О некоторых тенденциях развития научного стиля в русском и белорусском языках

МОКСЛО КАЛБОС КУЛТОРОС ИР ТЕРМИНОЛОГИЈОС ПРОБЛЕМОС ЛИЕТУВИŲ КАЛБОТЫРОС КЛАУСИМАИ, XXIV (1985) ЕЛЕНА ИОСИФОВНА ХОТЯНОВИЧ ON SOME TRENDS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SCIENTIFIC STYLE IN THE RUSSIAN AND BELARUSIAN LANGUAGES Under the conditions of the scientific and technological revolution, the social role of science and its impact on all spheres of public life, including the functioning, development, and interaction of languages, increase extraordinarily. The mass participation in research, the abundance of discoveries, the growth in the overall volume of scientific publications (the so-called “information explosion” and the related “terminological” explosion), and the international exchange of scientific knowledge, which leads to the internationalization of terminology, affect language as a whole and cause functional shifts in scientific discourse. In this regard, research into the language of scientific and technical literature has become especially relevant. The widespread expansion of translation work and the strengthening of interlinguistic ties call for comparative research into the style of scientific discourse in closely related languages. Such research is already being conducted on the basis of Russian and Ukrainian. Comparative Stylistics of the Russian and Ukrainian Languages was published (Kyiv, 1980). Comparative study of closely related languages makes it possible to determine the general patterns in the development of related languages under conditions of the closest linguistic contact, as well as the specific features of each; to identify concrete forms and modes of interaction and, possibly, convergence; to resolve many questions of translation (the connection between comparative stylistics and translation theory is undeniable); and to determine the abstract constructive-stylistic orientation in the use of linguistic means in a specific functional-content sphere of communication. Ukrainian and Belarusian linguistics face common problems and tasks, but this does not exempt researchers from the need to compare the stylistic systems of both Russian and Ukrainian and Russian and Belarusian. Such research is particularly significant for the Belarusian language, since questions concerning the choice of linguistic means in scientific, official, and other styles remain little studied in Belarusian linguistics. In principle, the task of comparative study of the stylistic systems and means of closely related languages does not differ from the general task 146 of comparative study of closely related languages1 and can be formulated as identifying, on the one hand, their stylistic commonality and, on the other, stylistic differences that reflect nationally distinctive features of expressive means within a given functional style 2. The extensive linguistic literature contains many general observations about the similarity of the scientific styles of different languages. Researchers of the East Slavic languages have even stronger grounds for emphasizing this similarity, since characteristic features inherent in scientific style in any language (generalization, objectivity, an explicit logical and consistent exposition, semantic precision, subdued emotionality, etc.) are accompanied here by the commonality of origin and the development of similar features as a result of contact, and hence by the identity or similarity of the linguistic expression of functional categories at all levels of the language system. However, common origins and linguistic contacts do not always imply typological similarity, which attests to the internal complexity of these factors. Russian-Belarusian linguistic contacts were characterized by different orientations at different historical stages. “In the 16th–17th centuries, Ukrainian-Belarusian influence on the Russian literary language clearly predominated”3. This is also evidenced by the penetration into Russian of lexical items such as администратор, апелляция, апробация, арена from Old Belarusian (more precisely, from other languages via Old Belarusian) 4. Later, owing to certain historical (socioeconomic, political, and cultural) circumstances, the functions of the Belarusian language became more limited. The last Old Belarusian book among the ancient monuments known today is dated 1722 5. For a long time, the main forms through which the Belarusian language was preserved and developed internally and functionally were Belarusian dialects and oral folk creativity. This break in written traditions led to the fact that, when the scientific style was being formed in Belarusian (and Belarusian scientific 1 Типология сходств и различий близкородственных языков. — Кишинев, 1976, с. 4—8; Ткаченко О. Б. Проблемы сопоставительно-исторического изучения славянских языков. — ВЯ, 1981, № 1, с. 48—59. 2 Булахов М. Г. Основные вопросы сопоставительной стилистики русского и белорусского языков. — Минск, 1979, с. 3. 3 Филин Ф. П. Истоки и судьбы русского литературного языка. — М., 1981, с. 171. 4 См.: Булыка А. Н. Даўнія запазычанні беларускай мовы. — Мінск, 1972, с. 19, 26, 28—29; Пы [sic] вторак Г. П. Русско-белорусские языковые контакты на разных исторических этапах. — В кн.: Русский язык в его связях с украинским и другими славянскими языками: Тез. докл. и сообщ. Симферополь, 1973, с. 245—249. 5 Жураўскі А. І. Гісторыя беларускай літаратурнай мовы. — Мінск, 1967, т. 1, с. 356. 147 (The style, in a form close to its present state, began to take shape in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.) A notable role was played by the orientation toward Russian, especially in the formation of Belarusian terminology—the most significant lexical group within scientific style. This orientation was connected with the influence of highly developed Russian science, as well as with the extensive assistance in organizing research and training scientific personnel after the Great October Socialist Revolution that the USSR Academy of Sciences and other scientific centers of the country provided to our republic. For example, scholars from Moscow, Petrograd, Kyiv, and Smolensk were invited to work at the V. I. Lenin Belarusian State University. The specifically linguistic reason that Russian was a language with an already established system of structural-functional styles and could serve, to some extent, as a model for Belarusian also played a significant role. The genetic affinity of Russian and Belarusian, as well as the influence of Russian on the formation of Belarusian functional styles, led to a relative commonality in the lexical composition of scientific style in these languages. This is manifested in the presence of a shared root vocabulary, the existence of a substantial stratum of internationalisms, and direct borrowings from Russian into Belarusian. This commonality tends to deepen, also in connection with the consciously formulated principle of minimizing divergences between corresponding terms in the literary languages of the peoples of the USSR. However, the principle of minimizing divergences between Russian and Belarusian terminological and general scientific vocabulary is not always applied. In Russian scientific writing, preference is often given to general scientific words of foreign origin, for example: to approximate (instead of express approximately), implicit (instead of implied), to represent (instead of represent), sacral, and so on. In Belarusian, this tendency is realized to a lesser degree, since in the formation of the style of scientific exposition one of the contradictory tendencies was evident: on the one hand, to assimilate the core body of international vocabulary and, on the other, to “use, as far as possible, the lexical resources of the living vernacular”6. Certain features of term formation can be noted even by comparing individual Russian-Belarusian terminological parallels. Thus, corresponding to the Russian terms mammals, supply (power) network, supply voltage, power supply circuit, Belarusian has млекакормячыя, жывлячая сетка, сілкуючае напружанне, схема сілкавання. The terms are formed from the word to nourish, which has a bookish coloring, 6 Красней В. П. Белорусская филологическая терминология начала XX века: Автореф. дис.... канд. филол. наук. — Минск, 1969, с. 14. 148 all the Russian terms are formed. In Belarusian, term formation varies according to nuances of meaning in the source word: to nourish — Belarusian: 1. карміць (млекакормячыя); 2. biology, physics жывіць (жывічная сетка); 3. сілкаваць (to supply material for operation — сілкуючае напружанне). The use of numerous structural types of calquing modeled on Russian led to the emergence of new Belarusian terms, for example: worldview — светапогляд, irradiation — абпраменьванне, abstractness — абцягненасць. Calquing helped bring out the word-formation potential of Belarusian, led to changes in the productivity of particular word-formation types, and contributed to the development of the morphemic structure of Belarusian. On the other hand, Belarusian’s own term-formation resources were realized fairly consistently, for example: адзіночналікавыя, множналікавыя назоўнікі — “singularia tantum” and “pluralia tantum”; the very successful Belarusian terms адцэнтрабежная, дацэнтрабежная сіла — centrifugal, centripetal force. The issue of synonymy and variation in terminology naturally arises in connection with the problem of the culture of scientific speech. If “during the emergence of a field of knowledge, the absence of unambiguous correspondence between terms and the concepts they denote reflects an ongoing process of nomination and appears inevitable”7, then in the present state of Russian and Belarusian this phenomenon indicates that problems of terminological systematization and standardization remain unresolved. For example, two terms are used in Belarusian scientific style with the meaning “oscillation”: ваганне and хістанне (for example: сума... схільна да хістання; цеплавыя ваганні атамаў). Although the Commission on Scientific and Technical Terminology at the Main Editorial Office of the Belarusian Soviet Encyclopedia recommended the use of the term ваганне (since the word хістанне also has the emotionally marked meaning “swaying”), both terms occur in scholarly articles, a fact attributable to extralinguistic causes, above all the existence of Russian-Belarusian scientific bilingualism and the tendency of Belarusian speakers to use Russian in this sphere of communication8. Hence the presence of both active and passive bilingualism among the scientific and technical intelligentsia. As a result, many 7 Андреев Р. А. Вариантность компонентов составных наименований в современном французском языке.—В кн.: Научный симпозиум «Семиотические проблемы языков науки, терминологии и информатики». М., 1971, с. 534. 8 “The more a particular sphere of linguistic communication is subject to internationalization, the more fully the tendency of language speakers to shift from the national language to a language of international communication is realized” (Міхневіч А. Я. Функцыі мовы і маўлення і праблемы беларуска-рускага двухмоўя.—В кн.: Пытанні білінгвізму і ўзаемадзеяння моў. Мінск, 1982, с. 75). 149 Articles are written in Russian and then translated into Belarusian, not without the help of a dictionary. Two Belarusian words also correspond to the Russian term скорость: скорасць and хуткасць, for example: касмічная скорасць, лінейная скорасць крышталізацыі — касмічная хуткасць, хуткасць рэакцыі. Here, however, the choice of term is influenced by the Russian language in such a way that the frequency of use of terms identical to the Russian one (скорасць) becomes higher than that of their synonyms (хуткасць). Moreover, the Belarusian word хуткасць also means “rapidity,” for example: хуткарослыя пароды, хуткія малекулы, which also contributes to the entrenchment of the term скорасць “speed” in scholarly texts. If, however, synonymous terms and variants are denied the right to exist, how can the question of the tendency toward diversity at the level of speech in the scientific style be resolved? Apparently, the existence of variants that, despite partially differing compositions, are identical in terms of stylistic and syntactic functions is acceptable, provided that variation does not compromise the semantic precision of a scientific text, for example: агародніцтва — гародніцтва, лесанаднаўленне — лесаўзнаўленне. A comparative study of the scientific style of Russian and Belarusian at the lexical level will make it possible to determine the degree of terminological density of scientific texts in Russian and Belarusian, the stylistic markedness of linguistic units, and to identify the role of metaphor and other figurative devices in scientific texts in the languages being compared, as well as to examine how the national characteristics of each language are reflected in international layers of vocabulary. The different conditions and periods in which the scientific style developed in Russian and Belarusian have led to a distinctive relationship among the linguistic resources of this style, a clearer and more rigorous delineation of the scientific style in Russian compared with Belarusian, and the realization of conflicting trends in the development of the scientific style of Belarusian.