MOKSLO KALBOS KULTŪROS IR TERMINOLOGIJOS PROBLEMOS LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, XXIV (1985)

ГАЛИНА ФЕЛИКСОВНА ВЕШТОРТ

TYPES OF VARIANTS IN TERMINOLOGICAL VOCABULARY

One important kind of work in the field of terminology is the detailed lexicographic description of individual terminological systems. However, in the course of general-language lexicographic description, terminology is also ordered to some extent, which consists in “selecting and identifying above all the most stable and widely used forms of terms.” This task was carried out by the compilers of the Explanatory Dictionary of the Belarusian Language¹ and the Russian-Belarusian Dictionary², although narrowly specialized literature was not included among the dictionaries’ sources.

The basic principle of terminology, which consists in a one-to-one correspondence between terms and the concepts they designate, is not always observed in practice, and the presence of polysemy and homonymy in terminological vocabulary is acknowledged by many researchers, with the qualification that synonyms, for example, here have “a different nature and different functions”³.

We include in the notion of variation in terminological vocabulary the existence of phonetic, derivational, and lexical doublets for a single specialist concept (the term doublet was proposed by O. S. Akhmanova). The most widespread types of variants in Belarusian terminology are lexical and derivational.

During the Soviet era, a period of intensive development of the Belarusian literary language, the formation of scientific terminology occupied a central place among a broad range of linguistic problems. The methodological principle for developing Belarusian scientific terminology in the early 1920s was that it should be based on words from the living vernacular. If the vernacular lacked the necessary terms, neologisms were created from native linguistic material, or ready-made foreign words were borrowed with the required terminological meaning. Parallel use of a Belarusian and a foreign word, or of two Belarusian words⁴, was also permitted; that is, already in

¹ Тлумачальны слоўнік Беларускай мовы.— Мінск, 1977—1980, т. 1—4.

² Русско-белорусский словарь.— Минск, 1982, т. 1—2.

³ Даниленко В. П. Русская терминология/Опыт лингвистического описания.— М., 1977, с. 73.

⁴ Беларуская навуковая тэрміналогія. Элементарная матэматыка.— Мінск, 1922, вып. 1, с. 3—4.

39

the very methodology for creating terminological vocabulary assumed the possibility of lexical variation. Fields of terminology such as botany, zoology, and agriculture, where vernacular terminology was most developed, incorporated a considerable number of words from the vernacular lexicon. A significant number of new formations were also created from specifically Belarusian material. Subsequently, “by the end of the 1920s, the practice of using territorially restricted vocabulary as terms had proved unviable. A reverse process began—the replacement of vernacular-dialect words and artificial formations with terms of international or Russian origin”⁵. However, many widely known and even territorially restricted vernacular terms remained alongside borrowings in specialized terminologies, forming doublet series.

Lexical variation in modern Belarusian terminology has several forms: doublets may consist of a specifically Belarusian word (or one perceived as native because it was borrowed long ago) and a loanword, most often one originating in Russian or Polish, or borrowed through Russian; two or more specifically Belarusian words; a native term and a calque; or two terms that came from Russian and reflect variation in Russian terminology.

Extensive scholarly contacts with all the union republics, conducted in Russian, create ample opportunities for large numbers of scientific terms to enter Belarusian from Russian. Native Belarusian professional terms that entered specialized terminology formed doublet pairs with terms adopted later from Russian, for example: асцяродак — стрыжань, асада — ручка, рамка, валюц — сукнавалка, жвір — гравій, касцяк — раскос, кочат — уклюцчына, клямар — скоба, шарош — россып. Lexical variants such as those listed above may have different spheres of use. In specialized literature, words shared with Russian will be used more often (стрыжань, сукнавалка, гравій, скоба, россып), whereas their specifically Belarusian doublets, introduced into the sphere of terminology by dictionaries, usually have a broader semantic range and a wider sphere of use, including colloquial speech (асцяродак, валюц, жвір, касцяк, клямар). Some of the doublets remain known only in a limited area (кочат, клямар). Lexical doublets in other terminological fields stand in similar relations (specifically Belarusian—Russian), for example: баранок — смушак, капец — бурт, катах — пачатак, мяцёлька — султан, паляндвіца — філец, паралюш разг.— параліч, садавіна — фрукты, спароўванне — злучка, сячкарня — саламарэзка,

⁵ Баханькоў А. Я. Развіццё лексікі беларускай літаратурнай мовы ў савецкі перыяд.— Мінск, 1982, с. 46.

40

pine needle — pine, хуткасьць — speed, щэлепы — gills. The ability to form new derivative terms could perhaps serve as a criterion for belonging to the terminological lexicon in the strict sense of the word. It is logical to suppose that the future belongs to those terms that participate in the formation of other terminological names, e.g.: буртаванне, буртавальшчык, буртаўкладычык; скорый поезд, каробка скарасьцей; паралітык, паралітычны; фруктовы, фруктаапрацоўчы. Therefore, at the present stage in the development of terminological vocabulary, it would be worthwhile to mark such terms in pan-Slavic dictionaries with labels indicating their belonging to specialized terminological vocabulary (e.g.: culinary філеіны — Russian-Belarusian Dictionary), while classifying their doublets (e.g.: канец, паляндвіца, садавіна, хуткасьць, цягнік, шчэлепы) as familiar words whose sphere of use is broader—literary language and folk dialects. Thus, for example, in the second edition of the Russian-Belarusian Dictionary, the lexeme хвіліна ‘part of an hour’ was excluded from the terminological vocabulary, although it was still used as a term some 20–25 years ago.

A number of lexical doublets includes obsolete Belarusian (or long-established loan) terms and terms shared with Russian, e.g.: мытня, мытны obsolete—таможня, таможенный, літаванне obsolete—паянне, пайка, штопаршчык — загнутыйчик, коллік colloquial—коклюш.

Another type of lexical variants consists of terms both perceived as Belarusian, having entered terminology from the folk language, often from different dialects. Such doublets occur in botanical, zoological, and agricultural terminology. In terms of semantic relations, they may be absolute synonyms, although, while sharing a general denotative meaning, they are not always equivalent in usage. In the pair асавік—падасінавік, the first name is geographically restricted and should not be introduced into botanical terminology, just like the other folk names for this mushroom. The name буяк is more widely used than дурніцы, which is listed alongside it in the Russian-Belarusian Dictionary with a terminological meaning. For the same reason, the regional name каня should not be given as a synonym for кнігаўка (Russian чибис), especially since it is known as the name of another bird; пожня is a regional lexeme corresponding to the standard literary term сенажаць. Sometimes lexical variants presented in the Russian-Belarusian Dictionary as unambiguous translations from Russian are perceived as synonyms with a certain semantic differentiation (e.g.: дзядлы is the name for burdock in the flowering and fruiting stages; лёк in literary language means ‘herring brine’, whereas ‘brine from pickled vegetables’ is расол; сцірта refers to a stack of sheaves or hay in the open air, while тарпа is indoors or under a canopy). Other doublets are also semantically differentiated, e.g.: збіванне — звязванне (Russian сплотка), склюд — сякера, саджанец — флянс. In various spe-

41

cialized contexts, the forms given as synonyms in the Russian-Belarusian Dictionary will be used: порыстасць (of limestone) — сітаватасць (of wood, a substance) — шчыльнаватасць (of walls); спагнанне — пакаранне, кара (Russian взыскание). In the pair гатунок — сорт, the first term denotes a variety of goods, while сорт also denotes a variety of cultivated plants.

A large group of lexical doublets consisting of Belarusian (or long-established loan) lexemes comprises absolute doublets, e.g.: бык — бугай, вяпрук — парсюк, дубальтоўка — двухстволка, сенаскладальнік — капаклад, and others.

Unlike general literary vocabulary, terminological vocabulary is less prone to stylistic synonyms; however, the examples given earlier of different domains of use for doublet terms—colloquial, obsolete, and obsolescent—attest to the presence of stylistic synonymy.

Another type of lexical variation in Belarusian terminology is “reflected” doublets, i.e. doublets transferred into Belarusian terminology from Russian, e.g.: альяс — сабур, інжыр — смоква — фігавае дрэва; ветраніца — кураслеп — анемона, завісь (a calque of Russian завесь) — суспензія, кітолаг — кітаіст, кляймо — таўро, sports ракетка — obsolete ракета, military адступленне — рэтрырада, свічч — фістула. Some reflected doublets have somewhat different usage in Belarusian. The Russian тифус is an obsolete term, which is no longer included in the four-volume academic dictionary. The Belarusian doublets тыф and тыфус (borrowed without the mediation of Russian) have a different distribution: тыф is used as a medical term; тоўфус is widely represented in modern literary prose as a colloquial term alongside тыф.

Lexical doublet pairs of terms in Belarusian may consist of full and abbreviated names (загатоўчы пункт — заготпункт, прафесійна-тэхнічная адукацыя — праф тэхадукацыя), but most often they also represent reflected doublets.

Derivational variants of terms are words formed from the same word using different word-formation devices. Terms formed according to the same pattern may differ in their suffixes, e.g.: выпаўзак — выпоўзины, мовазнавец — мовазнаўца, параўнальнік — параўняльнік, самаўладства — самаўладдзе, санавіца — санвічка, сенападбіральнік — сенападборшчык, трысьнёг — трысьцё, ялаўца — ялаўка. Derivational variants may also differ in the absence or presence of a suffix, e.g.: апад — ападкі, буда — будаўка, запал — запальнік, матыль — матылёк, снегачыст — снегачышчальнік. Forms such as будачка, матылёк were elevated to the status of terminological names under the influence of the Russian удочка, бабочка, and in specialized scientific-

42

In usage, as in living speech, in these cases the advantage remains with suffixless forms (which cannot be said of all other pairs of suffixless and suffixed forms). Other word-formation variants differ both in their patterns and in their means of word formation, e.g.: борыва — узворванне, узорванне — разворванне, снегаўборка — снегапрыбіранне, суцэльналіты — суцэльнаадлівань. A special type of word-formation variation consists of compounds in which one of the component parts varies, e.g.: канаводства — конегадоўля, процііск — супраціўіск, проціракетны — супраціў-ракеты, самадзяражайце — hist. самайладства. Word-formation variants may differ in the absence or presence of prefixes, or in the prefixes themselves, e.g.: шчапа — прыщапак, замер — абмер.

Each type of word-formation variation has its own characteristics, scope, and typology. Here we will focus on one group of suffixal variants—deverbal nouns. The possibility of forming names of actions, processes, and states, i.e. deverbal nouns, by means of the productive suffixes -ж(я), -к(а), and the zero suffix provides a basis for word-formation variation. If we take into account that the suffix -нн(е) can be added to perfective and imperfective stems, the number of possible variants increases. Not all possible patterns are realized in the language, but it is quite common to find three or four nouns formed from one verb, e.g.: аблава — аблой — аблойліванне, абдор — аббіранне — абдорка, расклад — раскладанне — раскла-ванне — раскладка. The process of forming such names is alive and quite active, continuing virtually all the time (e.g.: выбра-ковуванне — выбракоўка, занираванне — занаванне, глушчаванне — глуш-чэнне), and no tendency to restrict any particular type of deverbal noun formation is yet apparent. Deverbal noun variants enter into complex semantic relations, which can generally be characterized as semantic identity or non-identity. To normalize the use of deverbal noun variants, semantic identity or non-identity must be established for the variants in each type.

Complete semantic and stylistic identity is observed in doublets of nouns formed from single-aspect, unprefixed verbs by means of the suffixes -нн(е) and -к(а), e.g.: варсаванне — вар-соўка, вербаванне — вярбоўка, глазурванне — глазуроўка, градзіраванне — градзіроўка, каландраванне — каландроўка, калібраванне — каліброўка. In the nouns listed and similar ones, the Explanatory Dictionary of the Belarusian Language does not distinguish concrete meanings, but in language practice, in most cases, nouns in -к(а) carry a nuance of completion and occur with modifiers (прыхецаць па вяр-

43

бойцы, фасонная варсоўка, удалая грымировка) and, as a rule, have a certain advantage in frequency of use.

Substantives formed from aspectual pairs of prefixed verbs exhibit complete semantic and stylistic correspondence, e.g.: абточванне — абточка, адмучванне — адмучка, адпайванне — адпайка; дагартоўванне — дагартоўка, перачаканивание — перачаканка; авалоданне — авалодванне, абмеркаванне — абмяркоўванне, адсленне — адслойванне; апрамяненне — апраменьванне, атаясамленне — атаясамліванне.

In deverbal nouns formed from perfective–imperfective verb pairs, the opposition between completed and ongoing action is not retained. Dictionary indications of a connection with a verb of one aspect or the other most likely remain indications at the level of expression, i.e. indications of how the noun was formed. Cf.: авалоданне сумежнымі прафесіямі стала мэтай моладзі и мы ідзём да авалодвання новымі крыніцамі энергіі; on the other hand—работа на авалоданню майстэрствам и пайшлі цэлыя гады авалодвання майстэрствам.

Deverbal nouns with a zero suffix and with the suffix -нн(е) may also stand in a relation of semantic identity, e.g.: аблоў — аблоўліванне, абкорм — абкормліванне, абмер — абмерванне, адстрэл — адстрэльванне, вылаў — вылоўліванне. Suffixless nouns have a slight advantage in frequency of use. Nouns derived from borrowed verbs also stand in this same relation of semantic identity when one form (in -цыя) is borrowed and another is formed according to a pattern of the native language, e.g.: апрабацыя — апрабаванне — апрабоўванне, арыентацыя — арыентаванне — арыентаціроўка, кампраметацыя — кампраметаванне, кастрацыя — кастрыраванне. In the Explanatory Dictionary, nouns in -цыя usually carry the main informational load and serve as the semantic center of the entire word-formation nest.

More complex relations may obtain between deverbal nouns with different suffixes, when one variant—more often one with the suffix -к(а) or the zero suffix—develops, alongside the meaning of an action, a concrete meaning: a) the result of the action, e.g.: афарбоўка «color, shade», высыпка «rash», вальцоўка «flour», групоўка «association, group», грунтоўка «layer», градуіроўка «division», гафрыроўка «row of folds», абпал «fired brick», адвод «branch», аплата, выплата, даплата «money», адсей «that which has been sieved out», асмол «resinous wood»; b) the material or tool by means of which the action named in the first meaning is carried out, e.g.: аблямоўка «material», вальцоўка «machine», драніроўка «that with which something has been draped»; c) the manner or nature of the action, e.g.: кладка, лінейка, шліфоўка. Nouns in -цыя can often have a concrete meaning: грануляцыя, дакументацыя, кампиляцыя, etc. Much less frequently

44

Nouns in -нн(е) acquire significance in a variant series, e.g.: абмундзіраванне, адпайленне, аблямаванне, вязанне. Variants in -нн(е) and -ванне(е) may differ in that some denote a state, while others denote an action, e.g.: абляцэнне and абляцэньванне, анямечанне and анямечыванне, апустошанне and апустошыванне, абясколеранне and абясколерванне.

Nouns in the same variant series, when correlated with different meanings of a verb, have different semantics. Nouns in -нн(е) more often have a broader range of meanings than nouns in -к(а): адмыўка “removal of impurities by washing,” адсадка “separation of useful minerals from waste rock,” адпас “fattening, resting of livestock,” адкос “working off benefits” are limited in meaning compared with адмыванне, адсаджванне, адпасванне, адкошванне.

The existence of word-formation variants helps avoid terminological ambiguity. It becomes possible to differentiate terms formed from different meanings of a verb by means of different word-formation devices, e.g.: абклад “encircling an animal during a hunt” and абкладанне “an obligation to pay a tax”; agricultural апылоўванне and botanical апыленне; кансерваванне (of mushrooms, blood) and кансервацыя (of blood, an enterprise); zoological лінька and лінянне (of coloration); прыгенчанне “exploitation” and biological прыгнечванне “suppression of certain processes”; захаванне “preservation in good condition,” “observance” and захоўванне “long-term storage.”

A separate group of variants consists of phonetic, orthoepic, and orthographic variants, where standardization can and should be undertaken first (e.g.: адліга — адлега, капёр — капар, кмен — кмін, правіла — правіла, прожылках — пражылак, скрэбла — скрабло, футляр — футлярал). Here, too, each variant pair has its own sources, whether prevalence in different territories or differing foreign-language influence.

Even a fairly superficial examination of the types and varieties of terminological variation suggests that, on the one hand, the formation of variant terms is a natural occurrence at the stage when new concepts and their names emerge and take shape, as is characteristic of terminology in general; on the other hand, a distinctive feature of Belarusian terminology is that its development and formation as a whole are not yet complete, just as the standardization of the resources of the Belarusian literary language as a whole is not yet complete. The synonymy and polysemy of terms, their history of entry into the system, stylistic differences, frequency, and other characteristics cannot be fully represented in general-language (philological) dictionaries. This is the task of terminological lexicography and specialized research.