О некоторых семантических проблемах научной терминологии

MOKSLO KALBOS KULTŪROS IR TERMINOLOGIJOS PROBLEMOS LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, XXIV (1985) VALENTINA SKUINIENĖ ON SOME SEMANTIC PROBLEMS OF SCIENTIFIC TERMINOLOGY The present stage of the scientific and technological revolution is characterized by the emergence of new approaches to studying the surrounding world and of new sciences associated with these approaches. The use of such sciences and scientific fields as cybernetics, systems analysis, and mathematical modeling contributes to the transformation of science into the most revolutionary element of technological and economic progress, and into a vital instrument of social management 1. As the role of science continues to grow, a high-quality information service, in which scientific literature occupies a leading place, is of great importance for scientific and technological progress. The semantic precision of terms facilitates the correct understanding of scientific literature and the faster exchange of information. The semantic aspect plays a very important role in terminology theory. The semantics of the term is given considerable attention in the very enumeration of the basic requirements for a scientific term, namely: 1) semantic precision; 2) unambiguity; 3) mononymity2, or one-term-per-concept designation; 4) context-independence3. Departure from these and other requirements emphasized in the works of D. S. Lotte, founder of the Soviet terminology school, and the consideration of terminological problems solely from general linguistic perspectives, without taking account of or understanding terminological specificities (e.g., stressing polysemy and instability in a term’s meaning, thereby denying the requirements of unambiguity and a term’s independence from context, and failing to distinguish the specific nature of terminological semantic processes from semantic processes occurring in general lin- 1 M a r u s e n k o M. A. A Systems Approach to Scientific and Technical Terminology.— NTI, ser. 2, 1983, no. 1, p. 1. 2 The requirement that only one name, one term, be used to designate one concept is called in the article mononymity (cf. the formation of synonymity, and also cf.: synonymy—mononymy—to designate the corresponding phenomena). 3 The term context-independence was also coined by the article’s author as a shorter designation for the requirement that a term be independent of context, which is set out in the works of D. S. Lotte (see, for example: Lotte, D. S. Fundamentals of the Construction of Scientific and Technical Terminology.—Moscow, 1961, pp. 73–75). 138 … literary language, ignoring specialized terminological features and general scientific needs, etc.) 4, as well as the failure to distinguish the specific features of scientific and professional terminology, damages the theoretical foundations of terminology and the practical development of terminological systems. We find the proper solution to contemporary semantic problems in terminology in the works of V. P. Danilenko, who emphasizes, in particular: “The realization... of semantic processes (polysemy, homonymy, antonymy) in terminology is likewise determined by the term’s position in the system and its relationship to the signified; therefore, the manifestation of semantic qualities in terms is specific in comparison with words of general literary language”5. To achieve semantic precision when creating a new term, it is necessary to know fully the concept expressed by the term and skillfully select the essential features of the concept reflected in the designation.6 When clarifying the meaning of an existing term, it is usually necessary first to clarify the boundaries of the concept it denotes, identify the specific term as well as adjacent generic terms, and make the necessary structural and semantic changes. The requirement of unambiguity in terminology should not be understood formally. According to the Soviet school of terminology, founded on the research of D. S. Lotte and other Soviet terminologists, a term’s relative unambiguity is regarded as an essential feature of a scientific term and as a requirement for one; that is, the linguistic sign of the term must correspond to one concept within the system of concepts of the given field and related (adjacent) fields of knowledge7. Therefore, a term cannot be considered polysemous merely because it functions as a polysemous word whose different meanings are used in different fields, e.g.: окно (“window”) — functioning as a term in construction and peatland studies, вал (“shaft”) — functioning as a term in 4 See, for example: Novichkova L. M. On the Problem of Polysemy in Scientific and Technical Terms (in Translation from One Language into Another).— In: All-Union Conference “Improving the Translation of Scientific and Technical Literature and Documents.” Moscow, 1982, pp. 93—94, where the polysemy of terms is called a stable and закономерным явлением, обусловленным внутренними законами развития языка; see also the description of certain semantic processes in the book: Petrov V. V. Semantics of Scientific Terms.— Novosibirsk, 1982. 5 Даниленко В. П. Русская терминология/Опыт лингвистического описания.— М., 1977, с. 53. 6 Practice shows that, when cumbersome multiword terms—phrases—are created, the need to select precisely the essential features for representation in the term is often forgotten, although D. S. Lotte repeatedly stressed this in his works (see, for example: Barzhitskaya O. V. On Certain Complex Issues in the Standardization of Scientific and Technical Terminology.— In: Scientific and Technical Terminology. Moscow, 1983, issue 5, pp. 1—5). 7 On this, see: Lotte D. S. Principles of the Construction of Scientific and Technical Terminology, p. 75. 139 of machine-building, agricultural, and hydrological terms, and so on. Nor do terms formed by changing the meaning of a general-literary word or a term from another field indicate polysemy or semantic instability in terminology, e.g.: усталость (“fatigue,” in metal technology), память (“memory,” in computing), долговечность (“durability,” in technical fields), козлы (“trestles,” in construction), and others. The disorder of certain terms encountered in practice and the presence of individual polysemous terms in actual terminological usage point to concrete facts about functioning, not to the nature of special words. 8 Cases of polysemy among terms in one field are not very widespread; moreover, polysemy is eliminated where possible when the terminology of a field is systematized. In various fields, however, one must take account of so-called categorial polysemy 9, which is based on the different categorical status of the corresponding derivatives, a feature обусловлено общей системой конкретного языка; for example, in Russian: твердость (“hardness”) — a property and a quantity, давление (“pressure”) — a process and a quantity, намотка, кладка (“winding,” “laying”) — a process and a result, смазка (“lubrication”) — a process and a substance, образование (“formation”) — in the active and reflexive senses (cf. the meanings of the verbs образовать and образоваться), выравниватель (“leveler”) — a person and a device. Categorial polysemy is not a flaw in terminology 10 that must be eliminated at all costs. Terms do not thereby become incomprehensible. The boundaries of a particular concept are not violated: твердость (“hardness”) is a particular property and the quantity corresponding to that property; выравниватель (“leveler”) is the agent (whether a person or a device) performing a particular action. The specific use of a term, the particular context in which it functions, usually reveals the term’s content quite clearly. Context does not make a term’s meaning a dependent phenomenon (it does not violate the requirement that a term be context-independent); it simply reveals and explains the meaning inherent in the term within the sphere in which it is recorded. There is an opinion that polysemy is especially characteristic of native words, since every natural language is a polysemous linguistic structure 11, whereas borrowings in the recipient language are unambiguous and supposedly function as pure symbols, and therefore have advantages in terminology 12. Borrowings are sometimes even preferred when selecting a particular specific term, 8 Danilenko V. P. Russian Terminology, p. 55. 9 Как работать над терминологией. Основы и методы.— М., 1968, с. 40. 10 Danilenko V. P. Russian Terminology, p. 69. 11 Дьяков Б. О полисемантической структуре естественных языков.— Вопросы философии, 1973, № 7, с. 139. 12 Интернациональные элементы в лексике и терминологии.— Харьков, 1980, с. 71. 140 e.g., Latvian has borrowed the Anglicisms parkings to name one type of car park, kruiz for one type of sea voyage, bermudi for one type of fashionable trousers, rums for one type of beverage, rauts for one type of celebration, and šovs for one type of performance. But, on the one hand, not all native words in languages are polysemous. Latvian dictionaries list, for example, the Latvian words ābele «apple tree», ascenes «glasses», alksnene «bitter bolete», apauši «halter», augājs «vegetation». The language contains thematic groups of words characterized by monosemy regardless of whether their origin is native or foreign, for example, names of sports — basketbols «basketball», volejbols «volleyball», dambrete «checkers», burāšana «sailing», rokasbumba «handball»; names of trees, flowers, and other plants — plūme «plum», acālija «azalea», balanda «lamb’s quarters», and others. On the other hand, many borrowings that have a more general meaning in the source language and are often polysemous there acquire multiple meanings in the borrowing language after some time, under conditions of extensive contemporary language contact. For example, in Russian the Anglicism круиз is used not only to denote a voyage by ship, but also to name an air journey and even a city ride in a horse-drawn carriage. The military term камуфляж has acquired the more general meaning of concealment in general. In Latvian usage, the Anglicism bermudi denotes not only women’s mid-length trousers with turn-ups, but also long trousers of a particular style, with or without turn-ups. The Anglicism шорты, too, does not denote only one specific type of short trousers. The Anglicism dizains is established with two meanings in Latvian scientific terminology: 1) “artistic construction” and 2) “artistic design” 13. Polysemy and semantic instability are also characteristic of many international borrowings built on a Greco-Latin basis. Over time, the meanings of the internationalisms концерт, конкурс, манифест, навигация, парад, тактика and others have changed. The internationalisms арматура, культура, морфология, реакция and others are used with different meanings. In Latvian, internationalisms are used to name certain periods of time: эпоха (to denote a long period of particular significance in the life of humankind), 13 It is interesting that Lithuanian terminology studies give the Russian word чертежник and the Lithuanian word braižytojas as equivalents of the English word designer (see, e.g.: A. Yu. Kaulakene, Calques in Modern Lithuanian Technical Terminology: Abstract of a Dissertation... Candidate of Philological Sciences.—Vilnius, 1983, p. 11). 141 etaps (in military and sports terminology, as well as with the more general meaning of a long period of time), and to name one type of report, raporis (in military and related terminology). Recently, under the influence of the meanings of the corresponding Russian internationalisms (эпоха, этап, рапорт), these internationalisms in Latvian have been acquiring more general meanings, thereby gradually displacing, to some extent, the Latvian words laikmets, posms, ziņojums. Like other lexical units in a language, internationalisms are characterized by polysemy in individual elements. Thus, the element -itāte commonly occurs in Latvian, and new internationalisms with an abstract meaning are formed with it: stabilitāte, profesionalitāte, eksemplaritāte, situativitāte. But some such internationalisms also have a concrete meaning: autoritāte, antikvitāte, aktualitāte, novitāte. (A similar shift in meaning from abstract to concrete is also observed in Latvian formations with the elements -ība, -ums, e.g., aplamība, darbība; darījums, plūksnojums, and in Russian formations with the elements -ость, -ство, e.g., сладость — сладости; новшество.) Additional synonymy, antonymy, or homonymy sometimes arises when classical international root elements are used in national word formation, for example: the root ген- is used in the formations индигенный и генуинный, which Lithuanian and Estonian linguists use with the shared meaning “native to the language.” The facts mentioned lead to the conclusion that the semantic advantages of borrowings are often highly debatable, and that one should agree with the statements of Soviet linguists who advise against cluttering a language with foreign-language designations, especially when borrowed from particular national languages. This is not only because they are designations of foreign origin, but also because they introduce into the borrowing language units with distinctive phonetic, morphological, and semantic structures, requiring special rules of spelling (and sometimes pronunciation), structural-semantic analysis, and so on. 14For example, when Latvian borrows the Anglicisms lapings, listings, moldings, monitorings, parkings, etc., the element -ings is singled out as an independent word-formation element and requires a place in the language’s overall word-formation system. However, semantically this element duplicates the Latvian element -šana (which corresponds to Russian -ние) and therefore does not enrich the language; on the contrary, it introduces unnecessary doublets. Individual borrowings of scientific terms from other national languages may disrupt the terminological system established in a given language, 14 С к в о р ц о в Л. И. Сокровищница языковой культуры (окончание).— Русская речь, 1976, № 4, с. 19. 142 Therefore, specialists’ efforts to avoid unmotivated borrowings common in professional usage when standardizing terminology in a particular field, and to replace them with successful systematic coinages, deserve approval. For example, in Latvian scientific and technical terminology, pieslīpnis was coined instead of the Germanism šlifs, izskalas instead of šlihs, stumbenis instead of štoks, and paminkaltava instead of klipverks; in medical terminology, atvilnis is recognized as the equivalent of the internationalism рефлукс, and spriedze as the equivalent of the Anglicism stress. Latvian equivalents have been provided for a whole range of internationalisms in ecological and hydrobiological terminology, for example: fitofāgs — augēdājs, heliofobs — saulbēglis, helofīts — purvaugs, hionofils — sniegmīlis. Latvian electronics specialists have recognized the term ekrānpults as entirely correct in place of the non-systematic Anglicism displejs15. Every national language has ample resources for differentiating word meanings. In Latvian, for example, various prefixes serve this purpose: sagāde “procurement” — apgāde “supply,” pakars “hanging” — piekars “suspension”; as do suffixes: drošība “safety” — drošums “reliability,” kraušana “loading” — krautnēšana “stacking”; and suffixal endings: ierakste “recording (process)” — ieraksts “record (result)”; and even alternations of vowels and consonants in the word root: spraislis “straight crossbar” — sprieslis “curved crossbar,” lietēšana “sprinkler irrigation” — liedēšana “rain-like irrigation (discharging in the form of rain).” Meaning is also differentiated by constructing terms—compound words and multiword terms: mežmeliorācija “forest reclamation” — meža meliorācija “reclamation of a forest,” darbavieta “place of work” — darba vieta “workplace,” ūdenslīmenis “water level” — ūdens līmenis “water surface.” In many languages, various international formations with established meanings constitute a valuable terminological resource. Examples include formations with the elements -ate, -ide, and -ite in chemical terminology (arsenate, nitrate, sulfate; arsenide, nitride, sulfide; arsenite, nitrite, sulfite); names of minerals ending in -ite, formed from local place names (altaite—found in Altai, belomorite—found near the White Sea, cubanite—found in Cuba) or from the surnames of eminent scholars (avicennite, birunite, bagrationite, przevalskite). With a few exceptions, internationalisms in certain meanings are used with the endings -ade (olympiade, spartakiade, schubertiade), -ation (agitation, concentr- 15 The Anglicism дисплей, as well as компьютер, дизайн, and others, have also been criticized in other languages; see, for example: Skvortsov L. I. The Treasury of Language Culture (conclusion). — Русская речь, 1976, No. 4, p. 19; Andreev R. A. On the Formation of Computing and Informatics Terminology in French. — In: All-Union Conference “Improving the Translation of Foreign Scientific and Technical Literature.” Moscow, 1978, p. 102. 143 ation), -ism (communism, socialism), -ist (communist, Russian studies specialist), -ity (authority, parity), and others. The meanings of the stems ferri- and ferro-; elid- and elimin-, and others, are strictly differentiated. Some languages also use other means and elements to differentiate the meanings of formations with international stems. For example, in Latvian theatrical terminology, the borrowed postfixed elements -ants and -ieris are used to distinguish the meanings of the terms dublants “a stand-in performer who plays the same role” and dublieris “a stand-in performer who speaks or acts in another’s place, for example, in dubbing films, performing dangerous stunts, and so on.” The derivatives aktivēt — aktivizēt, gāzēt — gazificēt, internacionāls — internacionalistisks, kompozīts — kompozicionāls, problēmisks — problemātisks, sistēmisks — sistemātisks, and others, have different meanings. Similar facts are also found in other languages: compare Russian активировать — активизировать, газировать — газифицировать, интернациональный — интернационалистский, композитный — композиционный, проблемный — проблематический, системный — систематический, and Estonian konstruktiivne — konstruktsiooniline, loogiline — loogikaline, süsteemne — süsteemaatiline16. Recently, in the practice of Latvian terminology standardization, when necessary to distinguish meanings, the semantics of synonyms admitted in scientific terminology have been differentiated, one of which is native and the other foreign (international). For example: dzinejs “engine” — motors “motor.” The article discusses in greater detail the issues of the univocity and polysemy of native and foreign terms, and mentions some possibilities for differentiating the meanings of particular word-formation groups based on native and international formations. Semantic problems associated with the requirements of mononymy and context-independence, among others, have been left outside the scope of the analysis. With the growing role of international terminology and the emergence in many national languages of new formations based on international stems, it is becoming increasingly urgent to consider ways and methods for harmonizing the semantics and form of international formations, and approaches to standardizing international terminology across languages, in order to eliminate contradictions found in practice (compare: библиотека, картотека, фильмотека, фонотека, but дискотека; багаж, километраж, литраж, тоннаж, but персонаж, etc.). 16 K u l l R. The Development of Estonian Terminological Vocabulary against the Background of Indo-European Languages.— In: Contacts between Russian and the Languages of the Baltic Peoples. Riga, 1984, pp. 123—137. 144 Every term must be scientifically substantiated. The requirements discussed in the works of D. S. Lotte, among them the requirement of systematicity, which holds a special place, have not lost their relevance in selecting the optimal scientific term. The clarity of a term is a guarantee of clarity of thought and a higher level of scientific language culture. 10 Užsak. Nr. 1007