MOKSLO KALBOS KULTŪROS IR TERMINOLOGIJOS PROBLEMOS

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, XXIV(1985)

I

ЛЮБОВЬ АДАМОВНА АНТОНЮК

LINGUISTIC STANDARDIZATION OF BELARUSIAN SCIENTIFIC TERMINOLOGY AND THE PROBLEMS OF INTERNATIONALIZING TERMINOLOGICAL VOCABULARY

The linguistic aspect of terminology standardization, which ensures the correct linguistic form of terms, is closely connected with the concept of norms in terminology and with the concept of the culture of scientific writing as a whole.

The degree to which terminology conforms to norms is determined primarily by how well the methods and models for forming terms correspond to the methods and models of word formation in the national language and to the main trends in the development of terminological vocabulary.

The most important condition for standardizing terminological vocabulary is to transform practical term formation, which is largely spontaneous, into a managed process and to consciously regulate variant word-formation pairs. In Belarusian scientific terminology, these are variant pairs with the suffixes -льнік/-цель: узмацняльнік — узмацніцель “amplifier,” напаўняльнік — напаўніцель “filler”; -льнік/-чык (-щик): пагрузальнік — пагрузчык “loader”; -льнік/-нік: аднаўляльнік — адноўнік “restorer,” and so on.

Distinguishing between the sphere of recording (dictionaries, collections of recommended terms, terminological standards) and the sphere in which scientific terms function (scientific monographs, articles, abstracts, summaries, reports, popular science and educational publications), we note that the relatively short period of active development of Belarusian terminology and the rapid development of the sciences during the scientific and technological revolution have their greatest impact on the linguistic form of terms in the sphere of use—that is, in their practical application across various genre and stylistic types of scientific texts.

In conditions of rapid term formation, Belarusian scientific texts are characterized by a high degree of terminological synonymy: стойкасць — устойлівасць “stability”; знешні — вонкавы — знадворны “external”; назапашванне — назапашэнне — накопление “accumulation”; раскладанне — разлажэнне — распад “decomposition”; утрыманне — змяшчэнне “content”; араматычныя вуглевадароды — водарныя вуглевадароды “aromatic hydrocarbons”; адбіццё — адлюстраванне “reflection.”

5

Cases of word-formation variation are no less frequent: цепланосбыт — цепланасіцель “heat carrier”; выпрамяненне — выпрамянанне “radiation”; адкладанні — адклады “deposits”; рэзальныя — рэзучыя “cutting,” etc. Cases of divergence in the phonetic and morphological adaptation of borrowed terms are frequent: цітрацыя — цытрацыя — цітраванне — цытраванне — тытрацыя — тытраванне “titration”; дыацылаты ртуці — дыяцылаты ртуці “mercury diacylates”; дэфарміраванне — дэфармаванне “deformation.”

The optimal choice of a terminological variant can be achieved only by taking into account the productivity of word-formation models in the word-formation system of the standard language, trends in the development of terminological vocabulary, the affinity of suffixes for certain stem types, the word-formation potential of terms, and so on. Thus, given the productivity of the suffix -льнік in Belarusian word formation, the terminological variants with this suffix should be considered preferable to those with the less productive suffix -цель when naming devices, mechanisms, and substances, e.g.: адбівальнік “reflector,” засцерагальнік “safety device,” паглынальнік “absorber,” паскаральнік “accelerator,” размеркавальнік “distributor,” узмацняльнік “amplifier.” While acknowledging the advantage of this term-formation model, one should nevertheless take into account the specific character of terms borrowed from Russian terminology with the suffix -цель, such as глушыцель, etc.

In addition to taking into account the productivity of term-formation models and the lexical and word-formation patterns of a given language, the linguistic shaping of scientific terms in national languages (so-called intralingual linguistic ordering) under contemporary conditions of active international scientific cooperation and the exchange of scientific information must take account of the international context of the language of science.

This requirement is primarily related to taking account of the ongoing process of internationalization and convergence of scientific terminology, and to the need for the international standardization of terminological vocabulary. As many Soviet specialists point out, the standardization of terminology and the international coordination of terminological work should become one of the pressing tasks of language policy¹.

The main direction in the development of the terminology of each language is the selection of the lexical resources of the national language and their formalization, turning them into terms. This direction would seem to be the one least associated with the process of international convergence and standardization and, apparently,

¹ Азимов И. А., Денериев Ю. Д., Никольский Л. Б., Степанов Г. В., Швейцер А. Д. Современное общественное развитие, научно-техническая революция и язык.— ВЯ, 1975, № 2, с. 5.

6

therefore was not considered by researchers from the proposed perspective. However, it should not be excluded from research precisely from this point of view. First, because the terminologization of the standard vocabulary of a national language is the principal method of term formation in the languages of the world; second, because certain patterns can be traced in this main direction of terminological development, patterns characteristic of all languages and therefore usable as a tool for the international standardization of terms. These are, first and foremost, general term-formation patterns, such as the structural and semantic motivation of derived terms, the specialization of term-forming morphemes, and others.

For example, a study of terms with the general meaning of an action or method of production shows that in inflectional languages, units of a single word-formation type—deverbal nouns—predominate among such terms; cf. Russian сверление, Belarusian свідраванне, English boring, German Bohrung; Russian выжигание, Belarusian выпальванне, English burning, German Ausbrennung, and others. This phenomenon is entirely закономерно, since deverbal noun terms generally realize meanings categorically inherent in the verb, in this case the meanings of an action or method of production.

Thus, since most derived terms are structurally and semantically motivated by their source units, a comparative study of the mechanism by which they are formed, based on correlating the corresponding semantic-syntactic constructions in different languages, is an urgent task for contemporary terminology and, in particular, for research in the field of international coordination of term formation.

According to researchers, “every one-word term, whether a derivative or a compound, must contain a term element indicating the category of concepts to which the concept being designated belongs”². Such a term element, which may alternatively be called a differentiating word-formation formant, combines with the motivating stem to form a new term.

In this respect, a frequently cited example among linguists applies fully to the language of science and, in particular, to terminology: it consists of meaningless “words” selected for their content, while preserving certain morphological forms and grammatical relations between words in the sentence; as a result, a native speaker can determine the general meaning of the phrase with considerable accuracy. In the same way, anyone with some knowledge of the grammatical system of Russian,

² Канделаки Т. Л. Об одном типе словаря международных терминоэлементов. — ФН, 1967, № 2, с. 38; см. также: Даниленко В. П. Русская терминология/Опыт лингвистического описания. — М.: Наука, 1977, с. 95 и др.

7

of Belarusian, English, German, and other languages will be able to understand the general meaning of a scientific statement (especially if they are specialists in the relevant field of knowledge and a certain proportion of the terminology is international). That is precisely why we repeatedly hear that a specialist who does not have a sufficient command of a particular language understands the general content of a scientific presentation heard in that language.

If we assess the entirely fair idea that every derived or compound word contains a term element indicating the category of concepts to which the designated concept belongs (the so-called differentiating formative) from the perspective of a comparative study of terminological word formation used to denote particular categories of concepts in different languages, then identifying general patterns in the relationship between such differentiating formatives and their systematization across languages is undoubtedly of interest. For example, a certain group of terms denoting an action or method of production exhibits the following correspondence among differentiating word-forming formatives: Russian -ние (сверление, выжигание), Belarusian -нне (свідраванне, выпальванне), English -ing (boring, burning), German -ung (Bohrung, Ausbrennung), and so on. In this case, the corresponding terms in each of the listed languages contain equivalent formatives: -ние, -нне, -ing, -ung. Thus, at this level too, we can trace the tendency toward the integration of terminology in the languages of the world noted in Z. Stoberski’s book³. A current task of international coordination in the field of term formation is to study this tendency and turn it into a deliberately managed process, a principle of term formation.

Studying the patterns of correspondence between differentiating formatives in the group of deverbal noun terms across different languages (волочение, точение, долбление, резание, сгибание, пробивание, опрыскивание, фрезерование, вальцевание, азотирование, науглероживание, and so on) could provide substantial material for typological research and the international standardization of terms. In this connection, we should recall the great practical importance of the section “International Scientific Terminology. Neologisms Toward Standardization,” published in the journal “Babel.” The parallel presentation of terminological equivalents in many languages makes it possible not only to establish the degree to which a neologism is international, but also to standardize its form in light of the international context. Thus, when Russian and Belarusian have two term-forming variants, -ация and -ирование (Russian декальцификация — декальцифицирова-

³ Stoberski Z. Międzynarodowa terminologia naukowa. Problemy. Postulaty. Oczekiwania.— Warszawa, 1982.

8

tion, inhibition — ингибирование; Belarusian дэ кальцыфікацыя — дэ кальцыфіцыраванне, інгібацыя — інгібіраванне, and so on) taking into account the predominant use in other languages of the international term element -ация (English -ation, French -ation, Italian -azione, Spanish -ación, Serbo-Croatian -acija, Slovak -acia, and so on) provides grounds for recognizing this term element as preferable to the element -ирование.

Consciously forming an international layer of terminological vocabulary is of primary importance for international cooperation among scholars and the exchange of scientific information.

The attention paid by figures in science, technology, and culture to the problem of international terminology grows every year. This is due, on the one hand, to the increasing need for international information exchange and, on the other, to multilingualism in the modern world. Traditional means of overcoming the language barrier—language learning and translation (let us note that the volume of translation nowadays increases by 15—20% annually)—cannot fully meet the needs of international scientific cooperation as joint research on many scientific problems expands and scientists from different countries make direct contact. This situation must be taken into account when systematizing the term systems of national languages and evaluating a given term not only in terms of intralingual factors but also from the standpoint of the international context of the language of science. It has been observed that some terms that fully meet the requirements of their own language may not be optimal from an international perspective, while a form that seems not entirely justified in a single language may prove justified in relation to other languages.

The International Committee for the Standardization of Terminological Neologisms (ICSTN) has achieved significant results in organizing efforts to form an international layer of scientific terms in various fields of knowledge. In particular, an effective means of standardizing terminology is the regular section “International Scientific Terminology. Neologisms Toward Standardization,” prepared mainly by members of the ICSTN and published in the journal “Babel,” the publication of the International Federation of Translators, with the support of UNESCO.

It seems that the very working principle of this section—promptly circulating lists of new terminology in particular fields of knowledge, in one of the ICSTN’s working languages, to its members in UNESCO member countries and receiving equivalents for these terms in the corresponding languages—can be regarded not only as a positive experience in this field, but also as an optimal way of collecting and disseminating information of this kind.

9

It should also be noted that there is a pressing need to standardize the very large number of international terms that are not “pure” internationalisms (i.e., words that have become international without substantial change), but consist of international morphemes. An example is the considerable number of terms denoting an action, process, or production in Russian and Belarusian that include borrowed root morphemes which are international (at least within the European area).

These are mainly derivatives of non-prefixed verbs: dorning (from German Dorn “metallic spike, mandrel”)—“forcing a steel rod (mandrel) or ball through a pre-machined hole with a slight interference fit in order to calibrate and strengthen it and reduce the surface roughness of the holes in components”; cladding (from French plaquer “to cover”)—“applying a thin layer of another metal to the surface of metal sheets”; honing (English honing, from hone “to hone,” literally “to sharpen”)—“finishing the surface of workpieces using a special tool—a honing stone”; scraping (from German Schaber, from schaben “to scrape”)—“finishing a surface by removing a thin shaving with a scraper”; shaving (English shaving, from shave “to shave, scrape”)—in mechanical engineering, “finishing the side surfaces of gears,” etc.⁴ In Belarusian, respectively: дарнаванне, плакіраванне, ханінгаванне, шабрэнне, шэвінгаванне.

⁴ Definitions of the terms are taken from: Polytechnic Dictionary, ed. by Academician I. I. Artobolevsky.—Moscow: Sovetskaya Entsiklopediya, 1976.—607 pp.