Классификационный аспект определения термина

MOKSLO KALBOS KULTŪROS IR TERMINOLOGIJOS PROBLEMOS LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, XXIV (1985) ALLA VYACHESLAVOVNA KRYZHANOVSKAYA THE CLASSIFICATION ASPECT OF DEFINING A TERM In the theory and practice of contemporary terminology studies, there is a constant need to distinguish terminological vocabulary from non-terminological vocabulary, and, given the specific nature of the special word, to treat the meaning of the term—the special designation for a field of scientific, technical, and practical activity that functions in professional communication1—with particular care. This need is especially pronounced in connection with the rapid development of specialized terminology: new terms enter it daily alongside other elements of the scientific style. Linguistic theory therefore seeks objective features that could help identify a term without error. The nature of the scientific, specialized term has been studied in considerable depth in domestic and international literature. Terms are defined as designations for systems of concepts (realities) in science, technology, and official language, and for their manifestations in production, public life, or particular domains thereof; moreover, every term in these fields has a socially recognized meaning2. Nevertheless, the problem of defining a term remains pertinent and difficult. Suffice it to say that by no means all dictionaries of linguistic terminology include this concept in their entries; for example, it is absent from E. Hamp’s work3; in other cases, terminology is defined as a linguistic term, while no definition of an individual entity is provided4. There are several reasons why it is necessary to revisit and refine the definition of a term: the ongoing need to systematize terms that continually emerge as a result of accelerated scientific and technological progress; the demands of scientific and technical practice to unify the terminology of individual fields; and the complex interaction of terminology with general-use vocabulary and specialized nomenclature. 1 Даниленко В. П. Русская терминология/Опыт лингвистического описания.— М.: Наука, 1977, с. 3, 201. 2 Ахманова О. С. Лингвистическое значение и его разновидности.— В кн.: Проблемы знака и значения. М., 1969, с. 110. 3 Хэмп Э. Словарь американской лингвистической терминологии.— М.: Прогресс, 1964.— 264 с. 4 Марузо Ж. Словарь лингвистических терминов.— М.: Иностр. лит-ра, 1960, с. 308. 85 The reasons listed above stimulate the search for optimal ways of defining a term when introducing it into the relevant specialized or general terminological system. These motivating factors are somewhat mitigated by recommendations concerning the definition of a term that are already current in scholarly practice. On their basis, lexicographers distinguish terms from non-terms and produce lexicographic descriptions of the terminology of one or more languages. Specialists in various fields of science and technology use the relevant terms. However, a comparative analysis of term selection in several dictionaries describing the terminology of a single field reveals numerous discrepancies arising from the difficulties involved in determining whether a word is terminological. This is why theoretical problems in terminology studies continue to be developed, adding certain clarifications and adjustments to propositions that might seem clear to everyone. To answer the question of whether the definition of the essence of a term needs to be elaborated, it is worth recalling some well-known truths. One is that a scientific result in defining a term is achieved when both the term’s material-linguistic nature (its semantic precision, its association with the scientific style, and so on) and the dialectical nature of its relationship with other elements of the lexical system of the national language in question (literary and non-literary—dialectal, slang, and similar forms), as well as with those of other national languages, are taken into account, since interaction with the latter may involve partial manifestations of integration5. Contemporary terminology studies have a number of scholarly achievements in this area: in order to systematize terminology, researchers analyze the semantic features of individual terms, their lexico-semantic varieties and groups (monosemous and polysemous terms, synonyms, antonyms, and homonyms) in terms of the logical consistency of their content, as well as linguistic appropriateness, particularly structural and lexical-systemic appropriateness. And while logic studies the logical system in the field of terminology, paying special attention to the rigor of classificatory foundations and the correspondence of terms to conceptual categories6, all the other issues listed fall within the remit of linguistic terminology studies. The systematic organization of terms is generally recognized, and various classifications of terms are based on this property. Among the principal— 5 Булаховський Л. А. Виникнення української мови та її положення серед інших слов’янських мов.— Київ: Рад. школа, 1948, с. 3. 6 Даниленко В. П. Русская терминология, с. 3. 86 One of the classification prin7ciples associated with the conceptual nature of terms is the factor of a word’s belonging to the sublanguage of a particular field of service and description of activities in these fields. 8This makes it possible, when necessary, to distinguish a term from a non-term, taking into account the existence in terminology of a broad scale of semantic scope—from abstract, general, collective terms to concrete, narrow, individual ones—and to identify groups of scientific terms, including general scientific terms and classes of terms belonging to individual sciences: technical, sociopolitical, military, and legal. Sometimes this factor predominates in terminological classification. Nevertheless, when selecting terms with general and collective semantics, it becomes necessary to distinguish them from general-literary abstract vocabulary (this is especially relevant to sociopolitical terminology); and when selecting terms for naming individual concepts, it becomes necessary to distinguish them from nomenclatural names—nomens. Another classification principle is associated with the nature of a term as a specific linguistic sign and takes into account the presence in a term not only of linguistic semantics but also of formal structure9. On the one hand, this makes it possible to identify subgroups and categories of terms within a terminological system, ranging from object concepts to abstract designations of processes, actions, and states. On the other hand, it enables the identification of productive grammatical and word-formational structures of terms, the possibilities for their functioning as words and phrases, monosemic and polysemic varieties of terms, and their lexico-semantic groups: synonymous terms, homonymous terms, and so on. At first glance, in determining the terminological status of a word, it would seem most appropriate to take into account that, although one-word and multiword terms constitute a particular semantic unity in each specific case, they often stand in a relationship in which a word (or phrase) denotes a genus of objects, while other words name its specific varieties. However, this generally productive approach involves one contradiction. Since terms, common words, and nomens have not only specific features but also a number of shared properties as varieties of linguistic signs, both types of features must be taken into account when defining a term and distinguishing it from non-terms. 7 Канделаки Т. Л. Работа по упорядочению терминологии и некоторые лингвистические проблемы, возникающие при этом.— В кн.: Лингвистические проблемы научно-технической терминологии. М., 1970, с. 40—53. 8 Лейчик В. М. Термины и терминоподсистемы — пограничная область между естественными и искусственными языками.— В кн.: Вопросы терминологии и лингвистической статистики. Воронеж, 1976, с. 3—11. 9 Даниленко В. П., Скворцов Л. И. Терминология и норма: Вопросы культуры речи.— Русская речь, 1981, № 1, с. 77—82. 87 signs. After all, both terms and non-terms can denote generic and specific concepts, since such a division by means of words—the linguistic means of expressing our ideas about objective reality—does not perform the function of an independent defining feature of a term. This point needs to be emphasized, since the legitimacy of contrasting terms as generic and specific in light of the considerations stated is not in principle denied. What is open to doubt is only the elevation of genus–species relations to the status of the principal differential feature of a term that distinguishes it from non-terms. The contrast between terms with generic semantics and those with subordinate specific semantics may, in itself, be useful. This is illustrated by the construction, in contemporary terminology studies, of algorithms for recognizing terms among non-terms: if a linguistic unit denoting a generic concept is a term, then all linguistic units denoting the corresponding specific concepts are also terms 10. In this case, what matters is not so much that genus–species relations may connect both terms and non-terms, but rather that the proposed algorithm leaves open the question of the terminological status of the generic concept itself. The logical course of reasoning suggests that if there is no term of the corresponding hierarchy above a given generic concept, then that word is not a term. Consequently, generic division of words alone proves insufficient as a differential feature of a term when reality is terminologically defined. This raises the question of the appropriateness of a scientific proposal that draws on a sufficiently well-studied property of branch-specific terminology. It lies within the logic of language and functions as a property of the hierarchical subordination of entities in a particular field and their terminological designations, which do not fit entirely into genus–species relations. This is scientific classification, a well-known, complex, and indisputable example of which is D. I. Mendeleev’s periodic table, based on one of the fundamental laws of nature—the law of periodicity. In this classification, every chemical element has its place, and even elements not yet known at a certain time have their places, gradually filled by subsequent generations of scientists; all the names of the elements have become part of the corpus of fundamental terms in chemistry. What matters to us is that classification is a special, dialectically stable form of the logical division of objects according to the most essential, strictly scientific, and objective features, based on the sameness of objects within one class and their difference from objects belonging to other clas- 10 Головин Б. Н. О некоторых доказательствах терминированности словосочетаний.— В кн.: Лексика, терминология, стили. Горький, 1973, вып. 2, с. 61. 88 …s does not always coincide with the division of a generic concept into specific concepts 11. This linear scientific classification—a special form of the hierarchical subordination of terms—binds together the original term with a generalized or collective meaning and the generic, specific, subspecific, individual-group, and individual terms subordinate to it. At the final link in the chain, these may be limited to nomenclatural names that extend beyond the bounds of specialized terminology 12, rather than being merely special names for typical objects of the science in question: terms used as names in that scientific field, which differ from terminology that includes designations of abstract concepts and categories 13. Since scientific classification makes it possible to delineate the entire thematic range of terms in a particular field, it should be considered a differentiating criterion in determining whether a word is terminological. There are many examples supporting this view, since every term is a component of one or another classification system. For example, in the “Biological Dictionary” roundworms, or nematodes are classified as primary-cavity worms; among them, hairworms are distinguished as one of the subclasses, and they in turn are divided into 12 genera comprising more than 100 species. Classification does not end here: all the names included in the semantic field under consideration and in this classification system are terms. They remain so up to the boundary separating them from the names of particular, individual objects associated with the classification system but lacking the typical properties of specialized terminology. This proposition can be illustrated clearly by determining the place in scientific terminology of the widely known word television set. This term occupies a place in the classification group of radio engineering devices, representing a device for receiving television broadcasts15. Television sets, in turn, are divided into types according to the classification principle of circuit construction (the term combination tube television sets), as well as by dimensions and screen size. The classification term system is exhausted when names of television brands appear—peculiar labels for rapidly changing modifications (“Electron,” “Photon,” “Temp”). They 11 Краткое методическое пособие по разработке и упорядочению научно-технической терминологии. — М.: Наука, 1979, с. 22. 12 Суперанская А. В. Терминология и номенклатура. — В кн.: Проблема определения терминов в словарях разных типов. М.: Сов. энциклопедия, 1966, с. 270. 13 Ахманова О. С. Словарь лингвистических терминов. — М.: Сов. энциклопедия, 1966, с. 270. 14 Біологічний словник/За ред. І. Г. Підопличка, К. М. Ситника, Р. В. Чаговця. — Київ: Гол. ред. УРЕ АН УРСР, 1971. — 551 с. 15 Словник іншомовних слів/За ред. О. С. Мельничука. — Київ: Гол. ред. УРЕ АН УРСР, 1974. — 776 с. 89 are not terms, but rather nomenclatural names that fall outside this classification system. The division of names into terminological and nomenclatural occurs in various fields of science and technology, but drawing a line between a term and a nomen without strictly accounting for the classification basis of specialized vocabulary is very difficult; consequently, in practice such a division often proves quite conditional. Thus, if we consult the “Russian-Ukrainian Dictionary of Botanical Terminology and Nomenclature” 16, we find that special names of varying degrees of hierarchical subordination are rather conditionally classified as nomenclatural, for example авран лікарський, аїрчик паннонський, барк-гузія альпійська, вишня звичайна, зірочник блідий, калий круглоголовий, ковила українська, липа пухнастостовпчикова, пастернак посівний, трюфель пізній, шаблія дібровна and even рижій, імбир. With this approach, nomenclatural names at the very end of the classification structure, beyond the boundary of terminology, may stand in generic-specific relations to one another: cf. in the dictionary cited above тринія (a generic name) and its subordinate specific names тринія Китайбеля, тринія багатостебла, тринія українська, тринія щетиниста. Це indirectly confirms that generic-specific features are not differentiating criteria for determining whether words are terminological, and that the understanding of nomenclatural status is, in certain specific cases, conventional. Most often, terminology belonging to a single classification domain or series has common root constructions grammatically, and also brings together single-word terms and multiword terms. Non-single-word terms arise in connection with classification gradation; cf.: construction, non-rocking construction, explosion-proof construction, frame construction. Terms sharing a root within one classification group attest to the complexity and branching of scientific classifications. For example, the machine-building term finger belongs to one classification group together with the related terms finger-shaped, digital, finger-like, palmate, little finger17. The grammatical structure of multiword terms does not correspond uniformly to the scientific-classificatory and lexicographic presentation of modern terminology. According to traditional classifications, in such terms the governing components should come first, followed by the subordinate components; for example: geotropism non- 16 Русско-украинский словарь ботанической терминологии и номенклатуры/Сост. Д. Я. Афанасьев, А. И. Барбарич, Д. К. Зеров и др.— Киев: Изд-во АН УССР, 1962.— 310 с. 17 Русско-украинский технический словарь/Сост. А. И. Матейко, М. М. Матейко, Н. С. Родзевич и др.— Киев: Держтехвидав, 1961.— 648 с. 90 гативный, олія валерианова, хід міжклітинний. However, interpreting terminology as an organic component of the lexical system of the literary language dictates, in these cases, the principle of directly constructing a complex terminological structure; accordingly, in new dictionaries—for example, the three-volume “Russian-Ukrainian Dictionary of Scientific Terminology” being compiled at the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR—the following arrangement of multiword terms is recommended: асфальтове покриття, каустична магнезія, обертання планет. The discrepancy between classification and lexicographic practice means that multiword terms are often constructed differently in terminological dictionaries, especially those in the natural sciences, even within a single book; compare: доцентрові нервові волокна, друга сигнальна система and дотику чуття, доцільність органічна in the “Biological Dictionary” mentioned above. This inconsistency needs to be eliminated. The norm for alphabetical terminological dictionaries, which process terms with predominant attention to their grammatical structure but select them according to their classificatory properties, has therefore become to list multiword terms in their natural linguistic form, that is, чуття дотику, органічна доцільність. On the basis of the foregoing, it can be asserted that the classificatory features of a term are its systemic semantic relations with other words (terms) that help distinguish a term from a non-term. These make it possible to delineate one or another group of terms, thereby making scientific classification a differentiating factor in determining whether a word is terminological. It should be borne in mind that the classification of terms in science is not constant: it changes as scientific knowledge develops and improves. Even at a given stage, classifications vary enormously. This can be illustrated by the following example. Increasingly, attempts are being made to identify the differential features of a term on the basis of thematic unity, that is, the connection between words belonging to the same conceptual field. Like genus-species relations, conceptual relations, taken by themselves and apart from other features of a term, cannot serve to differentiate in determining whether a word is terminological, since they unite virtually all full lexical words in a language. However, disciplinary orientation and lexicostatistical analysis of relevant texts, combined with the identification of conceptual relations among specialized components of texts, make it possible to select and group ordered, normalized terminology. The methodology for such large-scale lexico-semantic grouping of terminological vocabulary, taking into account structural and word-formation relations according to the features described, is being developed in modern thesauri. These are specialized dictionaries, most often terminological, that collect the names of disciplinary concepts and the names of their classificatory relations. As we can see, 91 This is one variety of scientific classification of terms, based on their natural relations in scientific texts. The advantage of this classification, which we have provisionally called thesaurus-based, is that diverse semantic comparisons establish not only the substantive hierarchy of terms but also their normative status; they determine not only hierarchical relations among terms but also indicate when such relations are absent. In one such dictionary, the “Thesaurus of Scientific and Technical Terms”18, terms are grouped into classes of semantically conditional equivalence on the basis of objective relations. These include relations of equivalence (the scope of several terms coincides completely), relations of intersection (partial overlap of terminological meanings), and relations of subordination—a variety of genus-species relations between terms. Under these conditions, the classification system includes completely identical, absolute synonyms, as well as terms that can, under certain conditions in texts, be used in place of one another; for example, in this dictionary, акселерометры как измерители ускорения, интеграторы ускорений, ньютонометры are equated and brought together. Consequently, this method of determining whether a word is terminological clearly demonstrates synonymic and genus-species relations among terms. Because of the constraints applied to the set of synonyms identified by this method, it primarily includes multiword expressions with different structures, for example: домостроительные комбинаты, предприятия строительной индустрии. This classification records semantically related single-word terms and terminological expressions (ларингофоно-телефонные гарнитуры, шлемофоны), as well as expressions and abbreviations (ПТУРС, противотанковые управляемые реактивные снаряды). The advantage of the thesaurus-based method for identifying terminology lies not only in the fact that it brings within the scope of lexicographic research all scientific terms in existence at a given time in a particular scientific literature, but also in that, through diverse semantic comparisons, it makes it possible to determine not only the semantic hierarchy of terms but also their normative status. This is important because the collision, within a single specialized field, of terms belonging to different classification systems disrupts the systemic relations among terms. With this methodology, not only are hierarchical relations among terms identified, but the presence or absence of such relations for a given term is also established, since the degree of semantic identity is taken into account and generic (superordinate) terms and specific (subordinate) terms, as well as their presence among generic- 18 Тезаурус научно-технических терминов/Общ. ред. Ю. И. Шемакина. — М.: Воениздат, 1972. — 671 с. 92 terms, are determined. Terms that share semantic relations with the main term are also taken into account, even if they are not in genus-species relations with it. The normalizing factor in this methodology is the identification, through scientific analysis of texts, of terms that need to be replaced or can be decomposed into terms—semantic components. For example, the aforementioned thesaurus indicates that the term двигатели Ванкеля should be replaced by the term роторно-поршневые двигатели, while the term системы космической навигации is identified as needing to be decomposed into the components космическая навигация, навигационные системы. These are practical steps toward ordering disciplinary terminology on the basis of objective features. Summarizing the possibilities for defining a term on the basis of hierarchical and thesaurus-based scientific classifications, it is necessary to acknowledge their selective suitability in different areas of the terminology of modern science and technology. Overall, however, by knowing the principal features of a term as the name of a specialized scientific concept and using the described classificatory methods for introducing a word that functions as a term into a particular classification system, one can distinguish a term from a non-term on the basis of objective criteria, and also select, from among existing heterogeneous specialized designations, the most systematic and therefore appropriate term for expressing scientific and technical thought. Consequently, there are good grounds for adding the following to the definition of a term as a specialized designation in the fields of scientific, technical, and practical activity, functioning in professional communication: and forming a component of a modern scientific, specialized classification system.