LIETUVIŲ LEKSIKOS IR TERMINOLOGIJOS PROBLEMOS

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, XXIX (1991)

KAZIMIERAS GAIVENIS

ON THE QUESTION OF THE IMAGERY OF LITHUANIAN TERMS

1. Introductory remarks

1. 1. The most characteristic features of scientific language are abstraction, logic, objectivity, precision, and so on. Expressiveness and imagery are not among the most important general features of scientific language. For this reason, it was thought that emotional-expressive connotation was entirely uncharacteristic of scientific language and terminology. However, the idea that scientific language is not completely stylistically neutral, and that it has distinctive features of emotional-expressive connotation, began to be advanced long ago (Кожина, 1971, 32; Калмыкова, 1974, 83—88; Сенкевич, 1976, 46—109). In scientific language, we will find almost no expressive words marked in general dictionaries with special stylistic labels, e.g.: fam. (familiar), iron. (ironic), juok. (jocular), malon. (affectionate), menk. (derogatory), niek. (contemptuous), vulg. (vulgarism), and so on. Thus, neither marked melioratives nor pejoratives are characteristic of scientific language. Very few idioms are used in it, and figurative meanings of words are relatively limited in variety. In other functional styles, strongly connoted words are often used quite differently in scientific language. For example, onomatopoeic interjections are either not used at all in scientific texts or, in some genres and subsystems, serve only a special naming (nominative) function (e.g., the description of bird calls in scientific ornithological literature).

Emocinė-ekspresinė konotacija laikyta ir mokslo kalbos yda (Панфилов, 1968, 26; Лаптева, 1968, 136—139 ir kt.). Antra vertus, buvo ir tebėra kalbininkų, kurie mokslo kalbos emocinę-ekspresinę konotaciją energingai gina, tvirtindami, kad ji reikalinga mokslo kalbos paveikumui, kad mokslininkas negali būti vien tik faktų konstatuotojas, bet turi būti ir jų vertintojas (Сенкевич, 1976, 29 ir kt.). Šis reikalavimas ypač pabrėžiamas kalbant apie visuomenės mokslų kalbos specifiką. Nepritardami kraštutinėms nuomonėms šiuo klausimu, manytume, kad teisus M. Senkevičius, teigęs, kad emocingumo ir ekspresyvumo elementai nėra vidinė ir būtina mokslo kalbos ypatybė (Сенкевич, 1976, 32). Šis dalykas tik leistinas ir toleruotinas tam tikrose ribose.

Emotional-expressive connotation in scientific language also depends on the individuality of the author (scientist): researchers in the same specialty and with equivalent qualifications write in quite different ways—one more vividly and expansively, another more dryly and concisely. Thus, it can be asserted that the expressiveness of scientific language is determined by both objective and subjective factors.

In discussing the role of emotional-expressive connotation in scientific language, it should also be emphasized that it is connected with the modality of scientific language and, in the broadest sense, with anthropocentrism.

26

1.2. The content of a word’s lexical meaning consists of two parts—the intensional (the core of lexical meaning) and the implicational (the periphery of semantic features) (Никитин, 1983, 24). In addition, in linguistic semantics it is now customary to analyze lexical meanings in terms of semes—the smallest units of meaning. The set of semes is not a simple but an ordered aggregate. Some researchers maintain that a hierarchy of semes exists: the most abstract and general (categorical) semes are at the top, and the most concrete at the bottom (Гудавичюс, 1985, 19 and others). Some researchers associate emotional-expressive connotation with the implicational of lexical meaning, or even exclude it from lexical meaning altogether, treating it as a certain superstratum of lexical meaning; others not only distinguish emotionality from expressiveness but also subdivide the latter into types (inherent and adherent expressiveness). Without delving into the subtleties of the structure of lexical meaning or differences of opinion on this issue, this article will discuss only matters related to terminology, adopting the view that terminological meaning forms part of a word’s lexical meaning as a set of specialized semes. Thus, this article will discuss mainly one thing—the lexical (terminological) expression of emotional-expressive connotation and its principal features in Lithuanian scientific language.

2. The expression of emotional-expressive connotation in terminology

2.1. It is commonly held that the lexicon of scientific language consists of three layers: the vocabulary of the literary language, general scientific vocabulary, and terminology. The latter is also heterogeneous. We can distinguish general scientific, interscientific, and specialized scientific terminology. In addition, terminology is supplemented by nomenclature and professionalisms. In scientific language, nouns and noun-based constructions predominate overall. In M. Senkevičius’s view, stylistic devices such as personification, hyperbole, and allegory are not used in scientific language, whereas comparisons and synecdoches are fairly common (Сенкевич, 1976, 56). E. Kalmykova has argued that metaphors are used in a very distinctive way in scientific language. The duality of semantic metaphor (to name an object and to characterize it) is supposedly uncharacteristic of the scientific style. Here, only the communicative, informative, and nominative functions of metaphor come into play (Калмыкова, 1974, 83). E. Kalmykova’s view is only partly correct: in some subsystems of scientific language, the distinctive function of terms overshadows their nominative function. As a result, metaphor acquires marked expressive features (this will be discussed later, in connection with terms in systematics). Metaphors expressed through common vocabulary and general scientific vocabulary enter scientific language very rarely. Much more often, emotional-expressive connotation in scientific language is associated with various comparisons, since analogy is one of the most important modes of scientific thought.

S. Nikitina divides metaphors in scientific language into several groups: 1) those based on the transfer of traditional meanings according to external features or functions (not all linguists consider such transfers of meaning to be metaphors); 2) nominative and predicative metaphors; 3) epiphors and diaphors (Никитина, 1987, 37). In her view, nominative metaphors are used most frequently in scientific language. These metaphors are the first-

27

…names: scientific objects have no other names. In this respect, scientific metaphors differ from poetic metaphors.

Those researchers (M. Senkevičius et al.) who claim that the expressiveness of a word or phrase fades when it is terminologized or used for a long time in terminology are probably mistaken. In fact, terms such as: ram’s foreheads (geomorphology), saddle (geomorphology, mathematics), cat’s eye (mineralogy), cap (meteorology), worm (technology), witch’s broom (botany), harebells (plant systematics), snail (animal and human anatomy), and so on, retain (possess) their expressiveness, because some of them (e.g., saddle, cap, worm, snail) acquire emotional-expressive connotations along with terminologization, whereas others (e.g., witch’s broom, harebells) do not lose them through terminologization, since only their lexical meaning changes, acquiring terminological semantic features. Admittedly, the motivation and, more generally, the inner form of terms used for a long time fade, but in our view their expressiveness remains in many cases.

Literary language and general scientific vocabulary often become figurative when words are used with unusual meanings or when words from one style are transferred to another. Writers often sense the stylistic macaronism of such words and try to set them apart with quotation marks, e.g.: “grafted” polymers, the “resuscitation” of old towns, the cow’s “face,” and so on. This enlivening of scientific language is in fact associated not with an effort to achieve vividness, but with the writers’ linguistic incompetence and inability to find the appropriate, more neutral and precise word. Specialists sometimes also find it difficult to avoid slang and professional jargon in scientific language, which are likewise often distinctive in their vividness and expressiveness.

2.2. Prof. J. Pikčilingis has observed that synonymous forms used in technical work differ in emotionality and expressiveness. For example, the suffix -ybė expresses a property of an object conveyed by the corresponding adjective more strongly than the suffix -umas, while corresponding ending-derived forms are supposedly more poetic than both of the aforementioned types of derivatives (Pikčilingis, 1975, 31). In P. Kniūkšta’s view, adjectives with the suffix -inis are drier and more rational than noun genitives (Kniūkšta, 1971, 14). S. Keinys has observed that in terminology, entities named by diminutive derivatives are generally smaller than entities of the same kind denoted by the base nouns (Keinys, 1975, 46). For example, the terminologized words gaubtas and gaubtelis, graižas and graiželis, juosta and juostelė, lakštas and lakštelis, plokštė and plokštelė, and so forth. It is clear that the diminutives in these pairs are emotive and expressive. Thus, it cannot be claimed that functional connotations are entirely disregarded in terminology. Moreover, from a terminological standpoint, it is also important that a derivative or borrowing should not be ridiculous, vulgar, or misleadingly associative. The history of scientific language and terminology offers many examples of neologisms that failed to take root, chiefly because they had a pronounced emotional-expressive connotation. The linguistics terms asmenavimas, riestinis (a stress mark) once readily displaced the neologisms lankstymas, stoglytis, probably because the latter were overly vivid. For the same reason, the compound terms for plant morphology coined by J. Pabrėža—rėpliojanti šaknis, apuokuotas lapas, kryžinė karūna, and so on—were replaced with more neutral terms, palaipinė šaknis, pūkuotasis lapas, kryžminis vainikėlis, and so on. In general, our scientific language and

28

at the beginning of the development of terminology (19th–early 20th century), figurative names were used much more extensively. Figurative terms are now generally not avoided in terminology where the distinguishing (distinctive) function of terms is more important than their naming (nominative) function. For instance, expressive terms are often coined in systematic nomenclature, because distinguishing one plant or animal species from another often involves vivid comparisons, e.g.: fingered sedge (Carex digitata), horseshoe bats (Rhinolophidae), crested fern (Dryopteris cristata), eared willow (Salix aurita), helmet orchid (Orchis militaris), and so on. Such terms are usually (in about three quarters of cases) not original, but translated from Latin or Russian. Figurative qualities in systematic terms are also unavoidable when the distinguishing feature is the impression made on the researcher by the plant or animal being named, or when some feature of a plant or animal is assessed subjectively, e.g.: superb pink (Dianthus superbus L.), graceful lime (Tilia x euchlora), sad dame’s-violet (Hesperis tristis L.), slender cottongrass (Sriophorum gracile), intoxicating ryegrass (Lolium temulentum), false oat (Avena strigosa), and so on. Such terms are clearly figurative, and their figurativeness is deliberately created in scientific language. In other cases, figurativeness is transferred into scientific language from folk speech (by terminologizing expressive folk names), e.g.: houseleek (Sempervivum L.), swinecress (Coronopus), morel (Morchella), helvella (Helvella), avens (Gerum), quaking grass (Briza media), and so on.

In the terminology of technology, astronomy, chemistry, medicine, and other fields, figurative terms are most often international calques, e.g.: swallowtail (cf. Russian ласточкин хвост, English swallow tale), harelip (cf. Russian заячья губа, Latin labium leporinum), dew point (cf. Russian точка росы, English dew point, German Taupunkt), and others.

2.3. The language of the social sciences has distinctive features of emotional-expressive connotation. It contains no vivid bahuvrihi-type terms created on the basis of synecdoche, which, as we have seen, are highly characteristic of systematic nomenclature. International phraseological calques are also rare in this field. However, terms in philosophy, politics, and literary studies often have distinctive ideological semantic features, associated not with the form of a concept but with the emotional-expressive connotations of its content.

The figurativeness of a scientific text may also be occasional.

2.4. Figurativeness in scientific language can be of two kinds: fragmentary and synthetic. So far, we have mainly discussed fragmentary (single-word or phrase-level) figurativeness. Synthetic figurativeness arises when a researcher, describing the object under study in great detail, seems to construct an overall image of it. Such descriptions are particularly characteristic of guides to identifying animals or plants. For example, here is how the image of black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) is constructed in P. Snarskis and V. Galinis’s “Guide to the Identification of Lithuania’s Ornamental Trees and Shrubs” (V., 1974):

“Trees with staminate flowers; those with pistillate flowers occur very rarely. There are 40–60 stamens. The ovary, capsule, and perianth are densely hairy. The capsule opens into three valves. Current-year shoots are dark or greenish-brown and ridged. Leaves are ovate, rhomboid—

29

when ovate, oblong or generally rhomboid, broadly lanceolate or oblong-triangular, 7–14 cm long and 4–9 cm wide, with a rounded, upright-truncate, slightly cordate or cuneate base, gradually tapering toward the apex, finely toothed, at least when young with ciliate margins, firm, leathery, dark green or green, with a glossy upper surface and a white or grayish-white, sometimes brown-tinged lower surface; young leaves are hairy, older ones glabrous, often with reddish veins. Petioles 2–6 cm long, hairy at least when young, often red. Buds up to 1.2 cm long, sticky, fragrant. Young leaves are fragrant too, especially their midrib. The bark of the young trunk peels off in thin flakes. The crown is broad, etc.” (pp. 53–54).

This description is constructed according to a specific scheme, following the rules for describing plant morphology.

Instances of synthetic imagery are also found in works of literary studies and art history.

3. Išvados

3.1. Emotional-expressive connotation in the language of science is faint and rare. It is associated with the modality of scientific language and, in the broadest sense, with anthropocentrism. Figurative language is not an essential feature of scientific language, but is permissible and tolerable only within certain limits. Its role varies not only among the languages of different scientific disciplines, but also across their genres. Figurative language in scientific discourse may be of two kinds: fragmentary and synthetic.

3.2. Emotional-expressive connotation is related to the nature of a word’s lexical meaning. Words or their combinations acquire a figurative seme in folk language or in terminology. Terminologization does not eliminate emotional-expressive connotation, but excessive or misleading figurativeness in a word may hinder its terminologization.

3.3. Features of emotional-expressive connotation may be present in all three lexical layers of scientific language—literary vocabulary, general scientific vocabulary, and terminology—and in all three groups of terminology—general scientific, interdisciplinary, and specialized scientific terminology. The stylistic expression of emotional-expressive connotation in scientific language is mainly associated with various comparisons. Terms acquire emotional and expressive features especially when their distinctive (distinctive) function is foregrounded.

LITERATŪRA

Keinys S. Priesaginė lietuviškų terminų daryba // Lietuvių terminologija. V., 1975.

Kniūkšta P. Ar poetiška priesaga -inis. // Mūsų kalba, 1971. Nr. 2. P. 14.

Pikčilingis J. Lietuvių kalbos stilistika. V., 1975. T. 2.

Гудавичюс А. Сопоставительная семасиология литовского и русского языков. Вильнюс, 1985.

Калмыкова Е. И. О динамике метафоры в научном стиле // Филологические науки. 1974. № 2.

Кожина М. К. К проблеме экспрессивности в научной речи // Исследования по стилистике. Пермь, 1971. Вып. 3.

30

Лаптева О. А. Внутристилевая эволюция современной русской научной прозы // Развитие функциональных стилей современного русского языка. М., 1968.

Никитин М. В. Лексическое значение слова. М., 1983.

Никитина С. Е. Семантический анализ языка науки. М., 1987.

Сенкевич М. П. Стилистика научной речи и литературное редактирование научных произведений. М., 1976.

К. ГАЙВЯНИС

К ВОПРОСУ ОБ ОБРАЗНОСТИ ЛИТОВСКИХ ТЕРМИНОВ

Резюме

Эмоционально-экспрессивная коннотация — малозаметная особенность языка науки. Она связана с его модальностью, а в общем смысле — с антропоцентризмом. Экспрессивность, образность и вообще стилистическая окрашенность — не внутренняя, существенная, а только внешняя, допустимая особенность языка науки. Ее роль не одинакова не только в отдельных отраслях, но и в отдельных научных жанрах. Образность языка науки бывает двух видов: фрагментарная (отдельного слова или словосочетания) и синтетическая (более крупных текстовых единиц, напр., абзаца и т. д.).

Эмоционально-экспрессивная коннотация связана с лексическим значением слова. Сему образности слова или словосочетания получают в народном языке или в терминологии. Терминологизация не нейтрализует и не стирает эмоционально-экспрессивную коннотацию. Однако слишком большая или ложно ориентирующая образность слова может быть помехой в его терминологизации.

Все основные группы терминолексики — общенаучная, межнаучная и конкретно-научная терминология — обладают специфическими чертами эмоционально-экспрессивной коннотации. Термины образными становятся особенно тогда, когда актуализируется их дистинктивная функция, напр., в систематике растений и животных (ср. paukščiažolė viksva — Carex ornithopoda — осока лапчатая, šalmuotoji gegužraibė — Orchis militaris — ятрышник шлемоносный и др.)

36