„NEOTERM“ žurnalas ir terminologijos tarptautinimas

LKRS — Lietuvių kalbos rašyba ir skyryba. II pat. leid. V., 1989. LKŽ — Lietuvių kalbos žodynas. V., 1966. T. 7 (ir jo sutrumpinimai). L—LKŽ — Balkevičius J., Kabelka J. Latvių—lietuvių kalbų žodynas. V., 1977. L—LV — Bojatė A., Subatnieks V. Lietuviešu—latviešu vārdnīca. Rīga, 1964. LP — Ivanauskas T. Lietuvos paukščiai. V., 1955. T. 3. Lp — Logminas V. Lietuvos paukščiai. V., 1979. LPV — Ivanauskas T. Vadovėlis Lietuvos paukščiams apibūdinti. K., 1931. LRKŽ — Lietuvių rašomosios kalbos žodynas. Heidelberg, 1932—1968. T. 1—5. L—RKŽ — Lyberis A. Lietuvių—rusų kalbų žodynas: L—RKŽ₁. V., 1971; L—RKŽ₂. V., 1988. LTE — Lietuviškoji tarybinė enciklopedija. V., 1980. T. 6; 1981. T. 7; 1984. T. 12. MLTE — Mažoji lietuviškoji tarybinė enciklopedija. V., 1968. T. 2; 1971. T. 3. MRKŽ — Mokomasis lietuvių kalbos rašybos ir kirčiavimo žodynas / Sudarė P. Kniūkšta ir A. Lyberis. II leid. K., 1986. PP — Ivanauskas T. Pasaulio paukščiai. V., 1971. R—LKŽ — Rusų—lietuvių kalbų žodynas. V., 1982. T. 1 (Sudarė Ch. Lemchenas); V., 1983. T. 2 (Sudarė Ch. Lemchenas); V., 1985. T. 4 (Sudarė J. Kardelytė, Ch. Lemchenas, J. Macaitis, A. Mankevičienė). RŽ — Lietuvių kalbos rašybos žodynas. K., 1948. TLE — Tarybų Lietuvos enciklopedija. V., 1986. T. 2; V., 1988. T. 4. TZ — Mastaukis St. Taikomoji zoologija. K., 1947. ŽD — Skardžius P. Lietuvių kalbos žodžių daryba. V., 1941. Jonas Klimavičius “NEOTERM” JOURNAL AND THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF TERMINOLOGY INTERNATIONALIZATION IOUTN (International Organization for Unification of Terminological Neologisms)—the International Organization for Unification of Terminological Neologisms—was founded in Warsaw in 1982. Its founder was the writer, linguist, and translator Z. Stoberski. The organization brought together philologists, linguists, and other specialists from various fields interested in issues concerning the internationalization of terminology. The main principles and objectives of the organization’s work are set out in a special publication, “All about IOUTN” (“Everything about IOUTN”). Even the most prominent linguists often hold the view that neologistic terms should be coined only in the native language, while foreign terms—international terms—should be replaced with words from one’s own language. Guided by the principle “science is the property of humanity,” IOUTN proposes standardizing the form and meaning of terms. According to IOUTN, the internationalization of terminology would accelerate the exchange of scientific and technical information, which in turn would advance economic development. IOUTN cooperates with international organizations, terminology banks and terminology centers, academies of sciences and universities; it establishes its own committees in countries around the world, prepares and publishes multilingual dictionaries of specialized terms, and provides information on terminological issues. One of the organization’s most important objectives is to promote the use of international terms through mass media and specialized periodicals. 186 The principal IOUTN publication is the journal “NEOTERM,” which began publication in 1984 and appears once every three months. The editor-in-chief of this publication is IOUTN president Z. Stoberskis. Articles published in English and French explore theoretical and practical issues in terminology and examine various aspects of its internationalization. The publication contains more articles of a theoretical nature than of a practical one. Among the latter, one may mention Z. Stoberskis’s article “Theory and Practice of International Terminology” (5/6 — 1987, pp. 24—28), K. Lukaševičius’s “Physics Terms in Polish” (K. Lukaszewicz, 5/6 — 1987, pp. 38—41), and others. The journal publishes lists of international terms and neologisms in linguistics and physics. In these, linguists and terminologists from various countries provide international terms used or coined in their languages, or their equivalents. Thanks to K. Gaivenis, head of the Terminology Group of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and candidate of philological sciences, Lithuanian terms are included in these lists. “NEOTERM” also informs readers about forthcoming congresses, seminars, and symposia and briefly introduces the authors of its articles. In the first issue of “NEOTERM,” Z. Stoberskis’s article “The Global Process of Internationalizing Scientific Terms” (1 — 1984, pp. 3—9) examines the problems involved in the growing number of specialized international terms. A study of the history of the development of language and symbols showed that the process of disintegration and integration of all linguistic signs has deep roots. Processes in nature, society, and language—as a means of communication—follow the eternal law of disintegration and integration. As an example, he presents the history of the development of numerals. Numerals are linguistic signs once expressed by particular symbols; after many modifications, they evolved into the system of Arabic numerals, understood by speakers of all the world’s languages. The spread of international scientific terms is the result of an increase in the volume of scientific and technical information and in the rate at which it changes. T. Kožibskis, a professor at the Polish Academy of Sciences and a biochemist, observes in his article “The Standardization of Scientific Terminology” (T. Kožybski, 1 — 1984, pp. 16—20) that scientists’ efforts to create an artificial international language have not yielded the expected results. Such a language cannot form a logical, national, and phonetic and morphological system commensurate with the complex level of modern human thought. Since there is no universal medium suitable for international use—with English not yet having attained this status, and Greek and Latin having already lost it—T. Kožibskis believes this function could be performed by internationally standardized scientific and technical terms. Universality is an important condition for the internationalization of terms. The terminology of the humanities, however, tends to be limited to a single nation or culture and is more individual, making it harder to standardize. In his article, the author emphasizes that standardizing the terms of a particular field of science depends less on the number of their users than on the popularity of that field. Sometimes, owing to strong interest in a concept or object, the term denoting it crosses the boundaries of a narrow circle of specialists (this happened with the term isotope). The internationalization of terms also depends on the place a field of science occupies in terms of exactness. The terms of exact sciences, such as mathematics, are 187 standardized much more quickly than those of sociology or other branches of the humanities. In his paper “Internationalization of Terminology” (5/6 — 1987, pp. 11—18), delivered at the international terminology seminar in Addis Ababa, Z. Stoberskis sought to explain the essence and benefits of this process to his opponents. To writers and philosophers who, appealing to patriotic feelings, claim that international terms pollute the national language—the nation’s inviolable cultural heritage—he recalled that specialized terminology is the scientific heritage not of one nation but of all humanity. With scientific and technical information constantly changing, standardized terminology is particularly useful to developing countries with several national languages and many dialects. To linguists who believe that international words are incompatible with the rules of the national language, especially its phonetics, Z. Stoberskis presents the IOUTN principles. When borrowing a neologism, one must preserve the same concept, root, and definition. Every language has the right to use foreign words according to its own phonetic and grammatical rules. When a new term appears, the question arises as to what to use in one’s own language: a direct loan, a “ready-made” neologism, or a calque formed on the model of another language. This problem is discussed in the previously mentioned article by Z. Stoberskis, “The Global Process of Internationalizing Scientific Terms” (1 — 1984, pp. 3—9). In his view, calques are often inaccurate, distort information, and give rise to false associations. International terms with a single root and a single definition, on the other hand, are supposedly more universal and readily recognizable when reading scientific literature in a foreign language, even without knowing it well. In “A Neologism in One’s Own Language or a Loanword” (B. Walczak, 5/6 — 1987, pp. 48—56), B. Valčakas, a linguist at the University of Poznań, examines the same problem from linguistic and extralinguistic perspectives. From a linguistic point of view, it is impossible to determine which term—an international one or one in the native language—better performs the functions of terminology. From an extralinguistic point of view, international terms have an undeniable advantage. Even so, they should not be used indiscriminately; attention must be paid to such factors as the terminological traditions of the scientific and technical field, and the nature and purpose of the text in which the term is used (a scientific text, a popular-science text, or a school textbook). It is also important to remember that native terms become established in usage much faster than foreign ones. In his article “The Development of Polish Terminology” (3/4 — 1985, pp. 15—25), the same B. Valčakas observes that a word newly appearing in a language may be: 1) a coinage (a derivative or compound), 2) a loan (direct or calqued), 3) a neosemanticism, or 4) an onomatopoeic formation. According to B. Valčakas, the origins of scientific and technical terms are the same, with the exception of onomatopoeia. The author goes on to distinguish two main sources of lexical items: an internal one, for creating coinages and neosemanticisms, and an external one, for forming loans. In his article “The Structure of Scientific and Technical Terms” (O. A. Wojtasiewicz, 11/12 — 1988, pp. 6—9), Professor O. A. Vojtasevičius of the University of Warsaw describes the syntactic structure of compound terms by applying simple rules. Words 188 Word-formation methods are linguists’ favorite object of study, while problems concerning the syntactic structure of terms are often forgotten. All the more so since, according to rough estimates, as many as 95% of the 1 million scientific and technical terms in Polish consist of several words. In her article “Defining Terms” (3/4 — 1985, pp. 12—15), Polish scholar A. Topulos argues that a neologism used as a term is very often assigned an entirely different meaning. Only the conscious work of terminologists can prevent such uncontrolled changes in meaning. A reader of a term’s definition (the recipient of information) sometimes understands the concept differently from the way its author (the sender of information) seeks to present it. This can happen through the fault of either the reader or the author. Examining this process from the perspective of the “sender of information,” A. Topulos believes that defects in terms arise because the definition used as the basis for creating the term also had shortcomings. The author then distinguishes three types of definition: synthetic, analytical, and indirect regulatory. A synthetic definition is the most suitable for a neologism used as a term. When new theories take shape, new concepts emerge. In some cases, they are defined first and named only afterward; in others, the reverse is true. In either case, it is important that the definition correspond to the concept. In seeking to define a concept, an author may describe an entirely different meaning. This happens because, when expressing thoughts in writing or speech, people translate them from their own semantic language, and errors are difficult to avoid in such translation (and not only in such translation). Very rarely is the creator of a new term also the author of its definition. The creator is usually unknown. Today it would be impossible to identify the author of the concept of a spacecraft. The designers of spacecraft are in no way the creators of the concept. The concept emerged together with humanity’s oldest dreams of flying into space. Some time after the concept emerged, the term spacecraft appeared in various kinds of literature, especially science fiction. In fiction, such craft were usually piloted by people. Perhaps this is why the definition that appeared somewhat later reflected the concept of a spacecraft only in part, leaving out the fact that spacecraft can also be uncrewed. The author of the definition simply failed to analyze all the ways in which the term was used. Although construction of the very first spacecraft had only just begun, the concept of a spacecraft had already taken root in people’s minds. Thus, such a term called for a regulatory rather than a synthetic definition. V. Akulenka, vice-president of the Terminology Committee of the Academy of Sciences of Ukraine and Doctor of Philology, defines international lexical elements in his article “International Lexical Elements and the Internationalization of Terminology” (7/8 — 1987, pp. 11—15) as homologous (i.e., similar in meaning and form) diamorphemes, dialexemes, and diaphrasemes. He uses these terms for similar morphemes, words, and phrases used in two languages. Polyelements (i.e., polymorphemes, etc.) are international lexical elements used in several languages. V. Akulenka notes that in terminology, identity of meaning among international elements is essential. Similarities of form may be external or internal with respect to the linguistic sign; therefore, one must distinguish written and spoken forms, as well as different kinds of motivation—structural, semantic, and phonetic. Hence, one must distinguish writ- 189 ten and spoken forms, as well as different kinds of motivation—structural, semantic, and phonetic. Having examined the possible combinations, V. Akulenka concluded that both in general language and in terminology there are seven types of international elements: S i m i l a r i t i e s: Types meaning spoken form written form motivation I 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 0 III 1 1 0 1 IV 1 0 1 1 V 1 1 0 0 VI 1 0 1 0 VII 1 0 0 1 The table shows that Type I international elements have the highest degree of internationality, while Type III has the lowest. In contemporary international communication, especially in science and technology, similarities in written form are much more important than those in spoken form. The properties of spoken and written forms matter when a language has its own distinctive alphabet (Armenian, Georgian) or a hieroglyphic script. All types of international elements exist in modern languages; two of them—IV and VI—are found in Far Eastern languages. Examples of these types follow. I. English airport, French aeroport, Spanish aeropuerto, Italian aeroporto, Russian аэропорт, Polish aeroport, Lithuanian aeroportas, etc. Words of this type have the same meaning, similar spoken and written forms, and the same motivation (“air” — “port, haven”). II. English atom, French atome, German Atom, Spanish atomo, Italian atomo, Russian атом, Polish atom. Words belonging to Type II international elements have a common meaning and similar external forms (spoken and written), but do not have the same motivation. III. English telegraph, Georgian (telegraphi), Hindi (teligraf), Urdu (teligraf). The words have the same meaning, similar spoken forms, and common motivation, but completely different written forms. IV. Chinese (bai van), Japanese (hyaku man), Korean (pen man), “million.” Words of this type of international elements have the same hieroglyphic form and motivation, but different pronunciations. V. Russian метр, Georgian metri, Armenian metr, Hindi mitar. All aspects except the written form are similar. VI. Chinese (putao), Japanese (budo), “grapes.” Words of this type of international elements share an unmotivated hieroglyphic form. VII. The German word Lufthansa, the Danish lufthaven, the Japanese (kuko), and the Urdu (havai bandar gah) have the same meaning, “airport,” and the same motivation (“air” — “port, haven”). 190 V. Akulenka divides the world’s most highly developed languages into 5 regions: Europe–America, the USSR, the Near and Middle East, South Asia, and East Asia. In the formation of international terms, Greek and Latin had the greatest influence in the 1st region, Russian in the 2nd, Arabic and Persian in the 3rd, Sanskrit and Pali in the 4th, and Japanese and Old Chinese in the 5th. The article by H. Jadacka, a terminologist at the University of Warsaw, “On the Role of the Linguist and Terminologist” (H. Jadacka, 11/12 — 1988, pp. 9—16), discusses the linguist’s role in the process of term formation. The creation of scientific and technical terms is not a spontaneous process, but the conscious activity of a group of specialists. A word or grammatical form that enters common-language usage is governed by the principle: usus linguarum tyrannus. Here, any efforts by the linguist are fruitless. In terminology, the linguist’s work begins as soon as a neologism appears. H. Jadacka draws on M. Mazur’s article “Technical Terminology,” which distinguishes 4 criteria for a term’s correctness: 1) an adequate relationship between the term and the object it denotes (referent), 2) the term’s relationship to the terminology system of a particular field, 3) the perfection of its linguistic form, 4) effectiveness (operativeness). The principle of adequacy means: 1) correspondence between a term’s meaning and form, 2) univocality of the term, 3) homogeneity. It is important that a linguistic form have only one meaning, and vice versa. Otherwise, such terminological flaws as polysemy and synonymy may arise. The relationship of a new term to the terminology system can be examined from a linguistic perspective, that is, according to the principles of productivity and homogeneity. A term is productive when other derived words can be formed from it. According to the second principle, in terms of its formation, a new term must be homogeneous with the terms used in the same field of science. According to the author, perfection of a term’s form requires an emotionally neutral user attitude toward the object being expressed. Neutrality can be achieved through careful word choice and by avoiding word-formation methods suited to colloquial language, diminutives, or augmentatives. The article by J. Pienkos, professor at the University of Warsaw and chairman of the Polish Translators’ Association, “Is Terminology a New Branch of Science?” (J. Pieńkos, 7/8 — 1987, pp. 25—37) observes that terminology plays a particularly significant role in the translation of both fiction and scholarly literature. Often in a hurry, the translator tries to coin neologisms or calques. In creating new terms, the linguist must adhere to the principles of universality, internationality, uniformity, correspondence, effectiveness, precision, and comprehensibility. To conclude, a few words about the advantages and disadvantages of “NEOTERM.” The journal introduces readers to IOUTN, its activities and objectives, and presents the principles and methods of international terminology. In my opinion, the publication avoids presenting as many conflicting opinions as possible and provoking discussion. The views expressed in the journal are rather one-sided, with most attention devoted to the internationalization of terminology and its promotion. 191 “NEOTERM” should interest linguists and terminologists. They will agree with some things and disagree with others, but they will certainly reflect on how to preserve the national distinctiveness of Lithuanian terminology amid this global current of term internationalization. Rosita Pundytė 1985–1990 TERMINOLOGY DICTIONARIES This annotated index presents terminology dictionaries published in Lithuania from 1985 to 1990. The material was collected from the “Press Chronicle” (1985–1990) and library catalogues. All the dictionaries presented here have been examined. Each dictionary entry provides the following information: 1) the languages covered; 2) the type (explanatory, bilingual or multilingual, etc.); 3) the extent; 4) the arrangement of terms (nested—unnested; systematic—alphabetical); 5) whether it is accented or unaccented; 6) whether it has been reviewed by the Terminology Group of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language (formerly the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature), and whether incorrect terms, calques, barbarisms, etc., have found their way into it; 7) the intended use of the dictionary or glossary. Note. The titles use the terms dictionary and glossary inconsistently. In some cases, a substantial publication (220 pages or more) is called a glossary, whereas elsewhere a small publication (about 40 pages) is called a dictionary. In describing dictionaries and glossaries, an effort has been made to distinguish between these terms. 1985 Explanation of the Terms and Concepts of Dialectical Materialism: (Teaching aid for LVKKI students) / Lithuanian State Institute of Physical Education, Department of Marxism-Leninism. Comp. J. Jaselskis. Kaunas: LVKKI, 1985. 52 p. This monolingual explanatory glossary contains more than 180 of the most commonly used philosophical terms. The glossary is not limited to brief explanations of terms; it provides considerable information on the history of various phenomena, names their leading representatives, and so on. For many terms, their origin and original meaning are also given. The terms in the glossary are arranged alphabetically. The dictionary is unaccented; it has not been reviewed by the Terminology Group. It is intended for students of the Lithuanian State Institute of Physical Education studying dialectical materialism. Dictionary of Electrical Engineering, Galvanotechnics and Corrosion Terms (Lithuanian, Russian, English, German and French): Draft for discussion / Chemistry and Chemical Technology Institute of the Lithuanian SSR Academy of Sciences. Comp. A. Bernotas, J. Bubelis, J. Matulis, V. Skominas, R. Šližys, G. Tomkevičius, R. Višomirskis. Vilnius: [ChChTI], 1985. [D] 1. 208 p. The dictionary is in five languages (Lithuanian, Russian, English, German and French); it is bilingual or multilingual. 192