Пары своеязычных и инородных терминов (многоаспектный анализ)

MOKSLO KALBOS KULTŪROS IR TERMINOLOGIJOS PROBLEMOS LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, XXIV (1985) HENN SAARI PAIRS OF NATIVE-LANGUAGE AND FOREIGN TERMS (A MULTI-ASPECT ANALYSIS)1 Words commonly called “foreign,” “of foreign origin,” or “international” (the corresponding concepts do not fully coincide) are more conveniently characterized, from the standpoint of contemporary Estonian, not by their origin but, first and foremost, by structural features. It may be assumed that the portion of borrowed vocabulary distinguished by certain structural features not characteristic of native Estonian lexicon constitutes a clearly bounded group in the consciousness and competence of native speakers, whereas borrowings without such features are indistinctly differentiated, or not differentiated at all, from native material. For the grammarian and lexicologist, the aforementioned part of the lexicon also represents a comparatively readily identifiable category that lends itself to effective description and analysis. We propose calling the Estonian words belonging to it foreign-form words, in contrast to native-form words, whose structure, regardless of their origin, conforms to the native Estonian type. Incidentally, a few formations of the foreign type that arose within Estonian itself are also adjacent to foreign borrowings. The question of secondary characteristics of native-form and synonymous foreign-form words is non-specialized and non-terminological in nature. The difference between the phenomenon we observe within specialized vocabulary and the same phenomenon in the general literary language belongs to the theoretical level, at which the question of the possibility and nature of complete, or true, synonymy is addressed. Complete synonymy of words (more precisely, of their lexical-semantic variants), from the standpoint of language in general, is unstable: it (both because of different contexts and consituations and because of deeper semantic shifts) comparatively readily becomes incomplete. In contrast to this state of affairs, complete synonymy of terms is in principle stable, associated with the fixedness of the content plane 1 A detailed account with a theoretical-linguistic introduction (in Estonian): Saari H. Omasõna ja võõrsõna paarid eesti oskussõnavaras (1): Eelduste loomine.— Keel ja Kirjandus, 1980, nr. 11, lk. 654—666; nr. 12, lk. 737—743; Saari H. Omasõna ja võõrsõna paarid eesti oskussõnavaras (2): Omast vaatenurgast.— Keel ja Kirjandus, 1981, nr. 4, lk. 201—210; nr. 5, lk. 282—288. 121 of the term. It should be noted that the evolution of concepts generally does not undermine the stability of fully synonymous pairs, either in terminology or in the general literary language. Thus, if we do not emphasize the difference between synonymy that is in principle unstable and synonymy that is in principle stable, the analysis of pairs of native-form and foreign-form terms (PNFT) can be applied, without major modifications, at the level of the general literary language as well. The language of science and technology is a natural sublanguage of the literary language, and many findings from research and observations of this sublanguage can, with some caution, also be used in constructing a theory of the literary language as a whole. In setting out the methodology for a “second-order” analysis of PNFTs, let us first explain what we mean by “first-order” analysis. This consists in identifying PNFTs on the basis of the correctness, or normativity, of both members of each pair. The primary analysis follows the familiar path of orthological 2 evaluation. If both members of a pair are attested in the language in question, and neither possesses qualities that would elicit a negative evaluation, then, on the basis of the so-called principle of richness, both are recognized as “correct,” norm-compliant means of expression in the literary language. Similar acceptable synonymous pairs are known in many languages. They have repeatedly attracted the attention of Russian, Lithuanian, and Latvian researchers 3. Even if both members of such a pair are acceptable in the literary language without any difference in meaning, they nevertheless differ formally from one another. We are interested in the effect of this difference both in communication and in the subsequent development of the language. The observation of such secondary inequality should not be understood as an unconditional preference for one or the other member of the pair. On the contrary, different qualities, insofar as they are useful, entitle different formal variants to coexist, even in specialized vocabulary. Let us note that if fully synonymous PNFTs that pass through the first-order analysis filter exist, and the functional aspect of some members does not fully coincide with that of others, then it follows that there are cases in which units of language possess some aspect or aspects 2 Orthology, as we understand it, is speech culture as a linguistic discipline. The corresponding adjective is orthological. 3 E.g.: Danilenko V. P. Russian Terminology/An Experiment in Linguistic Description.— Moscow: Nauka, 1977, p. 175; Klimavičius J. Tarptautinių ir lietuviškųjų terminų sinonimija terminografijoje.— Lietuvių terminologija (Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai), 1975, t. 16, p. 91—123; Skuinyė V. P. The Relationship of International Elements in Latvian and Russian Scientific Terminology.— In: Problems of Developing Scientific and Technical Terminology. Riga, 1973, pp. 149—160. 122 of content that do not fall within the bounds of their semantic structure in the ordinary linguistic sense; that is, the functional aspect of linguistic units may be broader than their semantics. Assuming the complete synonymy of members of a pair of native and foreign terms, which occurs within a sufficiently limited terminological field, we prefer to call such members not different terms but alloforms, i.e. letter-and-sound variants of one and the same term. In setting out the methods (criteria) of second-order analysis, let us first consider the internal and external orientations of alloforms. The latter often differ in that the native-language alloform seems to be “directed” inward, i.e. toward the people who speak that language, while the foreign-language one is directed toward the international community of specialists (this is external orientation). The term’s internal orientation is “broader” in the sense that it takes into account all speakers of that language (“our” language), whereas its external orientation takes into account only those familiar with the specialty in question (with the specialized concept). External orientation, in turn, is broader in the sense that, among specialists in that field of knowledge, it takes into account not only those who speak “our” language. Obviously, external orientation is effective if the foreign term is genuinely interlingual (international) not only in its outward form but also in its content. External orientation has two aspects: passive and active. The passive aspect consists in the fact that, if a foreign word exists in a given language, then under favorable conditions we also understand its correlate in a foreign-language text. The active aspect consists in the fact that, if we insert a foreign interlingual term into a text written in our native language, we may assume that a specialist whose native language is different will find our text somewhat easier to understand. It follows that external orientation has unequal value for languages in which a large volume of specialist literature is produced for export and for those whose specialist literature is not widely disseminated abroad. Within internal orientation, “simple nativeness” and “transparency” are observed. Simple nativeness is manifested in the fact that a body of native-language linguistic units in texts seems more favorable than a body of foreign-language units. Hence, the quality of simple nativeness is also transferred to individual words. The transparency, or transparency, of a word is a concept well known in modern linguistics. It is not very easy to find examples in which the preference for a word in speech on account of its simple nativeness is manifested in pure form, i.e. without support from transparency. One such word is Estonian löge ‘fontanelle’, which forms a pair with the foreign fontiikul. The latter occurs 123 very rarely, despite the fact that the root of this word is familiar from the word fontāin ‘fountain’, and loge itself is not associated with anything else in the literary language. Loge is a dialect word to which physicians have assigned the meaning ‘fontanelle’. Nevertheless, it is precisely this word that has been adopted by both the general public and physicians. There are many examples of pairs with a more transparent native-language word: suhkurtõbi — mellitdiabeet ‘diabetes mellitus, diabetes mellitus’, kahepaiksed — amfiibid ‘amphibians’, eemaidumus — elongatsioon ‘elongation’, and so on.4 Foreign words often have transparency as well. Their transparency depends to a great extent on the individual: on proficiency in foreign languages and on the ability to analyze foreign words. Compare the alloforms kontraforss and tugipillar5. If a particular person does not know the architectural term pillar ‘pier’, but knows the roots kontra- and forss (eerima) ‘to force’, then the foreign alloform kontraforss is transparent to them, which cannot be said of its native-language parallel. Thus, some foreign members of pairs have a relative internal orientation, and the boundary between the different orientations does not coincide with the boundary between the nativeness and foreignness of words. Next, we should consider the precision of alloforms. To do so, the concept of “precision” needs to be clarified. We have analyzed relevant statements in terminological literature. It turns out that “precision” has two different meanings in terminology. Accordingly, we distinguish between significative and communicative precision. Significative precision involves, first and foremost, the unambiguity of a term and, in addition, sufficient familiarity with its meaning for specialized communication. Thus, significative precision pertains to the content plane of lexical units. When speaking of significative precision, it is easiest to assume that at both endpoints of the communication channel the code (the form and content of the unit) is identical and known to the same degree. By communicative precision we mean the ability of a unit’s formal aspect to avoid being unclear at the end of the channel—when a message is received. Precision in this sense requires the term’s letter-and-sound form to be clearly distinguished from others. In addition, communicative precision is created by the correct orientation of the unit’s internal form and the proper selection of the concept’s explicitly expressed features. Thus, with communicative precision the complete 4 suhkur- ‘sugar’, tõbi ‘disease’; kahe- ‘two, bi-’, paik ‘place; environment’, -ne — suffix; eemale- ‘to move away’, eemaidumus — a deverbal noun denoting a state. 5 The word kontraforss corresponds well in meaning and form to the Russian контрфорс ‘buttress’; tugi- ‘supporting’, pillar ‘pier’. 124 Identity of the code at both ends of the channel is not assumed. If the recipient does not fully understand the content of a term, they try to understand it on the basis of its components. Typical examples of such situations are teaching contexts. A term with communicative precision is easier to remember and contributes to understanding the subject being taught. It is clear that a lexical unit can possess both significative and communicative precision simultaneously. Observations of Estonian terminology lead to the conclusion that there are pairs of native and foreign words in which the foreign members are capable of conveying the meaning of a term more precisely than their native equivalents. These include, for example, the first component of compound words koht-, whose different meanings emerge when it is compared with the foreign equivalents lokaal- “local” and statsionaar- “stationary.” However, our material contains more cases in which native allomorphs prove more precise, for example, ökonoomia on the one hand, and majandus, majandusteadus and kokkuhoid on the other ([ueo] majandus “economics [of transport],” majandusteadus “economics (as a science),” kokkuhoid from kokku hoitma “to economize”). The loss of precision in foreign words is often connected with their polysemy, which arose and became established in international usage and is therefore difficult to eliminate in Estonian alone. Eliminating polysemy in foreign words by narrowing their semantic ranges often produces positive results. For example, telefon has two meanings in one narrow terminological field: 1) a type of communication; 2) an earpiece for listening, a receiver (part of a telephone handset or headphones). A special word, kuular (from kuula- “to listen”), has been created for the second meaning. The question now is whether the use of the word telefon can be restricted so that it is no longer used to mean “earpiece.” Regulating the use of native words and creating additional ones is often an easier path than regulating the use of interlingual words. Members of NFI can be analyzed from the perspective of word-forming capacity and brevity. It is well known that the shorter the words, the more convenient it is to form new words on their basis. The author's longstanding observations, and not only his own6, indicate that native Estonian terms are on average somewhat shorter than their foreign counterparts. Nor would we have doubted the validity of our belief, were it not for encountering in the literature claims that foreign (international) terms are generally shorter7. According to V. V. Akulenko, when there is little 6 Напр.: E g e r e l t T. Eesti oskuskeel.— Tallinn: Valgus, 1982, lk. 75. 7 К в и т к о И. С. Термин в научном документе.— Львов: Вища школа, 1976, с. 69; Д а н и л е н к о В. П. Указ. соч., с. 210. 125 with the internationalization of terminology, messages become noticeably longer, “as evidenced by the practice of some Germanic, Finno-Ugric, and other languages”8. Since Estonian is one of the Finno-Ugric languages, we were interested in whether this claim applies to it as well. To ensure the reliability of the results, we first analyzed various sources of Estonian specialized vocabulary from this perspective and selected a new dictionary of mathematical terms for statistical analysis9. It represents one of our mature, well-established terminologies. The book is virtually free of the modern drive toward brevity. Word length was measured in syllables. A total of 172 pairs were analyzed. It turned out that the length of native words averages no more than 84% of the length of their foreign counterparts. Additionally, the same pairs were analyzed for transparency (and thus communicative precision). Of the 36 pairs in which the native allomorph was longer than the foreign one, one third were cases in which it surpassed the foreign form in transparency. In the remaining 24 cases, neither allomorph could be shown to have an advantage in transparency. It may be assumed that, at present, the average length of native Estonian terms is more likely to decrease than to increase. The relative syllabic length of standardized terms declined markedly during the 1970s and early 1980s. (By relative length we mean the number of syllables in the Estonian term divided by the number of syllables in its standardized Russian equivalent; it is expressed as a percentage.) Using the least squares method (linear correlation), we determined that in Estonian SSR republican standards of the “Terms and Definitions” type, the relative syllabic length of Estonian basic terms declined by an average of 2% annually. It is clear that such a strong trend cannot continue forever. However, since most standardized terms are native, it may be assumed that during this period the trend helped preserve the difference in length between foreign and native terms in favor of the latter. It should be noted that the gradual shortening of Estonian terms, insofar as it can be observed, is not explained by abbreviation or the use of blends. Brevity, at least in basic terms, is achieved through the use of the language’s natural structural resources, the identification of which has been the concern of Estonian philologists interested in terminology for many years. 8 Акуленко В. В. Научно-техническая революция и проблема интернациональной терминологии. — В кн.: Научно-техническая революция и функционирование языков мира. М., 1977, с. 81. 9 Matemaatika oskussõnastik. — Tallinn: Valgus, 1978. — 200 lk. 126 The assessment methods presented above do not seem to exhaust the range of possible criteria for analyzing members of the PSI. A brief note on the systemic capacity of alloforms. The question is how different members of the PSI contribute to or impede the isomorphism (“symmetry”) of conceptual and lexical series. The Estonian language is characterized by an abundance of compounds and the possibility of forming words—chains of several (even up to 5–6) stems. This characteristic feature of the language makes it possible to form word series isomorphic with conceptual systems or sequences. This possibility is realized differently from case to case. If, for example, the alloform näokolu is more transparent than vistseraalkolu (both mean “facial skull”; näo means “facial”), the latter incorporates its denotatum into the system of anatomical units more effectively, since it is itself part of a system of terms with determinative components indicating relative position or direction. Sometimes native-language alloforms induce a concept that is subordinate or higher on the hierarchical ladder. For example, the terms kõrg-rõhkkond “anticyclone” and madalrõhkkond “cyclone”10 include the derived word rõhkkond, which, although it has no foreign-language equivalent, expresses a concept that clearly exists, encompassing the concepts of “cyclone” and “anticyclone.” Finally, let us note that not all pairs of native-language and foreign-language terms are amenable to the method of analysis described here. Some members of the PSI belong to the category of single-denotatum, different-sense terms. The members of such pairs are complete synonyms in terms of denotative meaning, whereas their significative (sense) meanings do not coincide. If only significative meaning is recognized (as is often done in pure linguistics), they are not synonyms. If both significative and denotative meanings are recognized (as is natural in terminology studies), they may be considered a special kind of partial synonyms. The denotatum is, as it were, viewed from one perspective and then another. An example is the first components koht- and monoliit- in the compounds kohtbetoon and monoliitbetoon. Both words translate as “monolithic concrete,” but the native-language form refers not to the monolithic nature of the concrete structure, but to its being made on site. The words õpiaeg and õppeaeg (aeg “time”) denote the same thing, “time spent studying,” but the first does so from the learner’s perspective and the second from the perspective of teachers and the school organization. Deciding whether single-denotatum, different-sense terms are needed within specialized vocabulary falls within the scope of the relevant disciplines. In general literary language, however, they enrich the language with partial synonyms—means of conveying different shades of meaning. 10 kõrg- “high,” rõhk “pressure,” -kond — collective suffix; madal- “low.” 127