О критериях выделения лексических интернационализмов (преимущественно евроязычного ареала)

MOKSLO KALBOS KULTŪROS IR TERMINOLOGIJOS PROBLEMOS LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, XXIV(1985) O. Bush, Juris Baldunčikis ON THE CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFYING LEXICAL INTERNATIONALISMS (PREDOMINANTLY OF THE EUROPEAN-LANGUAGE AREA)1) The modern era, the era of the scientific and technological revolution, is characterized by a very substantial quantitative increase and functional expansion of the layer of so-called international vocabulary in almost all developed languages (languages in which purist sentiments are traditionally strong, such as Icelandic, Finnish, and Hungarian, are something of an exception, but even these languages cannot remain entirely outside the prevailing trend). The process of internationalization of vocabulary has been particularly active over the last 20–30 years. The most serious attempts at a linguistic interpretation of international vocabulary also date from this period. The initial intuitive sense of the distinctive nature of this lexical layer has given way to intensive linguistic study of it. Successful scholarly analysis, however, requires a clear understanding of the boundaries of the object being analyzed. This is not yet the case with lexical internationalisms: views on the criteria for identifying this layer differ not only among different authors but often among different works by one and the same linguist. A partial but telling picture of these differences can be obtained by comparing definitions of internationalisms in encyclopedias (BSE, BelSE, LPE) or, for example, by examining the differing interpretations of the object of study offered by the authors of a collective monograph devoted to internationalisms 2 (V. V. Akulenko, Yu. A. Zhluktenko, E. G. Tumanyan, and others). Of course, all definitions of internationalisms also share certain elements, reflecting the principal feature of words in this category—the familiar commonality of external form and semantic content among corresponding lexemes in different languages. Such a formulation accords with the semi-intuitive understanding of the essence of lexical inter- 1 The designation “European-language area” more accurately reflects the nature of the phenomenon than the terms usually used in the same sense—“European area” or “European-American area.” 2 Интернациональные элементы в лексике и терминологии.— Харьков: Вища школа, 1980.— 208 с. 34 nationalisms that has developed in linguistics by the present time (and may to some extent be called the invariant underlying the various definitions). The disagreements mainly concern more specific points; nevertheless, it is precisely these that determine the boundaries of international vocabulary and the possibility of formulating more or less precise criteria for recognizing and identifying it. The vagueness of these boundaries greatly complicates scholarly understanding of this lexical layer, and the authors of the article have therefore undertaken another attempt to clarify them (drawing on experience in studying the languages of relatively small peoples). This required seeking solutions to several more specific questions: 1) the relationship between inherited and borrowed elements in international vocabulary; 2) the areal characteristics of international vocabulary, including the definition of the minimum extent of the distribution of internationalisms; 3) the thematic characteristics of international vocabulary, including clarification of the relationship between international and exotic vocabulary. V. V. Akulenko considers it possible to regard words in related languages that are similar in meaning and form as lexical internationalisms even when those words in all these languages belong to the genetically common vocabulary3. Thus, internationalisms of “closest distribution” could include, for example, Lithuanian irė ‘river’ and Latvian ire, or Estonian and Finnish рӓӓ ‘head’. This interpretation does not at all accord with the term’s internal form (etymology), but can hardly be considered expedient in view of the established scholarly conception of lexical internationalisms as predominantly borrowed words (cf. “...for each specific language system, internationalisms are predominantly borrowings...” — Yu. A. Zhluktenko4). At the same time, V. V. Akulenko’s idea is unquestionably justified and well-founded: such genetically related words with similar meaning and form should be distinguished as a special category, so that they can become the subject of specialized study. The model he proposes for forming the corresponding terms is also apt, e.g., inter-Slavisms, inter-Scandinavianisms, inter-Turkisms5; by analogy, designations such as inter-Baltisms, inter-Finnisms, and inter-Indo-Europeanisms can be formed. The same model can be used for words with similar meaning and form in several languages within a single state, e.g., inter-Yugoslavisms (but inter-South-Slavisms for genetically common words of the South Slavic languages), inter-Chinisms, and so on. In the same respect, perhaps one can also speak of inter-Sovietisms. The legitimacy of the designation “internatio- 3 International Elements in Vocabulary and Terminology, pp. 27, 37. 4 Ibid., p. 47. 5 Ibid., p. 27. 35 The question of “isms of the Soviet area” still requires clarification in light of the formation of a single Soviet people. When calling predominantly borrowings internationalisms, one should clearly bear in mind one further point concerning the relationship between borrowed and native vocabulary: in “small” languages, all lexical internationalisms (with rare exceptions) are borrowings; therefore, in interlinguistic comparison they can be treated as a special subgroup of borrowed vocabulary, coinciding to some extent with so-called “foreign words.” When analyzing the vocabulary of a particular “large” language, however, one must take particular account of the distinctive character of words that, from an areal perspective, are lexical internationalisms but in that language form part of the native lexicon6. In keeping with a purely “etymological” view of the term “internationalisms,” words belonging to international vocabulary (so-called polylexemes) may be represented in as few as two languages7. Other proposals have also been made concerning the minimum extent of the distribution of international vocabulary (the Euro-language area); most often, the criterion proposed is the presence of the interlexeme in three languages of international significance (English, German, French, Spanish, Italian, Russian)8. In our view, it would be useful to take account of the fact that internationalisms are predominantly borrowed words and to formulate the criterion as follows: a word (polylexeme) may be called an internationalism of the Euro-language area if, as a borrowing, it is attested in at least two languages of international significance, or in one language of international significance and at least two other languages (it is not entirely clear how to assess a polylexeme borrowed into a number of small languages but not attested as a borrowing in any language of international significance). At the same time, one should not forget that every polylexeme is naturally also present in the language (or languages) in which it belongs to the native lexicon or in which it was created (or acquired its modern meaning). Taking the distributional criterion for polylexemes into account, it is useful to distinguish two subtypes of international vocabulary: subareal and areal. Minimum distribution is sufficient for classifying a lexical internationalism as subareal; to be classified as areal, however, a polylexeme must be attested in at least one language of international significance from each of the three largest European groups of the Indo-European language family (Germanic— 6 Cf.: Sorokin Yu. S. The Development of the Vocabulary of the Russian Literary Language in the 1830s–1890s. — Moscow–Leningrad, 1965, p. 158. 7 International Elements in Vocabulary and Terminology, p. 15. 8 См. Laua A. Latviešu leksikoloģija. — Rīga: Zvaigzne, 1981, 114. lpp. 36 ic, Romance, Slavic; in this case, Polish and perhaps Swedish may also be counted alongside the six languages listed above). A polylexeme may also be attested in the languages of two or more areas, e.g., the Euro-language and Indian areas. If a lexical internationalism occurs in the language(s) of another area, it may be classified as transareal international vocabulary 9; if a word is an areal lexical internationalism in two (or more) areas, it forms part of bi-areal (polyareal) international vocabulary. Probably, when identifying lexical internationalisms, lexemes attested only in the most peripheral subsystems of a given language should not be taken into account; this question, however, still requires further study. In particular, it is probably not possible to disregard entirely, in this respect, such a stratum of vocabulary as general slang; specialized sailors’ slang, which makes extensive use of lexical borrowings (especially Anglicisms), is also of great interest. It may make sense in some cases to speak of interslangisms, although such a category will inevitably overlap with the rest of international vocabulary. Sometimes the identification of lexical internationalisms is also determined by thematic criteria, with only words of a terminological nature (BSE; BelSE) or words denoting concepts of international scope being recognized as internationalisms10. In A. Laua’s view, this approach is unacceptable because it replaces linguistic facts with categories of logic11. Admittedly, word meanings are unquestionably linguistic facts; nevertheless, it does seem more expedient to regard thematic specificity as secondary, emerging in the analysis of international vocabulary identified on the basis of criteria already formulated. At the same time, exoticisms require a special approach: they should either be excluded from international vocabulary or treated as a highly distinctive part of it 12 because their borrowing is “obligatory” when describing the corresponding realia. Thus, it seems expedient to recognize the distribution of borrowings as the principal criterion for identifying lexical internationalisms (the guiding consideration should be whether or not this is expedient, since international vocabulary is, after all, a category that is more linguistic—and, of course, interlinguistic— 9 Cf.: Baldunčiks J. Functional Characteristics of Anglicisms in Contemporary Latvian.— LPSR ZA Vēstis, 1981, No. 11, p. 64. 10 Акуленко В. В. Существует ли интернациональная лексика? — ВЯ, 1961, № 3, с. 61. Впоследствии В. В. Акуленко, по-видимому, от этого критерия отказался. 11 Laua A. Latvian Lexicology, p. 114. 12 Cf.: Krysin L. P. Foreign Words in the Contemporary Russian Literary Language.— Moscow: Nauka, 1968, p. 47. 37 linguistic rather than language-related). At the same time, the following set of minimum requirements is proposed for classifying a word as international vocabulary within a specific (European-language) area: lexical internationalisms are words in different languages united by similarity of meaning and form, borrowed in at least two languages of international significance, or in one language of international significance and at least two other languages.