VIDAS VALSKYS Lithuanian Armed Forces Training and Doctrine Board State Commission of the Lithuanian Language ORCID id: orcid.org/0009-0000-9983-0634

Research areas: terminology, syntax, language policy.

DOI: doi.org/10.35321/all89-15

Ramunė Vaskelaitė

MACROECONOMIC TERMINOLOGY: CAUSES OF SYNONYMY

Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 2022, 136 pp. DOI doi.org/10.35321/e-pub.46.makroekonomikos-terminija ISBN 978-609-411-332-1

In 2022, the Institute of the Lithuanian Language published Ramunė Vaskelaitė’s scholarly study Macroeconomic Terminology: Causes of Synonymy—another comprehensive study of terminological synonymy, which could be regarded as a continuation of the author’s earlier studies of a similar nature and subject matter in other fields (e.g., astrology (Vaskelaitė 2021)) and, at the same time, as a new look at macroeconomic terminology and its use in educational publications—higher-education textbooks. This substantial (136 pp.) scholarly study is a genuinely relevant publication, as it not only makes it possible to examine the causes of synonymy among the terms of the field in question, but also touches on certain other aspects of the use of macroeconomic terminology and examines some general problems of term creation, use, mutual competition, and implementation. As stated in the publication’s Introduction, “this scholarly study, which focuses on macroeconomic terms, is expected to contribute to the relatively sparse research on economic terminology and to help remedy its gaps” (p. 10). Since it is impossible to cover many aspects all at once, the author has chosen to investigate more closely the synonymy of macroeconomic terms; once examined and generalized, it makes it possible to draw fairly reliable conclusions not only “about the stability or instability of the terminology of the field under investigation” (p. 12), but also to identify other distinctive features of the terminology.

Recenzijos / Reviews

313

VIDAS VALSKYS

The scholarly study consists of a Preface, an Introduction, five main chapters, Conclusions, lists of sources and literature, and a summary in English. The Introduction reviews the genesis and causes of the emergence of macroeconomics (as a science and as a subject of instruction), its object, and the development of Lithuanian macroeconomic terminology; it also raises and substantiates the importance of synonymy as one of the tools for studying terminology. The closely related concept of variation is also discussed, the similarities and differences between these concepts are indicated, and the motives and reasons for their divergent interpretation and dissemination in the terminological works of Lithuania and other countries are examined. While acknowledging the close relationship between these concepts and the possibility that no boundary exists between them, the author nevertheless chooses to draw such a boundary and consistently adheres to the view that synonymy and variation are not identical phenomena. Ten macroeconomics textbooks (or parts of economics textbooks) published by various higher-education institutions over two decades (from 1997 to 2017) were selected for analysis. This sample seems sufficient to reveal and examine the object of the study in detail, discuss the main tendencies of use and regulation, and establish the causes of synonymy.

The scholarly study is written in clear, engaging language; its statements and conclusions are formulated prudently and precisely, with only an occasional somewhat clumsy statement (e.g., “mentioned different English names for the same concept as a cause of synonymy among Lithuanian terms” (p. 87)). A slight blemish is the unchecked proofreading errors: Švenčionienė (should be Švenčionienė, p. 10), aggregate demand and aggregate demand (in the latter case it should be supply, p. 41), named (should be naming, p. 50), alternative (p. 83), typologize (p. 85), etc. The writing of the word government with a lowercase letter could also be regarded as an oversight (the list of literature cites a resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania of 6 November 2000).

Proper and precise selection of empirical material is very important for conducting a high-quality study. Since the data were taken not from terminology dictionaries but from macroeconomics textbooks, it was essential that all macroeconomic terms used in the designated textbooks come within the researcher’s purview, and that general terms used in many fields of science, or terms belonging to other fields than microeconomics, should not be included (and thereby undermine the reliability of the study). To select the relevant terms, the author essentially applied two criteria: the criterion of graphic marking (e.g., when a concept of the field under investigation is distinguished in the text by bold type) and the criterion of definition (i.e., “terms defined in macroeconomics textbooks were considered macroeconomic terms” (p. 20)). These criteria seem to provide a good basis for collecting the necessary data and separating out irrelevant items; nevertheless, they do not entirely eliminate the possibility that terms which are not macroeconomic terms may enter the set of terms analyzed. The author herself acknowledges this, stating that “this work does not seek to draw a very precise boundary between macroeconomic terms and terms of other branches of economics, because this is not a work of a terminographic nature

314

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX

Ramunė Vaskelaitė. Makroekonomikos terminija: sinonimijos priežastys

but neither are very strict boundaries drawn between terms of closely related branches or subbranches of science in terminology dictionaries” (p. 22). At the same time, one can agree that “the terms discussed here should convey the inventory of the principal macroeconomic terms” (ibid.); therefore, there are no major doubts about the representativeness of the research material.

The second chapter of the study is devoted to a quantitative (and partly qualitative) analysis of the synonyms of terms used in macroeconomics textbooks. In total, 355 synonym sets were recorded in the textbooks, while 522 terms had no synonyms. This ratio might seem to support the assumption that macroeconomic terminology is fairly settled; however, considering that a large proportion of the terms without synonyms are used in only one or another textbook, while 52 of them have variants of one kind or another, the opposite conclusion may also be drawn: “the terminology used in macroeconomics textbooks is particularly unsettled” (p. 26). Nevertheless, this is not asserted so categorically, since evaluating the development of terminology from the perspective of synonymy would require a research sample larger than 10 textbooks. In addition to the (in)stability of terms, other causes of terminological synonymy mentioned in Lithuanian and foreign terminological works are examined: the development of the language of science, the regulation and standardization of terms, language interaction, the influence of style or genre, and so on. To establish “the extent to which one or another cause determines the synonymy of terms used in macroeconomics textbooks” (p. 29), the study’s author employs a tool fairly common in terminological works: the classification of synonyms into types according to origin (native, borrowed, and of mixed origin) and composition (one-word and multi-word terms), as well as classification from the perspectives of nomination (the so-called aspectual synonyms) and formation (terms with a common root and terms without a common root). This methodology makes it possible to grasp and describe a broad spectrum of the causes of terminological synonymy and thus to pursue the aim of the work—to examine the principal causes of terminological synonymy used in macroeconomics textbooks.

The third chapter, which discusses synonyms according to origin in detail, focuses primarily on such factors in the emergence of terminological synonymy as the influence of foreign languages and language standardization. To name the latter factor, the author often uses the synonymous term language (terminology) regulation (sometimes they are joined by a conjunction, e.g., language and terminology regulation (p. 64) or language and terminology regulation (p. 113); admittedly, sometimes only the single word terminology is used, e.g., pp. 36, 115). Is this varying designation of the concept justified? Would one of the terms have sufficed? Since terms are standardized by applying essentially general principles of language regulation (especially the principle of purity applied to the lexical layer, which is most relevant when discussing terminological synonymy) and codification criteria, perhaps language regulation would have sufficed?

In examining mixed-origin synonymy, to which 103 synonym sets are assigned, constituting almost one-third of all cases of synonymy, groups of frequent and rare cases of synonymy are distinguished. It is not entirely clear, however, what is considered frequent and what rare.

Recenzijos / Reviews

315

VIDAS VALSKYS

What quantitative indicator determines assignment to one group or the other? What is considered a rare case can be inferred from statements that “a synonym is presented in only one or another textbook” (p. 37) or “terms having a synonym in only one or two textbooks” (ibid.), although p. 58 seems to contradict this classification, since it states that “it would be inaccurate to judge the tendencies of its synonymy from a term’s occurrence in 1–3 textbooks; therefore, when presenting the data, such cases were treated as isolated instances of term use” (the conditional nature of such a distinction is also mentioned (p. 40)). Elsewhere it is stated that “mixed-origin synonymy was divided into cases of rare and frequent synonymy according to whether the synonyms of a term were widespread in the textbooks” (p. 58). It may be thought that if the distinction between the frequency and rarity of synonyms were drawn somewhat more clearly, less room would remain for certain doubts both concerning the accuracy of the classification of the data and their interpretation.

When discussing cases of synonymy and examining various aspects of their expression and presentation in texts, words or word combinations used in quotation marks are also mentioned, e.g., “money investments” (p. 49) or the “shaving” effect (p. 52). In examining borrowings used in quotation marks (e.g., “shock,” p. 55), the study relies on the assumptions of researchers of foreign words that such writing may indicate an intention to integrate the word into the text and/or a desire to distance oneself from the foreign word; however, one may miss the study’s author’s insights into how words of Lithuanian origin used in quotation marks should be assessed. Does their placement in quotation marks not indicate the textbook author’s (and/or text editor’s) uncertainty or doubt about the term’s suitability, precision, and so on? Can such words or combinations written in quotation marks, whether of Lithuanian or foreign origin, be regarded as ordinary cases of terminological synonymy—in other words, can they be equated with genuine terms presented without quotation marks?

In analyzing and assessing the influence of other languages as one of the factors of terminological synonymy, aspects such as the emergence of synonyms through the translation of terms (the influence of this aspect is particularly tellingly demonstrated by the cases of synonymy involving figurative-meaning terms examined on pp. 73–74, which were translated directly from English, as well as metaphorical terms) or through synonymy occurring in another language are raised and explored. English is entirely justifiably regarded as the main source language for borrowing in macroeconomic terminology—this is shown by the cases of mixed-origin synonymy formed through the use of borrowings with an English root. The terms boom, clearing, barter, leasing, factoring and others are discussed separately, as are their presentation, the search for Lithuanian equivalents, and other features of their use. Alongside terms of English origin, forfaiting is discussed, although it “is explained as deriving from the French a forfait” (p. 69); likewise, imports and exports are recognized as “words of Latin origin that entered through English” (p. 70). English may indeed have been the intermediary language here, but it does not seem very well-founded to call these words terms of English origin. Perhaps this group under discussion (Other terms of English origin) should have been named more precisely? Uncertainties arise when looking at the data presented in Table 7

316

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX

Ramunė Vaskelaitė. Makroekonomikos terminija: sinonimijos priežastys

and interpreting them. For example, in the second column, entitled Synonymy of Lithuanian terms, the terms currency exchange-rate regime / system are provided; all their components are international, that is, words of non-Lithuanian origin, so it remains unclear why they are discussed together with Lithuanian terms.

The analysis in the fourth chapter of cases of terminological synonymy arising from varying nomination conditions makes it possible to “explain why two or more terms of Lithuanian origin or two or more borrowings compete with one another” (p. 76). The fluctuations in nomination and expression recorded in macroeconomics textbooks are rightly associated with the formation and unsettled nature of terms, the effort to foreground different features when naming a concept, reliance on disparate sources, differences in classification, and other factors of terminological synonymy. Variation in terms is approached broadly—not only at the level of a particular text but also intertextually—which makes it possible to encompass still more aspects and to present a detailed picture of searches for the most suitable term, prompted by functional expediency, differing conceptualizations of a concept, and other motives. At the end of the chapter, cases are mentioned “when one concept is explained by another, and both are named as synonyms by textbook authors” (p. 89). One example of this type is provided: the concept aggregate income is used as a synonym for gross national product. No further cases are provided, on the grounds that the conception widespread in Lithuanian terminology of distinguishing synonymy of concepts from synonymy of terms is followed; yet it is stated immediately afterwards that in foreign terminology synonymy of concepts is also an object of research. Thus, both the study author’s insights concerning the advisability (or inadvisability) of expanding the possible research field in the aspect mentioned and other examples of concept synonymy found in textbooks could be useful in theoretical and practical respects, revealing the author’s view of the advisability or prospects of such research in Lithuanian terminology.

The fifth chapter examines common-root synonyms and the word-formation resources and their causes that determine their use. At the beginning of the chapter, differences in the treatment of common-root synonyms in Lithuanian and foreign terminological works are discussed: in foreign terminology, this type of synonym is generally not distinguished (common-root terms naming the same concept are regarded as cases of terminological variation), whereas in Lithuanian terminology the concept of common-root synonyms is becoming increasingly established (the works of A. Umbrasas, A. Mitkevičienė, and the author of this study are mentioned), since dividing synonyms into common-root and non-common-root terms, among other things, makes them easier to analyze and systematize and also highlights the links between terminological synonymy and word-formation resources, which are regarded as one of the causes of synonymy. The cases of synonymy among common-root terms in macroeconomics textbooks are then discussed in greater detail. As might be expected, the largest number were pairs of synonyms consisting of a derivative with the suffix –inis and a genitive-marked dependent component of a complex term (e.g., financial intermediary and finance intermediary). The reasons for the prevalence of such cases are “not only the language’s ability

Recenzijos / Reviews

317

VIDAS VALSKYS

to form terms with suffix –inis derivatives, but also the similarity of meaning or uncertainty about differences in meaning linking such terms with terms containing a genitive component” (p. 95). Other cases of common-root synonymy in macroeconomics textbooks are determined by the mutual interchangeability of forms, the influence of other languages, and the search for equivalents of native origin. A group of synonymous terms with different numbers of components is discussed separately (e.g., seniorage income and seigniorage, acceleration theory and accelerator); it makes it possible to identify such reasons for their use as avoiding repetition and/or seeking brevity, which is associated with applying the principle of brevity, one of the general principles of terminology (as the author observes, such variation “is especially characteristic of the names of the principal schools, currents, and trends of economic theory” (p. 100), e.g., Keynesianism / Keynesian economic theory / Keynesian theory). However, opposite cases also occur, when “a short term is defined, but a longer term is used in the texts” (ibid.)—this is justified by the pursuit of clarity.

The sixth chapter of the study is particularly valuable: it examines significant aspects of term choice and functional distribution conditioned by a particular style, which have received relatively little study in Lithuanian terminology (more attention is devoted to them in A. Mitkevičienė’s works). These aspects highlight the importance of differences in the communicative situation, adaptation to the addressee, and various other stylistic factors in the use of particular terms, helping to reveal new or bring out known features of terminological synonymy. Readers may, however, be somewhat confused by the short form of the term used in subsection titles, factor (instead of stylistic factor). For example, the title of subsection 6.2, “Expression of the Factor in Macroeconomics Textbooks,” seems to point toward a syntactic aspect—the expression of the factor as a principal sentence constituent—yet the subsection’s content is devoted to analyzing ways of expressing the addressee and other stylistic factors and to discussing the incorporation of synonyms into the text. Certain causes of synonymy are also inferred from the ways synonyms are marked in macroeconomics textbooks (presentation in parentheses or insertion of the metalinguistic comment or, in other words, called, etc.). In the first case, one can speak of “fluctuations associated with replacing a borrowing or with the unsettled nature of a term” (p. 108), while the second way of marking is mainly associated “with the addressee, the nature of the publication, in other words, with the factor of functional style: educational publications seek to explain the principal concepts of macroeconomics, while alternative names for concepts make it possible to reveal various aspects of concepts” (p. 109).

The study is rounded off by apt, precisely formulated conclusions, which reveal not only the research results but also tendencies in the use of macroeconomic terminology and certain changes in its development. The thoughtfully selected and skillfully applied research tools made it possible to establish and discuss the causes of synonymy among terms in the field under investigation: analysis of synonym types and oppositions revealed the factors of influence from other languages and language regulation, while the influence of other languages was revealed by mixed-origin synonymy

318

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX

Ramunė Vaskelaitė. Makroekonomikos terminija: sinonimijos priežastys

research, which, among other things, led to the conclusion that differences between alternative names for the same concept may have arisen because of differing classification and differing naming of the concept. The principal causes of the prevalence of common-root synonymy are word-formation resources, semantic differences, interchangeability, and, in certain cases when a longer term is used alongside a shorter one, the pursuit of clarity and systematicity.

The author’s theoretical preparation and immersion in the research context are demonstrated by the impressive list of literature provided at the end of the study. That list would, admittedly, be even longer if all works mentioned in the study had been included. One such work is John M. Keynes’s The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1936), which is referred to on pp. 5, 100 and elsewhere. The same can be said of Adam Smith’s book An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (first published in 1776). As far as can be understood, neither of these books was published in Lithuanian, so bibliographic references to these publications in English would have been very useful to readers of the scholarly study.

Despite the observations made here, Ramunė Vaskelaitė’s scholarly study Macroeconomic Terminology: Causes of Synonymy leaves the impression of a solid, comprehensive, high-quality scholarly work that significantly enriches the body of work in Lithuanian terminology devoted to the study of terms in various fields. This scholarly study may be significant not only because of its close analysis of macroeconomic terms, but also because it actualizes certain general aspects of terminology discussed in the works of foreign terminologists but not previously examined more closely in Lithuanian terminology—for example, by raising cognitive, discursive, or functional causes that influence terminological synonymy. It remains to be hoped that the theoretical insights and research results presented in this scholarly study will not only encourage its author to undertake new terminological research, hints of whose subject matter are provided in this study, but will also receive due attention and reflection from terminologists and linguists in other fields, providing material for analyzing and assessing various aspects of terminology and other linguistic phenomena.

Received on 23 October 2023

VIDAS VALSKYS

Doctrine Division, Headquarters of the Training and Doctrine Board of the Lithuanian Armed Forces Šilo St. 5A, LT-10322 Vilnius, Lithuania [email protected]

State Commission of the Lithuanian Language Gedimino Ave. 60, LT-01110 Vilnius, Lithuania [email protected]

Recenzijos / Reviews

319