LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, XXXI (1994)

KALBOS NORMALIZACIJOS KLAUSIMAI

ANGELĖ KAULAKIENĖ

ASSESSMENT OF SYNONYMY IN PHYSICS AND ENGINEERING TERMINOLOGY

1. Generally, a term in every field of science should meet certain requirements. Much has been written and debated about them; they have been discussed in detail by both Lithuanian and foreign terminologists. One such requirement is that a term be unambiguous. Terminologists understand this as follows: a term must designate only one scientific or technical concept, and a concept must correspond to only one term. Thus, synonyms in terminology are not merely undesirable but impossible. Yet they exist in both earlier and contemporary scientific and technical terminology, so the requirement that a term be unambiguous may be regarded as an ideal that is unattainable in terminological practice¹. Of course, synonymy cannot become the rule in terminology; however, as V. Danilenko points out, it is a sufficiently common exception that synonyms cannot be categorically prohibited². A categorical ban on synonyms, which is not observed in terminological practice, leads to undesirable consequences. First, theory and practice are set against each other. The theoretical requirement for a term is violated, while the practical use of the term (including its presentation in scientific and popular-science literature and its recording in a terminology dictionary) is left to take its own course. On the other hand, however faithfully this requirement is observed, the ultimate goal is not achieved: that is, it proves impossible to eliminate synonyms completely from terminology. Thus, the requirement that a term be unambiguous must be assessed much more flexibly, since terminological synonymy (like synonymy in general) is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon. Therefore, it would perhaps be appropriate to distinguish two cases of terminological synonymy: a) justified terminological synonymy and b) unjustified terminological synonymy. The aim of this article is to discuss these cases of terminological synonymy with reference to physics and engineering terminology.

2. At the initial stage of the formation of physics and engineering terminology, synonymy is undoubtedly an inevitable phenomenon, indicating that not only the terms but also the concepts themselves and their scope are not yet sufficiently clear. Quite often, they encompass not one but several interrelated things. For example, in Lithuanian physics terminology, the concept “every change in space and time” was designated by the terms judis³, judesys T 1923 141 ⁴, svyravimas, bangavimas, vilniavimas T 1924 30 7, krutėjimas,

¹ Keinys S. Terminų sinonimijos klausimu // Leksikos ir sintaksės klausimai. Šiauliai, 1974. P. 46.

² Даниленко В. П. Русская терминология: Опыт лингвистического описания. М., 1977. С. 176.

³ The terms are reproduced in their authentic form. Their spelling has not been altered.

⁴ See the list of sources.

4*

51

or persikėlimas P 5. A more detailed examination of the scope of this concept showed that the synonyms bangavimas and vilniavimas denoted not the general concept “change” but a type of it, “wave-like change.” Therefore, the terms judėjimas, judesys were later used only for the general concept “every change in space and time,” while bangavimu denoted “recurrent periodic change.” The synonym vilniavimas was abandoned altogether, because in physics terminology, of the two synonyms banga and vilnis T 1924 30 7, meaning “rhythmically propagating motion in a physical medium,” the term banga became established. The synonym svyravimas was used for another concept—“recurrent change in a variable quantity or magnitude.”

Thus, the terms judis, judesys, svyravimas, bangavimas, vilniavimas were used for both generic and specific concepts. This synonymy is undoubtedly unjustified, since the concept designated by the term judesys is much broader in scope than the concept “recurrent, periodic change.” Consequently, the concept designated by the term bangavimas is much narrower. It is only part of the scope of the first concept.

2.1. Synonymy in the initial stage of the formation of Lithuanian physics and engineering terminology takes many forms. Most often, a concept is designated: a) by two or more Lithuanian words, e.g.: gniaužumas, spūdumas T 1923 286 7 “the ability to reduce volume under pressure”; stamprumas, tamprumas, standumas, stingrumas T 1924 3 7 “the ability to resist deformation”; buvimas, būvis, stov(is) T 1923 286 7; būvis A 1886 5 154, stovis A 1885 9 277 “a certain state”; b) by a Lithuanian word and an international term or loanword, e.g.: atomas T 1923 108 6, atomas, pirmokas A 1883 2 48 “the smallest particle consisting of a positive nucleus and electrons orbiting it”; jėga T 1923 286 7, spėka A 1885 10 324, pajėga P 5, 12, pajėga (syla) P 3, vėkas (syla) A 1885 12 408, vėkas A 1886 1 31, syla A 1884 5 210, syla A 1886 6 184, K 1851 13 50; 1869 26 103, sylė K 1851 13 50; 1879 31 125 “that which gives a body acceleration or deforms it”; c) by several variants, e.g.: sutapimas, sutaptis, santapa T 1923 286 7; tolumas, tola; atstumas, atsta T 1923 285 7; platumas, plotis A 1884 5 168, 171; T 1924 30 7. Quite often the same concept is designated by compound and elliptical, and sometimes even syntactic, terms, e.g.: skystas kūnas and skystimas, skystis T 1923 209 5, skystimas A 1885 2 54; P 21 “a liquid substance”; vežim(a)s garu varomas (is) K 1851 25 98; 1854 10 40, garinis vežimas K 1851 25 98; 1852 3 12; 1864 22 88; 1869 16 62, gariškasis vežimas K 1851 24 94, garo vežimas K 1851 25 98 and garvežimis K 1851 25 98; 1852 32 128, garvežys A 1886 4 100 “locomotive.” These two-word or multiword terms, together with the one-word terms formed alongside them (as with the previously mentioned judis, judesys; buvimas, būvis, būvis; jėga, pajėga), should not be considered synonyms. They are variants⁵.

⁵ In general, terminologists and linguists understand the concept of synonymy differently. Accordingly, classifications of synonyms and their labels also vary. Some linguists call such synonyms absolute synonyms (Апресян Ю. Д. Синонимия и синонимы // Вопросы языкознания. 1969. № 4. С. 79–80), others call them doublets (Ахманова О. С. Словарь лингвистических терминов. М., 1966. С. 13; Суперанская А. В., Подольская Н. В., Васильева Н. В. Общая терминология. М., 1989. С. 49), and still others call them variants (Даниленко В. П. Русская терминология: Опыт лингвистического описания. М., 1977. С. 174). This article adopts the term used by V. Danilenko.

52

Thus, synonymy and variation were characteristic of the physics and technical terminology of that period. Such a phenomenon is unavoidable at the initial stage of terminology formation. However, it also influences and partly determines the subsequent development of terminology. Why?

First, a normative term often prevails and becomes established in terminology from among several synonyms or variants. For example, the current international term telegrafas had the following synonyms and variants: tolrašis K 1851 10 38; 1851 13 50; 1871 39 116;1878 3 13; A 1884 5 183; 1885 10 365; 1886 1 26; 4 99; rašėjas iš tolo K 1851 10 38, elektriškai magnetiškasis tolrašis K 1851 11 42, elektromagnetiškas tolrašis K 1854 14 56, vėly pustas K 1876 46 203, vėlinis pustas K 1876 48 213, žaibinis pustas K 1859 15 59; 18 72; 1860 2 8; 33 132; 1862 7 27; 1878 6 28, žaibinysis pustas K 1865 22 88; telegrafas T 1924 3 6, while the Lithuanian compound terms geležinkelis and garlaivis had these alternatives: geležinis kelias K 1850 42 168; A 1884 10 363; 1885 2 49, gelžinis kelias A 1884 7 260, geležinysis kelias K 1849 22 88, geležies kel(a)s K 1869 50 198; 1870 2 8, gelžkelis K 1851 23 92; 1852 24 95; 42 168; 1856 6 24; 39 156; 1862 8 32; 1876 37 165; 48 213; A 1884 4 121; 7 296, gelžkelvs K 1853 26 104, geležinkelis A 1884 7 268; 10 389; 1885 1 24; 6 166; 1886 4 109; 6 187; T 1923 209 5, geležinės viežės K 1878 7 31, geležiniosios vežės K 1865 48 191, gelžvėžė K 1878 7 31; dampšiepis K 1862 13 53; 1878 6 27; 1879 26 105; 27 109, garšėpis K 1851 25 98; 1856 6 24, garu šėpis K 1851 7 28, garinė šiepis K 1851 30 118; 1856 16 64; 1865 19 76; 1869 49 195; 1872 15 60, garinis šiepis K 1869 22 88; 1870 17 68; 1871 59 198, garu varomoji šėpis K 1854 21 94, garlaivis A 1884 10 345; 1886 1 27; 2 51, and so on.

Second, synonymy and variation (albeit perhaps of a somewhat different kind) also characterize current physics and technical terminology. Such variation in terminology is generally determined by many factors: a) the desire to name a concept much more rationally than before; b) the creation of a new term without regard for existing names; c) the proposal of terms of their own by various terminological schools or trends; d) the effects of linguistic interference, and so on. Thus, the manifestation of synonymy and variation in terminology is an ongoing process. It sometimes even accelerates when a particular development in physics or technology emerges simultaneously in several countries, or when the scholarly literature of several languages is closely interrelated and presents names for new discoveries, phenomena, and the like.

2. 2. Apparently, for these reasons, terminologists and specialists in physics and technology increasingly encounter the problem of synonymy between Lithuanian and international terms. Undoubtedly, such synonymy is justified, and there is no reason to doubt it. However, the relationships between these synonyms are also complex, and certain undesirable effects on terminology therefore often arise.

First, there is non-equivalence between a Lithuanian term and an international term⁶. This is manifested in the fact that a single international term may have one Lithuanian equivalent in one context (most often in a terminology dictionary or popular-science literature) and another in a different context, or, conversely, two international terms may have one Lithuanian equivalent, e.g.: kompresija, suspaudimas, cf. Russian сжатие, English compression, German Kompression FTŽ

⁶ For more on this, see Klimavičius J. Synonymy of international and Lithuanian terms in terminography // Lithuanian Terminology: Issues in Lithuanian Linguistics. V., 1975. Vol. 16. P. 107.

53

I 324 and susitraukimas, kompresija, cf. Russian сжатие, English contraction, German Kontraktion FTŽ II 805, although kontrakcija turi yet another synonym—(su)trumpėjimas, cf. Russian сокращение, сжатие, English contraction, German Kontraktion FTŽ I 336; transmutacija, virtimas, cf. Russian превращение, трансмутация, English transmutation, German Transmutation FTŽ II 889, and virtimas, konversija, cf. Russian преобразование, переход, English change, conversion, German Umwandlung, Verwandlung FTŽ II 958, and so on⁷. However, the new FTŽ seems to attempt to standardize these synonym pairs; cf. kompresija, suspaudimas, cf. Russian сжатие, English compression, German Kompression (142), and susitraukimas, kontrakcija, cf. Russian сжатие, сокращение, English contraction, German Kontraktion, Kürzung (331); transmutacija see virsmas, while virsmas, cf. Russian превращение, переход, English transformation, transmutation, transition, change, German Umwandlung, Transformation, Transmutation, Übergang (365).

Second, the heterogeneity of microsystems, manifested by the presence of Lithuanian and international elements within a single microsystem, e.g.: dujos, but gazotronas. The latter term is already standardized in the FTŽ: gazotronas see dujinis diodas, cf. Russian газотрон, English gas(-filled) diode, German Gasgleichrichterröhre (96). Thus, when regulating terminology, such manifestations of synonymy must be taken into account.

2. 3. Unjustified terminological synonymy gives rise to certain undesirable phenomena in the terminology of physics and technology.

First, it violates the classification of concepts and the system of terms, which occurs when both a generic and a specific concept are designated by synonyms; cf. the variant and synonymous terms given above jūdis, judesys, bangavimas, vilniavimas, svyravimas, krutėjimas, persikėlimas.

Second, unjustified synonymy violates an essential property of terminology—stability. For example, until recent years, the following synonyms were used in physics terminology: dielektrinis jautrumas, dielektrinis įspūdingumas, dielektriko poliarizacijos koeficientas, dielektrinis jautris. However, of these four synonyms, the new FTŽ retains only one: dielektrinis jautris; see elektrinis jautris. Thus, elektrinis jautris is to be regarded as the normative term; cf. Russian (ди)электрическая восприимчивость, English dielectric susceptibility, (electric) sensitivity, German (elektrische) Suszeptibilität, dielektrische Suszeptibilität (122). Naturally, it would be very desirable for a single term (in this case, elektrinis jautris) to become established, but at present a second synonym is also still in widespread use; cf. PolŽ 38 (di)elektrinis jautris. The remaining synonyms (dielektrinis jautrumas, dielektrinis įspūdingumas, dielektriko poliarizacijos koeficientas) are falling into oblivion. Thus, synonyms (like established incorrect terms) are not so easily eliminated from usage.

Third, there is inadmissible and unjustified variation, which gives rise to categorical polysemy among terms. In Lithuanian physics and technology terminology, categorical polysemy manifests itself as follows: 1) when variants designate both a concrete entity (i.e., a result, a particular system, a whole comprising something) and a process, e.g.: sūkis, sukimasis ‘one revolution’; cf. Russian оборот, обращение, English turn (over), revolution, German Umdrehung; and sūkis, sukimasis ‘motion around an axis’; cf. Russian вращение,

⁷ Cf. Klimavičius J. Min. veik. P. 109.

54

English rotation, révolution, German Drehung, Rotation, Drehbewegung; indeksacija indeksavimas ‘a system of indices for a particular classification’; cf. Russian индексация; and indeksacija, indeksavimas ‘description of a document’s content in an information retrieval language’; cf. Russian индексация; 2) when variants designate a property and a quantity, a particular dimension, e.g.: stiprumas, stipris ‘a material’s property of resisting fracture’ and stiprumas, stipris ‘the magnitude of intensity or force required for deformation, etc., to occur’; cf. Russian интенсивность, сила, English Strength, intensity, German Stärke, Intensität, skaidrumas, skaidris ‘a material’s property of allowing light rays to pass through’; cf. Russian прозрачность, English transparency, transparence, transmittance, German Durchsichtigkeit, Transparenz; and skaidrumas, skaidris ‘transparency coefficient’; cf. Russian коэффициент прозрачности, English transparency, transmissivity, German Durchsichtigkeitsgrad, Durchdringungsfaktor.

At present, there is a growing preference for naming a material’s property with derivatives in -umas, and a quantity, a quantitative parameter, with derivatives in -a and -is. The origins of this tendency can already be found in the early 20th century; cf. greitumas ir greitis T 1923 287 7, ilgumas ir ilgis T 1923 149 5, talpumas ir talpa T 1923 109 6; 149 5, etc. This tendency is certainly worth supporting. First, it promotes regularity in terminology; second, it prevents the further spread of the aforementioned categorical polysemy of terms.

In Lithuanian physics and technology terminology, categorical polysemy most often arises from working variants formed with various affixes. Sometimes, however, variation expressed through compound and elliptical variants (both Lithuanian and international) can be justified and warranted, e.g.: izotopinis sukinys ir izosukinys; cf. Russian изотопический спин, изобарический спин, изоспин, English isotopic spin, isobaric spin, German Iso (topen) spin, Isobarenspin, Ladungsspin FTŽ 329; automobilinis vilkikas ir autovilkikas; cf. Russian автомобиль-тягач PolŽ 19; automobilių transportas ir autotransportas; cf. Russian автотранспорт PolŽ 10, and so on. Such variation promotes and helps establish shorter forms of terms.

An assessment of synonymy in physics and technology terminology leads to the following conclusions. First, the requirement that a term have a single meaning is unattainable in the practice of this terminology. Thus, this requirement for terms could be considered optional rather than mandatory. Second, the optional nature of the requirement should be based only on justified terminological synonymy (synonymy between Lithuanian and international terms, variation between compound and elliptical terms, and so on). Third, unjustified terminological synonymy should be regarded as a defect in terminology and eliminated.

ŠALTINIAI

A — Aušra, Laikraštis, išleidžiamas per Dra. Bassanawicziu (1883—1886).

FTŽ I — Fizikos terminų žodynas. V., 1971. T. 1 (rotaprintas). — 418 p.

FTŽ II — Fizikos terminų žodynas. V., 1973. T. 2 (rotaprintas). — 970 p., papildymai 37 p.

FTŽ — Fizikos terminų žodynas. V., 1979. 677 p.

K — Keleivis iš Karaliaučiaus broliams lietuvininkams žinias parnešąs (1849—1879).

T — Terminai fizikos reikalams // Lietuva, 1923, 1924.

P — S. Neris. Populiariškas rankvedis fyzikos. V., 1905. 100 p.

PolŽ — Rusų—lietuvių kalbų politechnikos žodynas. V., 1984. 447 p.

55

ОЦЕНКА СИНОНИМИИ ПРИ УПОРЯДОЧЕНИИ ФИЗИКО-ТЕХНИЧЕСКОЙ ТЕРМИНОЛОГИИ

Резюме

Как в литовской, так и в зарубежной литературе к терминологии предъявляется ряд требований, которым должен соответствовать термин. Одним из таких требований является однозначность. Следовательно, наличие синонимов, т. е. различных терминов, которые выражают одно и то же понятие, является недопустимым. Однако данная синонимия в физико-технической терминологии наличествует, поэтому вышеупомянутое требование к термину правильнее было бы считать факультативным.

Факультативность данного требования должна основываться только на обоснованной терминологической синонимии (на синонимичности литовских и интернациональных терминов, вариантности, проявляющейся полными и краткими вариантами).

Необоснованная терминологическая синонимия является недостатком терминологии. Следовательно, она, как и любой другой недостаток, должна быть устранена.