández-Silva Sabela, Freixa Judit, Cabré M. Teresa 2009: Multiple Motivations in the Denomination of Concepts: The Case of “Production Area” in the Terminology of Aquaculture in French and Galician. – Terminology Science & Research 20, 21–38. Fernández-Silva Sabela, Kerremans Koen 2011: Terminological Variation in Source Texts and Translations: A Pilot Study. – Meta 56(2), 318–335. Prieiga internete: https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/meta/2011-v56-n2-meta1821316/1006179ar/. Freixa Judit 2006: Causes of Denominative Variation in Terminology: A Typology Proposal. – Terminology 12(1), 51–77. 160 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX Sinoniminių dvižodžių terminų struktūrinis semantinis nuotolis Freixa Judit 2022: Causes of Terminological Variation. – Theoretical Perspectives on Terminology: Explaining Terms, Concepts and Specialized Knowledge, eds. P. Faber, M.-C. L’Homme, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 399–420. Freixa Judit, Fernández-Silva Sabela 2017: Terminological Variation and the Unsaturability of Concepts. – Multiple Perspectives on Terminological Variation, eds. P. Drouin, A. Francœur, J. Humbles, A. Picton, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 155–180. Gaivenytė Jolanta 2000: Sudėtinių fizikos terminų motyvacija. – Lituanistica 3/4(43/44), 19–25. Gritėnienė Aurelijа 2006: Augalų pavadinimų motyvacija šiaurės panevėžiškių patarmėje, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. ISO 704:2022 – Terminology Work – Principles and Methods. Jakaitienė Evalda 2010: Leksikologija: studijų knyga, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Léon-Araúz Pilar, Cabezas-García Melania 2020: Term and Translation Variation of Multi-Word Terms. – Análisis multidisciplinar del fenómeno de la variación fraseológica en traducción e interpretación / Multidisciplinary Analysis of the Phenomenon of Phraseological Variation in Translation and Interpreting, MonTI Special Issue 6, ed. P. Mogorrón Huerta, 210–247. L’Homme Marie-Claude 2020: Lexical Semantics for Terminology: An Introduction, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Lončar Maja, Ostroški Anić Ana 2014: Eponymous Medical Terms as a Source of Terminological Variation. – Languages for Special Purposes in a Multilingual, Transcultural World, Proceedings of the 19ᵗʰ European Symposium on Languages for Special Purposes, eds. G. Budin, V. Lušický, Vienna: University of Vienna, 36–44. Maskaliūnienė Nijolė 2013: Antoniminis vertimas, Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas. Myking Johan 2009: (Yet Another) Taxonomy of Motivations. – Terminology Science & Research 20, 39–53. Myking Johan 2020: Term Formation – Is There a State of the Art? – Terminologija 27, 6–30. Miliūnaitė Rita 2009: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos vartosenos variantai, Vilnius, 2009. Mitkevičienė Asta 2015: Kai kurie terminų sinonimijos aspektai. – Terminologija 22, 39–60. Straipsniai / Articles 161 ASTA MITKEVIČIENĖ Mitkevičienė Asta 2020: Ar terminų sinonimija yra trūkumas. – Bendrinė kalba 93, 1–18. Prieiga internete: https://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba/article/view/899/1112. ND – Miliūnaitė Rita, Aleksaitė Agnė. Lietuvių kalbos naujažodžių duomenynas. Tęstinis internetinis žinynas nuo 2011 m., sud. ir ats. red. R. Miliūnaitė, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Prieiga: https://ekalba.lki.lt/naujazodziai [žiūrėta 2023 m. balandžio mėn.]. Nuopponen Anita 2011: Methods of Concept Analysis – Tools for Systemic Concept Analysis. – LSP Journal 2(1), 4–15. Prieiga internete: https://rauli.cbs.dk/index.php/lspcog/article/view/3302/3500. Nuopponen Anita 2022: Conceptual Relations: From the General Theory of Terminology to Knowledge Bases. – Theoretical Perspectives on Terminology: Explaining Terms, Concepts and Specialized Knowledge, eds. P. Faber, M.-C. L’Homme, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 63–86. TŽŽ – Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas, red. D. Svetikienė, Vilnius: Alma littera, 2013. Valiulytė Elena 1998: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos sintaksiniai sinonimai. Vietos, laiko ir priežasties raiška, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Vaskelaitė Ramunė 2021: Sinoniminės raiškos astrologijos terminijoje priežastys. – Terminologija 28, 192–223. Vaskelaitė Ramunė 2022: Makroekonomikos terminija: sinonimijos priežastys, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Prieiga internete: http://lki.lt/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Vaskelaite_Makroekonomikos_terminija.pdf. Župerka Kazimieras 2012: Stilistika, 3-iasis patais. ir papild. leidimas, Šiauliai: VšĮ Šiaulių universiteto leidykla. Structural Semantic Distance Between Synonymous Two-Word Terms SUMMARY The article deals with a previously unexplored aspect of Lithuanian term synonymy – the semantic distance between synonymous terms, as reflected in their structure. The study focuses on two-word synonymous terms extracted from two dictionaries: the Explanatory Dictionary of Psychology (2019) and the Dictionary of Librarianship, Information and Book Science (2021). 162 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX Sinoniminių dvižodžių terminų struktūrinis semantinis nuotolis The research revealed a spectrum of semantic distances among synonymous terms, evident in their structure. The formal parameter of the synonymic opposition, specifically the (non-)identity of the root, distinguishes between common-root and non-common root synonyms. Non-common-root synonyms exhibit greater semantic distance due to the absence of a shared root and, consequently, a similar lexical composition. However, it’s not just the (non-)identity of the root itself that holds significance; the number of (non-)identical roots also plays a crucial role. The opposition of synonymous terms according to the semantic parameter – the closeness of the lexical meaning of the words by which the two-word synonyms are distinguished – has shown that synonymous terms designate a concept both on the same basis (when synonymous terms’ constituents are lexemes of synonymous meaning), and on a different basis (when synonymous terms’ constituents are lexemes of different meanings) altogether. The latter synonymous terms – aspectual synonyms – are complementary denominations of the same concept, and their difference lies in their cognitive basis. The distance between aspectual synonyms is much greater than that between synonymous terms with synonymous constituents. Between these two types of synonyms – terms with synonymous lexemes and terms with lexemes of different meanings – terms with lexemes of related meanings are positioned in terms of the degree of synonyms’ semantic distance. These lexemes are linked by hypernymy/hyponymy, meronymy or associative (including conversion) relationship, so that the synonymy of terms can be explained by metonymy. Synonyms exhibit different combinations of synonym types based on the root and meaning of their components, varying in terms of the head, modifier, or both. The research supports the notion that when the heads of synonymous terms are not themselves synonyms, the semantic distance between these terms is at its maximum. Įteikta 2023 m. liepos 28 d. ASTA MITKEVIČIENĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas Petro Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius, Lietuva [email protected] Straipsniai / Articles 163