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

TIITU ERELT

MOTIVATED AND ARBITRARY TERM IN ESTONIAN TERMINOLOGY

Motivation in terminology consists in the features of a concept being clearly expressed in linguistic units, that is, some of its essential features are separately realized at the linguistic level. In this sense, one can say that the features of a concept motivate the term. The motivation of terms has the effect of making the concept’s place in the system visible through the term.

A term as a means of naming usually realizes only two or three features of a concept; a necessary condition, however, is that the term should, at least in theory, reveal the essence of the concept. From a practical point of view, expressing the relationship of this concept to other concepts is more important. Interconceptual relations and a term’s membership in a particular terminological series are often marked by the repetition of a morpheme or by the same word-formation pattern.

An example of morpheme repetition is the suffix -ik in the names of age groups. These pedagogical terms were formed in Estonian in the late 1960s. The same suffix gives a uniform form to the entire terminological group, which is homogeneous in content: imik “infant,” maimik “child aged 1–3,” koolieelik “preschooler, child aged 3–7,” kaanik “primary-school pupil, child aged 7–11,” and mürsik “child aged 11–15.” This striving for unity of expression can also extend beyond a single language. For example, in geological terminology, mineral names are formed from the stem of a proper name with the suffix -ut (Estonian -iit). Such formation, with the appropriate orthographic variants, is characteristic of every national language in our cultural area: Russian bemite, Estonian böhmite.

Estonian compound words in which the head element indicates an action and the modifier the means by which that action is performed may serve as an example of the repetition of the same word-formation pattern. In Estonian compounds, the head element always appears second and the modifier first. In terminology, nominal compounding is recommended, that is, it is preferable for the modifier to appear in the nominative. In general literary language, however, and

156

especially in dialects, it more often appears in the genitive. In terminology, however, for example, the names of all types and subtypes of communication are formed according to the same word-formation pattern: the name of the means of communication in the nominative + the word side “communication”: elekterside, laserside, postside, raadioside, selektorside, telefonside, telegraafside, teletaipside, traat side.

Motivation in terminology is of two kinds: morphemic and semantic. With morphemic motivation, a word or phrase functioning as a term consists of several morphemes, whose selection depends on their meaning. Morphemic motivation is manifested, first, in compound words: toorvask—the morphemes toor and vask “blister copper”; raadiosõlm—the morphemes raadio and sõlm “radio node”; tolmukogur—the root morphemes tolmu and kog, and the suffix morpheme ur, “dust collector”; second, in derived words: salvestus—the root morpheme salve and the suffix morphemes st and us, “recording”; veetustamine—the root morpheme vee and the suffix morphemes tu, sta, mine; and third, in phrases: vaba keha “free body,” vahti all “under guard.”

The motivation of phrases is usually treated as a third type—syntactic motivation. For example, V. P. Danilenko considers it most objective to distinguish word-formation-morphological, syntactic, and semantic types of motivation¹. This is probably also objectively justified from the point of view of Russian. From the point of view of Estonian, however, there is no need to distinguish syntactic motivation separately. Morphemic motivation also applies to phrases. For example, the term pairs absoluutne kõrgus and absoluutkõrgus (both “absolute height”), esmane tööt lus and esmastööt lus (both “primary processing”), ühes vahetuses töö, ühe vahetusega töö and ühevahetuseline töö (in Russian also “work in one shift, one-shift work”). Such pairs of phrases and compound words are freely interchangeable formal variants to such an extent that there is no need to distinguish them by type of motivation. Morphemic motivation is primary in Estonian terminology; in essence it is word-formation motivation, and Estonian word formation is also very rich.

Let us briefly consider semantic motivation in Estonian terms as well. There are quite many Estonian terms that have become terms as a result of semantic transfer². Their sources include literary language and the terminology of other specialties, as well as dialects. For example, the literary word ergastama is used in atomic physics terminology to mean “to excite”

¹ Даниленко В. П. Русская терминология/Опыт лингвистического описания.— М., 1977, с. 63.

² See on this: E r e l t T. Eesti oskuskeel.— Tallinn, 1982, lk. 34—35, 75, 98.

157

(cores)»; the word madel, dialectal in origin, means “a support made of boards”; in automotive terminology it means “a flatbed truck,” hence tadelauto “flatbed vehicle.” There could be many more semantically motivated terms in Estonian terminology, especially figurative terms formed by metaphor, such as the names of minerals (opals) kassisilm “cat’s eye” and tiigrisilm “tiger’s eye.” Figurative terms are usually quite brief, display the inventiveness of their creators, and are viable. The use of such terms does not detract from the neutral style of terminological texts. Any associations accompanying such a term may persist only as long as it remains current in the language.

Terms that are non-derived words have no motivation. For example, the letter combinations iks and aken, “door” and “window,” are connected with the corresponding objects only by convention. Only in a figurative sense can one speak of semantic motivation, e.g., tiib “wing” in military usage.

How motivated can terms of foreign origin be? In terminological literature, terms based on Greek and Latin are usually considered motivated, while borrowings from other languages are perceived as arbitrary (unmotivated). Thus, proloog may be considered a motivated term, whereas pullover is arbitrary. It seems more appropriate to regard foreign-language terms as belonging to a domain in which motivation and arbitrariness cannot be sharply contrasted. Foreign-language terms are motivated to the extent that specialists know the foreign languages. In characterizing motivation, a linguist says that “the inner form of a word is transparent.” For someone who knows Greek, the original meaning of the word proloog shines through its form. Someone who knows English “sees through” the word pullover.

A borrowing from a language that a specialist does not know and a new native-language stem (whether coined, or taken from a dialect the specialist does not know) are in the same position. They are linked to concepts by a convention that is entirely unmotivated. Thus, arbitrary examples include such new Estonian coined words as raal “computer,” tärk “alphanumeric character,” and others.

Apparently, it is not quite right to distinguish motivated and arbitrary terms as sharply as has been done until now. A scale of motivation is perhaps more objective. At the right-hand end of this scale are purely and strongly motivated phrases and compound words; to their left are derived words, in which motivation is already weaker; further left are semantically motivated words; and then comes a zone whose words depend directly on whether users of the terms perceive them as motivated or not—that is, foreign-language terms and native-language semi-motivated new stems are found there

158

Finally, at the left-hand end of the scale are arbitrary terms—foreign-language terms based on languages that users do not know, and new native-language stems. Thus, motivation on this scale, as with all quantities represented on scales, increases from left to right.

Which term should be preferred, a motivated or an arbitrary one? This is a key question in terminology. The main advantage of a motivated term is the transparency of the concept. Yet even a motivated term cannot replace a definition, since every term has limits in expressing a concept. Motivated terms are longer than arbitrary ones. Sometimes the systematic expression of species concepts can lead to the formation of impractical, unwieldy terms. If such a term is frequent, there arises a need to replace it with a shorter one. The following approaches are possible. First, the distinguishing feature of the species can be omitted. In this case, the term retains a formal connection with the original expression but becomes dependent on context. Second, a long, clearly motivated term can be replaced with a shorter, less strongly motivated term—that is, a phrase or compound word with a derived word, e.g., instead of sulav element — sular “fusible link, fuse element,” instead of sõõteseade — sõõtur “feeder,” instead of nihkmõõteriist — nihik “caliper.” Third, a long term can be replaced by a short arbitrary one. In the latter case, the connection with the original form is lost, but the term remains independent of context: elektornarvuti=raal “computer,” põlevkivituhkbetoon=kukeroon “oil-shale ash concrete,” ristvälja-masinvõimendi=amplidüün “amplidyne”. In such synonymous pairs, both terms are acceptable. Such synonymy does no harm in practice; on the contrary, it often mitigates the tension between a term’s expressive capacity and its communicative capacity. Both variants are needed in constructing a text: molekulaarkvantgeneraator and maser, molecular quantum generator and maser.

The question of the relationship between motivated and arbitrary terms is to a considerable extent a question of which of the two kinds of memory to load—working or permanent. For example, the motivated term trükitüübi jalas tähepildist üles—või allapoole ulatuv osa “the shoulder of a type,” loads working memory, while the arbitrary term sümik loads permanent memory. To ease the loading of working memory, language brings new words into use, which must then be fixed in permanent memory. The introduction of a new word is justified if it contributes to economy of thought. For example, introducing a new stem, whether native or foreign, is justified if that stem can be used to form several necessary terms—derived and compound words and phrases in which the stem serves as one component. A new stem should be used optimally.

159

“Optimal” should not be understood as “maximal.” For example, if one forms the maximum number of derived terms from the same stem, one may end up with awkward paronymy.

When evaluating terms from a pedagogical perspective, one should take into account the fact that arbitrary terms have to be memorized, whereas motivated terms are usually assimilated naturally. A motivated term seems to make the concept clearer to the mind and helps one understand the conceptual hierarchy.

Thus, neither motivated nor arbitrary terms should be universally preferred. Choosing one or the other, both in dictionaries and in terminological texts, requires discussion of each specific case.