Mokslo ir technikos revoliucija ir lietuvių terminologijos raida

MOKSLO KALBOS KULTŪROS IR TERMINOLOGIJOS PROBLEMOSLIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, XXIV(1985) STASYS KEINYS THE SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL REVOLUTION AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF LITHUANIAN TERMINOLOGY The modern scientific and technological revolution has placed major demands on the study of language as well, because language, in the words of I. Beloded, is like a barometer of society’s current development—all the achievements of social development and of scientific and technological progress are dynamically and multifariously reflected in the world’s most highly developed languages1. Both general questions of language policy, the functioning and planning of languages, and questions concerning the internal development of individual language forms and levels, as well as their interaction with non-linguistic factors, must be thoroughly addressed and investigated. To confine the relationship between the scientific and technological revolution and language and linguistics solely to the language of science or, as it is often called, to issues concerning specialized domains of language use and terminology would, plainly, be an excessively narrow understanding of this multifaceted phenomenon on a global scale. Questions of the language of science and terminology form an integral part of the study of language under contemporary conditions, arising directly from the functions and role of language in society. The world’s languages function in markedly different ways. Of the 2,500–3,000 languages existing today, only about one in ten is literary, while the rest have no written form at all. Moreover, the roughly three hundred literary languages of the contemporary world differ greatly in their functions, degree of development, and prevalence. Alongside the so-called world languages, which are most widely used in interstate relations, international events, and other forms of communication, and in which the largest body of contemporary scientific, technological, cultural, political, and other literature is published, there are also literary languages whose functions are very limited even in the lives of the individual peoples or small ethnic groups that use them. For example, speakers of some underdeveloped literary languages cannot receive education in their mother tongue—not only higher education, but also secondary education and, in some cases, even primary education. This shows that one cannot set the same objectives for the further development of all languages and their functions. Different objectives apply to developed literary languages and to those still being created and developed, whether rapidly or slowly. The Lithuanian language is a comparatively developed literary language. It is used in all spheres of the life of the Lithuanian people, has a substantial tradition and lite- 1 Белодед И. К. Язык и социальный прогресс.— В кн.: Научно-техническая революция и функционирование языков мира. М., 1977, с. 5. 179 rature and sufficient resources to continue serving effectively all spheres of state and social life, production and creative work, science, technology, education, and other fields. In Lithuanian, it is possible to express essentially all matters of contemporary and past life, including, of course, matters of science and technology. The days are long gone when certain foreign scholars all but sang funeral dirges for the Lithuanian language or chauvinistically claimed that it was unsuitable for the literary, scientific, and other forms of creative work characteristic of cultured nations. Through the efforts of many generations, the Lithuanian language has been refined and continues to develop productively today. The development and potential of a language and the proficiency of its individual users are, plainly, different things. There have probably been people who use language carelessly in every age and among every nation. They can be found today, too. The trouble is that such uneducated people sometimes try to conceal their ignorance by blaming the language itself, as if a language could do only as much as they themselves are capable of2. Literary languages are created and refined through the conscious efforts of their users. In this process, leading intellectuals from various fields play a major role; their work is often not only a new contribution to a particular field (science, art, politics, etc.), but also an example of language use. Linguists have made substantial contributions to the theoretical and practical cultivation of language ever since contemporary literary languages came into being. At the cradle of the contemporary Lithuanian literary language stood J. Jablonskis, a classic of language standardization who matured alongside it. Linguists’ constant oversight accompanied the subsequent stages in the development of the Lithuanian literary language, and today’s linguists, too, are dedicated language cultivators. Active, conscious language cultivation, grounded in thorough theoretical research, is especially important under the conditions of the contemporary scientific and technological revolution, when ties among peoples and languages have expanded greatly. Improving language teaching has also become vitally important, including, of course, the teaching of the mother tongue, so that every member of society may achieve mastery of the language, with attention not only to correctness but also to its stylistic differentiation and expressive resources. 1. Aspects of the Development of Lithuanian Terminology Under the conditions of the scientific and technological revolution, one of the most important tasks facing linguists and specialists in various other fields of science, technology, and production is the further improvement of what is known as the language of science and its most effective mastery. The same applies to scientific and technical terminology, which forms the core of expression in specialized disciplines. Today, when science has become a productive force, only a high level of terminological and, more generally, linguistic culture can meet society’s language needs. Hence the increased attention paid by both linguists and specialists in other fields to issues of terminolo- 2 In his sharply worded article “Is All Well in the House of Language?”, Docent K. Zuperka took this to task; see “Raudonoji vėliava” (Shiauliai city newspaper), 1983, June 10. 180 gy and language culture is entirely in keeping with the times and their demands. This attention helps improve terminological work and drives it forward more rapidly, systematically, and rationally, on the basis of thorough theoretical research and with due regard for the needs and prospects of developing science, the national economy, and socialist culture in the republic and the country. Contemporary terminological work must draw on all the best experience of past generations, both our own and that of other peoples, since terminology itself is rooted in the scientific and broader cultural experience of past centuries. The creation and growth of Lithuanian terminology began to be recorded in writing in the mid-sixteenth century. The early period of Lithuanian writing left clear traces in the development of the Lithuanian language and in the maturation of its terminology; together with the language of the people, it provided the foundation and firm support for the rapid formation of the modern Lithuanian literary language at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries, and for the productive creation and systematization of contemporary Lithuanian terminology in science, technology, and other fields. This development was both necessitated and facilitated by the considerable expansion of the Lithuanian language’s social functions in the nation’s economic, political, and cultural life. A large group of distinguished scientists, artists, higher-education and educational workers in general, and intellectuals in other fields left a strong mark in all these areas. Linguists J. Jablonskis (1860—1930) and K. Būga (1879—1924); mathematicians and educators P. Mašiotas (1863—1940), M. Šikšnys (1874—1970), and Z. Žemaitis (1884—1969); forester P. Matulionis (1860—1932); biologists J. Elisonas (1889—1946), T. Ivanauskas (1882—1971), P. Šivickis (1882—1968), and L. Vailionis (1886—1939); chemists F. Butkevičius (1887—1934) and A. Purėnas (1881—1962); chemist and physicist V. Čepinskis (1871—1940); physicians P. Avižonis (1875—1939), K. Grybauskas (1886—1953), V. Lašas (1892—1966), and P. Mažylis (1885—1966); engineers P. Jankauskas (1860—1941), P. Jodelė (1871—1955), V. Mošinskis (1876—1955), K. Vasiliauskas (1879—1957), and P. Vileišis (1851—1926); literary scholar M. Gustaitis (1870—1927); art historian P. Galaunė (born 1890); musicians T. Brazys (1870—1930), J. Naujalis (1869—1934), M. Petrauskas (1873—1937), and S. Šimkus (1887—1943); public figure J. Šliūpas (1861—1944); philosopher S. Šalkauskis (1886—1941); educator A. Vireliūnas (1887—1925); and many others made especially significant contributions to the creation and development of Lithuanian terminology during this period. Distinguished figures in the Communist Party of Lithuania and its founders, V. Mickevičius-Kapsukas (1880—1935), Z. Aleksa-Angarietis (1882—1940), and others also worked productively to create Lithuanian Marxist-Leninist terminology. Thus, by 1940, Lithuanian terminology had already been developed in many fields. Moreover, this terminology had become established in scientific, technical, pedagogical, and popular-science literature, as well as in the practice of higher, specialized, and general secondary schools. From the very restoration of Soviet rule in Lithuania, the functioning of the Lithuanian language in science, technology, production, and education, as well as in the state, 181 cultural, and social life of the republic required further expansion of the work of standardizing, improving, and systematizing Lithuanian terminology. It became necessary to supplement terminology in various fields in light of new conditions in social life. The republic’s industrialization, the collectivization of agriculture, the cultural revolution, and the associated rapid development of research in the republic’s Academy of Sciences, established in the early years of Soviet rule, as well as in other scientific institutions and higher-education establishments, together with the accelerated training of qualified personnel, created the task of further developing and improving terminology in many fields. During the first decades of Soviet rule, sociopolitical and state terminology was qualitatively renewed and became established in general usage; Lithuanian books on science, technology, politics, and other subjects were published in large numbers, along with original and translated textbooks for higher, specialized secondary, vocational, and general education schools, as well as many popular-science publications. All this gave a notable impetus to the development and systematization of Lithuanian terminology and prompted the more extensive preparation of normative terminological dictionaries. Terminological work is being advanced rapidly through the joint efforts of the older generation and the scholars who came of age under Soviet rule. This work has drawn, and continues to draw, on the progressive traditions of creating and systematizing Lithuanian terminology, and on the rich and valuable experience accumulated by earlier generations of Lithuanian workers in science, technology, the arts, and other fields. The theory and practice of terminological work also make extensive use of the vast experience of Russian scientific and technical terminology. It may be added that most of the more prominent Lithuanian scholars and cultural figures of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries had graduated from Russian institutions of higher education, and some taught and conducted research at those institutions before the Great October Socialist Revolution and during the first years after it. This undoubtedly resulted in considerable Russian influence on the Lithuanian terminology being created at the time. German and English terminology also had a significant influence, as did French and Polish to some extent, and, apparently to a much lesser degree, terminology in other languages and the principles for its creation and systematization. Thus, it can be said that in the first decades of the twentieth century a national school of terminology emerged, drawing both on the foundations of the creation and standardization of the Lithuanian literary language itself and on the terminological experience of Lithuanian and other languages. The work carried out over a long period by successive generations of workers in Lithuanian science, technology, production, the arts, and other fields, and the continuity of terminological work and work in this area, yielded fine and mature results. Today, Lithuanian terminology in many fields has not only been created but has also been brought into fairly good order and standardized. This, of course, by no means signifies that terminological work is finished. It can never be finished, because social development, scientific and technological progress, and the flourishing of culture require that the terminology in use be continually expanded and improved, supplemented, and reviewed anew. It is therefore appropriate to speak only of particular stages in terminological work. 182 its completion or disappearance, its coordination and adjustment to the state of science, technology, production, and other fields at the given time, and to the needs of society. Terminology must always meet the requirements of the time, since only then can it serve the advancement of all areas of social life unhindered and effectively. Works published in Lithuanian, collections of articles, textbooks, various reference materials, and specialized periodicals are of great importance for the ordering of terminology in science, technology, and other fields and for introducing standardized terms into usage. Preparing such publications for print involves substantial work to expand, coordinate, and generally organize terminology; terms in use and newly proposed terms are often discussed collectively. Fundamental works of Lithuanian scholarship—“Flora of the Lithuanian SSR” (V., 1959–1980, 6 vols.), “Physical Geography of the Lithuanian SSR” (V., 1958–1965, 2 vols.), “History of the Lithuanian SSR” (1957–1975, 4 vols.), “Grammar of the Lithuanian Language” (V., 1965–1975, 3 vols.), “History of Lithuanian Literature” (V., 1957–1969, 4 vols., 5 books), and many others—are at the same time the most significant achievements of Lithuanian terminology and the clearest evidence of its development. The Institute of Party History under the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Lithuania is doing fruitful work to organize Lithuanian socio-political and scholarly Marxist-Leninist terminology. Many institutes of the republic’s Academy of Sciences, other research institutions, and higher education establishments carry out substantial work organizing terminology in various fields. The terminological work of the republic’s publishing houses deserves a positive assessment. However, the organization of terminology, especially its standardization, should be more productive and more prompt in many research institutions and higher education establishments. In many places, this extremely important work is still undertaken only sporadically, with excessive reliance on individual enthusiasts, who, quite obviously, are often unable on their own to resolve properly all the terminological ambiguities that arise. As a result, too great a burden falls on publishing houses, which are also far from always having sufficient resources and time to deal with such matters. Translated publications, too, present certain terminological challenges. Encyclopedic publications have played and continue to play a considerable role in the development of Lithuanian terminology in this century. By bringing together and summarizing the achievements of society, science, technology, and culture at a given time, encyclopedias help record standardized terminology while also actively contributing to its expansion and further development. Recently, 50 years have passed since the publication of the first universal “Lithuanian Encyclopedia” began (10 volumes covering the letters A—J were published in Kaunas from 1933 to 1941). Given the shortage of specialized dictionaries in prewar Lithuania, this encyclopedia was also exceptionally important for the development and expansion of Lithuanian terminology. The three-volume “Small Soviet Lithuanian Encyclopedia” (V., 1966–1971) and the twelve-volume “Soviet Lithuanian Encyclopedia” (V., 1976–1984), published in Soviet times, are very important factors in standardizing, stabilizing, and developing Lithuanian terminology. The planned new encyclopedias and encyclopedic dictionaries will undoubtedly encourage further improvement of terminology in various fields as well as of terminological work itself. 183 both Lithuanian terminology and terminological work itself. Thus, the time has now come to review more broadly the presentation and standardization of terms in Lithuanian encyclopedias, so that their role may continue to grow and so that inaccuracies and terminological errors can be corrected. There are cases when encyclopedia editors unjustifiably alter established terms, introduce new variants of them, or even change their word-formation types 3. No individual publishing house, editorial office, or other agency should change established terms without the approval of the relevant terminology commission and linguist-terminologists. The most important terminological questions should be submitted for approval to the Terminology Council under the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences of the Lithuanian SSR. Without this, proposals made by individual agencies or publications have no standardizing authority. Terminological arbitrariness merely confuses specialists and the public. 2. Terminology dictionaries Well-prepared terminology dictionaries are a very important factor in organizing terminology and introducing standardized terms. At the same time, they are a clear indicator of fruitful terminological work. In Soviet times—more precisely, after the Second World War, since no terminology dictionaries had been prepared in the republic during the fewer than first years of Soviet rule—more than 70 terminology dictionaries and glossaries of varying scope, purpose, and character, covering various fields, were published in Lithuania. About half of these were relatively small bilingual translation glossaries for students in various specialties, prepared by higher-education instructors and printed using a rotary press. Most of these glossaries have been of little significance for the development and organization of Lithuanian terminology. Nevertheless, they are undoubtedly very necessary as teaching aids 4. The largest number of teaching terminology dictionaries and glossaries have been prepared and published by Kaunas Medical Institute and Vilnius Institute of Civil Engineering, and somewhat fewer by the Lithuanian Academy of Agriculture, Vilnius State V. Kapsukas University, and the State Institute of Physical Education of the Lithuanian SSR. A few have also been produced by instructors—most often in foreign-language departments, but also in one or another specialized department—at some other higher education establishments. The “Šviesa” publishing house has published several terminology glossaries for schoolchildren. While supporting and encouraging the development of Lithuanian pedagogical terminography in every way, we must increase the standardizing role of teaching terminology dictionaries and glossaries and prepare and publish more such dictionaries for secondary-school students. Departments of specialized subjects should be more active in preparing teaching terminology dictionaries; at present, Russian-language departments are almost entirely absent from this field 3 Philology Candidate of Sciences K. Gaivenis brought this latter case to my attention, expressing dissatisfaction with this matter. 4 For a fuller discussion of such terminology dictionaries and glossaries, see: Gaivenis K., Keinys S. Review of Lithuanian teaching terminology dictionaries: shortcomings and recommendations for improvement.— Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences of the Lithuanian SSR. Series A, 1981, vol. 2(75), pp. 127—137. 184 lecturers. It is necessary to ensure that dictionaries and glossaries of this kind are reviewed by the terminology commissions of the relevant fields and by linguists, and approved by the general commissions of higher education institutions or by the republic-wide terminology commissions for the relevant fields. Before publication, they should also be coordinated with the Terminology Council under the Presidium of the Lithuanian SSR Academy of Sciences. Most dictionaries of terms published by publishing houses, as well as some published by other institutions, have been well prepared and reviewed by the Terminology Commission of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature of the republic’s Academy of Sciences and, after its dissolution, by the Terminology Group of the same institute. They have greatly helped to stabilize, standardize, and generally organize Lithuanian terminology in the relevant fields. A large proportion of these dictionaries are substantial works of Lithuanian terminography and provide great support to specialists, publishing-house and periodical-press staff, and young scholars alike. First to be mentioned are explanatory dictionaries of terms, since their standardizing significance is greatest. The following are regarded as the most significant explanatory dictionaries of terms: “Dictionary of Botanical Terms” (compiled by the Botanical Dictionary Commission, chief ed. J. Dagys.— V., 1965.— 664 p.), J. Ceičys’s “Dictionary of Land Reclamation Terms” (V., 1960.— 284 p.), K. Daukšas’s “Chemistry Dictionary” (V., 1960.— 452 p.), A. Jurevičius and A. Čižas’s “Explanatory Dictionary of Textile Terms” (V., 1962, pt. 1.— 100 p.), A. Krutulis’s “Dictionary of Musical Terms” (2nd rev. ed.— V., 1975.— 260 p.), “Dictionary of Terms in Scientific and Technical Information” (compiled by A. Trečiokaitė.— V., 1983.— 228 p.), and others. Among teaching dictionaries of terms, S. Gecevičiūtė’s “Explanations of Zoological Terms” (V., 1974.— 180 p.) is important in this respect. Finally, the “Dictionary of Philosophy,” translated from Russian (Lithuanian ed. ed. R. Plečkaitis.— V., 1975.— 488 p.), should also be mentioned. Most of these dictionaries are not purely explanatory. For example, the dictionary of botanical terms gives the corresponding Latin and Russian terms; the chemistry, land reclamation, and textile dictionaries give Russian terms; and the dictionary of terms in scientific and technical information gives terms in Russian and English. Russian and German equivalents are provided in the “Explanatory Dictionary of Woodworking Terms” (compiled by A. Barkauskas, S. Jonaitis, M. Kairys et al.— V., 1971.— 120 p.). This mixed type of dictionary of terms (explanatory-translational) should be considered the most promising and useful. Incidentally, specialists in the Terminology and Language Culture Section of the Institute of Language and Literature of the Estonian SSR Academy of Sciences have also recognized the explanatory-translational type of dictionary of terms as the most appropriate, taking into account the resources of a small republic to prepare and publish such dictionaries, as well as the major role of dictionaries in organizing and standardizing terms and introducing correct terms into usage5. Moreover, such dictionaries, supplemented with indexes of terms in other languages, provide users with the greatest amount of necessary information, which is needed by specialists, publishing-house and press workers, translators, students, and 5 Ots X. On the development of types of Estonian terminological dictionaries.— In: The Role of Theory in the Practical Development of Terminology and the Standardization of Literary Languages. Tallinn, 1982, pp. 112—113. 185 other people who deal with the relevant terms. This, of course, does not mean that translational dictionaries should be abandoned altogether, especially since preparing a good explanatory-translational dictionary requires considerably more time and effort. Most Lithuanian standardizing dictionaries of terms published to date are translational. They are mostly bilingual Russian–Lithuanian or Lithuanian–Russian dictionaries, for example, V. Gudelis’s “Dictionary of Geological and Physical-Geographical Terms” (V., 1956.— 220 p.), “Dictionary of Literary Terms” (compiled by J. Petronis, V. Vanagas, A. Zალatorius.— V., 1962.— 80 p.), M. Mikalajūnas’s “Russian–Lithuanian Dictionary of Meteorological Terms” (V., 1975.— 220 p.), “Russian–Lithuanian Dictionary of Economic Terms” (ed. in charge K. Meškauskas.— V., 1966.— 292 p.), “Russian–Lithuanian Polytechnic Dictionary” (ed. board chair A. Novodvorskis.— V., 1959.— 520 p.), V. Anskaitis and M. Kilo’s “Russian–Lithuanian Dictionary of Agricultural Terms” (V., 1971.— 368 p.), “Dictionary of Sports Terms” (compiled by V. Steponaitis.— V., 1959.— 340 p.), “Dictionary of Legal Terms” (compiled by A. Žiurlys.— V., 1954.— 240 p.), the recently published teaching “Russian–Lithuanian Dictionary of Agricultural Mechanization Terms” (compiled by V. Gerulaitis, S. Lukėnas.— V., 1983.— 160 p.), and others. In addition, several substantial English–Lithuanian dictionaries of terms have been published, for example, A. Buračas’s “English–Lithuanian Dictionary of Economic Terms” (V., 1980.— 489 p.), A. Novodvorskis’s “English–Lithuanian Polytechnic Dictionary” (V., 1958.— 172 p.), and the teaching “English–Lithuanian Dictionary of Agricultural Terms” (ed. in charge R. Kelbauskienė.— V., 1977.— 168 p.). A separate group of translational dictionaries consists of multilingual dictionaries. Alongside Lithuanian terms, they provide equivalents in two or more other languages; examples include V. Kairys, A. Kaminskas, Z. Kudirka et al.’s “Russian–Lithuanian–English Dictionary of Computing Terms” (V., 1971.— 600 p.), the Latin–Lithuanian–Russian “Dictionary of Medical Terms” by V. Astrauskas, S. Biziulevičius, S. Pavilonis et al. (V., 1980.— 996 p.), and the Lithuanian–Russian–English–German “Dictionary of Physics Terms” (compiled by the Physics Terminology Commission, ed. P. Brazdžiūnas.— V., 1979.— 680 p.). J. Vosylius’s “Concise Pharmaceutical Polyglot Dictionary” (K., 1970.— 350 p.), a teaching dictionary of smaller scope published by the Kaunas Medical Institute, could also be included among these substantial works of Lithuanian translational terminography; it gives terms in Latin, Lithuanian, English, German, French, and Russian. Translational dictionaries published by publishing houses usually include indexes of terms in the second and subsequent languages. This undoubtedly increases their informativeness, since such a bilingual dictionary in fact serves as two dictionaries (for example, a Russian–Lithuanian dictionary with an index of Lithuanian terms can also be used as a Lithuanian–Russian dictionary), while a multilingual dictionary serves as several dictionaries of terms. By doing this, a considerable amount is saved 186 of paper and the working time of compilers, publishers, and printing houses. This is very important, because demand for terminology dictionaries in the republic has grown considerably, while their preparation and publication lag far behind that demand. While highly appreciating the publication of terminology dictionaries carried out and still being carried out in Lithuania in Soviet times, as this is truly a major step forward for Lithuanian terminography, one must also recognize certain gaps in this work. First of all, terminology dictionaries for some important fields of science and the national economy have not yet been published or even prepared (for example, forestry, construction, veterinary medicine, and the social sciences), and the state of preparation of terminology dictionaries for the republic’s most important industrial sectors is particularly unsatisfactory. The republic’s production associations, factories, and other organizations should take a greater interest in organizing the terminology of their respective fields. In addition, the print runs of most dictionaries were sold out long ago; one or another terminology dictionary published 20–30 years ago is already outdated6 and therefore needs to be supplemented and updated. Some terminology dictionaries are edited and prepared for printing very slowly at publishing houses, lying unpublished for years. This was the fate of terminology dictionaries in medicine and agricultural mechanization published in recent years; the same can be said of the recently published polytechnic dictionary. Few explanatory terminology dictionaries are being prepared and published. This view is also held by V. Mikhalchenko, senior research fellow at the Institute of Linguistics of the USSR Academy of Sciences, who adds that bilingual dictionaries were necessary at the first stage of terminological work (the inventory of terms), whereas now it is time to move to a new stage of this work—the compilation of terminological systems, taking into account the specific development of individual fields of science and technology7. The late A. Rilsky, scientific secretary of the USSR Academy of Sciences’ Committee on Scientific and Technical Terminology, formulated this task for Lithuanian terminology in much the same way at the all-Union seminar held in Moscow in early 1981 on matters concerning terminological work in the academies of sciences of the Union republics8. Finally, the lexicographic preparation of some terminology dictionaries (especially instructional ones printed by rotaprint) has its shortcomings, and Lithuanian terms in many dictionaries are not marked for stress. The Terminology Council under the Presidium of the Lithuanian SSR Academy of Sciences devotes considerable attention to Lithuanian terminography. Its meetings have thoroughly considered questions concerning instructional terminology dictionaries (December 20, 1978), and the preparation and publication of Lithuanian terminology dictionaries issued by publishing houses (December 6 This had already been written about a dozen years earlier (see: Г а й в я н и с К., К л и м а в и ч ю с П. Некоторые вопросы терминологической работы в Литовской ССР.— Научно-техническая терминология, 1973, № 2, с. 20). 7 M i k h a l c h e n k o V. Yu. Trends in the development of scientific and technical terminology in the Baltic languages.— In: The Scientific and Technological Revolution and the Functioning of the Languages of the World. Moscow, 1977, p. 146. 8 R y l s k i y A. G. A Brief Overview of the State of Affairs and the Tasks Addressed by the Terminology Bodies of the Union Republics.— In: Problems of Developing and Standardizing Terminology in the Academies of Sciences of the Union Republics. Moscow, 1983, p. 168. 187 13)9 were also discussed, as was the long-term plan for publishing terminology dictionaries in 1981–1990 (November 27, 1980). The most important terminology dictionaries being published are discussed and approved, and reviewed by the Terminology Group of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature. 3. Organizational Terminological Work To organize and coordinate terminological work in the republic, a Terminology Commission was established in 1945 under the Presidium of the Lithuanian SSR Academy of Sciences; in 1951 it was transferred to the Institute of the Lithuanian Language (from 1952, after the institutes were merged, it was called the Terminology Commission of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature of the Lithuanian SSR Academy of Sciences). This commission did considerable work, encouraging specialists in various fields to devote more attention to organizing Lithuanian terminology and reviewing published terminology dictionaries from the linguistic standpoint. Its representatives actively participated in numerous meetings of terminology commissions in various fields. During the commission’s years of activity, the foundations were laid for the continued successful organization of Lithuanian terminology, and the forms and methods of this work that later persisted and continued to develop were established. For many years the commission was led skillfully and productively by Associate Professor J. Kruopas, Candidate of Philological Sciences (1908–1975); after the Terminology Council was established under the Presidium of the Lithuanian SSR Academy of Sciences, he served as its deputy chair. In the postwar years, J. Kruopas was the foremost organizer of Lithuanian terminology work and the greatest authority in this field. He contributed actively to the preparation of a dozen important terminology dictionaries, carefully addressed, with the help of specialists from various fields, the presentation of terms in the Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian and, likewise, in the academic Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, and published articles on terminology in scholarly and periodical publications10. Linguists V. Bartusevičius, N. Grigas (1896–1972), Candidate of Philological Sciences A. Kučinskaitė, Candidate of Philological Sciences V. Labutis, Candidate of Philological Sciences K. Gaivenis, and others worked productively on the institute’s Terminology Commission at various times. K. Gaivenis devoted himself especially to this work, having plowed a broad furrow in terminology over nearly three decades. As terminological work in the republic expanded, a commission composed solely of linguists and operating on a voluntary basis was no longer able to cover 9 The resolutions of the Terminology Council on these matters have been published; see: On Lithuanian Instructional Terminology Dictionaries.— Kalbos kultūra, 1979, issue 37, pp. 4–5; On the Preparation and Publication of Lithuanian Terminology Dictionaries.— Mūsų kalba, 1980, no. 3, pp. 26–28. 10 For J. Kruopas’s terminological work, see: Drotvinas V., Lyberis A., Pikčilingis J., Ulvydas K. The Loss of a Distinguished Lithuanian Linguist.— Kalbos kultūra, 1976, issue 30, p. 4; Gaivenis K., Lyberis A., Ulvydas K. J. Kruopas—A Distinguished Researcher of His Native Language.— Kalbos kultūra, 1978, issue 34, pp. 82–83; Гайванис К. И. Крупонас как терминолог и нормализатор литовского языка— Научно-техническая революция и проблемы культуры языка науки и терминологии: тез. докл. и сообщ. регионального теорет.-метод. семинара (симпоз.) 31 мая—1 июня 1983 г.— Вильнюс, 1983, с. 30—31. 188 all the tasks arising in connection with the organization and coordination of the work of ordering Lithuanian terminology. Accordingly, at the initiative of the Terminology Commission, preparatory work was carried out to reorganize the organization of this activity. In accordance with a resolution adopted by the republic’s Council of Ministers at the end of 1971, the Terminology Council under the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences of the Lithuanian SSR was established, and in June 1972 the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences approved the regulations of this Council. The main tasks of the Terminology Council are formulated as follows: a) to coordinate and organize Lithuanian terminology work carried out in various scientific and educational institutions, publishing houses, factories, etc.; b) to approve prepared terminological dictionaries (bulletins); c) to recommend individual scientific and technical terms for language practice. In carrying out its work, the Terminology Council may establish terminology sections, commissions, and subcommissions for individual fields; recommend that research, educational, and other institutions and organizations include terminology topics in their work plans; and recommend that publishing houses include in their publishing plans terminology works approved by the Council (dictionaries, collections of articles, etc.). In addition, the Terminology Council must gather information about terminology work being carried out in the republic, terminology dictionaries and bulletins being prepared or planned, etc.; it may discuss them at its meetings, approve them, and recommend them for practical use. When necessary, the Council organizes consultations, conferences, and seminars devoted to various terminology issues and also participates in similar events organized by other institutions, both within the republic and beyond its borders. The Terminology Council operates on a voluntary basis, and its headquarters are at the Academy of Sciences’ Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature. The Council is assisted in carrying out its tasks by the Terminology Group of this institute, established at approximately the same time. Its principal functions are formulated as follows: maintaining the records and current affairs of the Terminology Council; monitoring terminology work in the republic and informing the Terminology Council about it; maintaining relations with sections and terminology commissions, teams engaged in terminology work, and authors of terminological dictionaries, and providing them with linguistic consultations; preparing draft methodological and other instructions for terminology work; examining current terminology issues and preparing collections of terminology articles and other materials for publication; reviewing and editing terminological dictionaries (bulletins, lists) from a linguistic standpoint. The Terminology Council includes 23 prominent specialists from various fields of science and technology, among them Academy of Sciences of the republic academicians P. Brazdžiūnas, J. Gaudrimas, J. Kubilius, and P. Slavėnas, and corresponding members of the Academy J. Bulavas (law), J. Dagys, V. Gudelis, J. Macevičius, R. Šarmaitis, and P. Vasinauskas. Since its establishment, the Council has been chaired by Academician Professor V. Mažiulis, Doctor of Philology. 189 In its work, the Terminology Council relies on field-specific terminology commissions, of which there are currently more than twenty in the republic. More than half of the active terminology commissions are republican commissions, while the rest have been established to handle the internal affairs of individual institutions. Some of the republican field-specific terminology commissions are headed by members of the Terminology Council. For example, Academician P. Brazdžiūnas chairs the Physics Terminology Commission; Academician J. Kubilius heads the Mathematics Terminology Commission; corresponding member of the Lithuanian SSR Academy of Sciences J. Dagys chairs the Botanical Dictionary Commission; and corresponding member of the Lithuanian SSR Academy of Sciences P. Vasinauskas chairs the Agronomy Terminology Commission, etc. Drawing on the many years of productive work and experience of some terminology commissions, the Terminology Council seeks to ensure that the terminology commissions for the principal fields of science and technology are republican—that is, that they bring together the republic’s leading specialists, regardless of where they work. This helps to resolve all emerging terminology issues competently, properly coordinate terms in use and those newly introduced or revised, and avoid the variation in terminology that sometimes occurs in individual institutions. A field-specific terminology commission is the most important link in practical terminology work. It must collect all information related to the terminology of its field, compile a terminology index, consider and introduce into usage correct, systematic terms, and ensure that the field’s terminology reflects the contemporary level of world science and technology as well as the needs of the republic’s science, production, education, and science outreach. Field-specific terminology commissions should publish the results of their work in the form of terminological dictionaries, bulletins, and lists. These may initially be presented as drafts and proposals for discussion and, after deliberation, approved and submitted to the Terminology Council under the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences of the Lithuanian SSR for approval. Some of the field-specific terminology commissions operating in the republic have accumulated extensive experience in terminology work and have carried out major work to systematize, standardize, and organize the terminology of their fields. For example, the aforementioned Botanical Dictionary Commission, which has been productively led for many years by Professor J. Dagys, Doctor of Biological Sciences, has been working successfully for six decades. Over many years, a large index of botanical terms and plant names has been compiled. It contains terms and names in this field gathered both from a wide variety of literary sources (printed and manuscript scientific books, articles, etc., from the present and the past) and from living folk speech. Through the efforts of the Commission, then headed by L. Vailionis, a substantial “Lithuanian Botanical Dictionary” was compiled and published in Kaunas in 1938 (vol. 1—600+40 p., ed. J. Dagys). This was the largest and one of the most mature works of Lithuanian terminology lexicography published in Lithuania before 1940. In the main part of the dictionary, the Latin scientific taxonomic name of the plant is given first, together with an explanation of its meaning or origin, followed by the family to which the plant belongs, the scientific Lithuanian name of the plant, and its syno- 190 names, equivalents in German, Russian, Polish and Latvian, and a concise description of the habitat, distribution, uses, and other matters. For convenience, this was followed by a Lithuanian–Latin index of plant names. In addition, the dictionary included a pharmacognostic nomenclature edited by K. Grybauskas (in Latin–Lithuanian and Lithuanian–Latin), a table of the classification of the plants presented, and a glossary of adjectives used in Latin–Lithuanian species names. The publication of this dictionary was a major step forward for Lithuanian terminology and terminography. The second part of the dictionary was intended to present edited terms of plant cytology, anatomy, morphology, and physiology. The Botanical Dictionary Commission fulfilled this task by preparing the explanatory “Dictionary of Botanical Terms,” published in the Soviet era (V., 1965). The Commission has prepared a new, expanded and revised dictionary of plant systematics, which must certainly be published 11. The Commission’s systematic work was active and also created the conditions for more thorough study of the development of botanical science and the terminology of this field in Lithuania. Thus, the purposeful and painstaking work of the Botanical Dictionary Commission over many decades has left a truly significant mark on the history of Lithuanian science. For three decades now, the Physics Terminology Commission, led by academician and professor P. Brazdžiūnas of the Lithuanian SSR Academy of Sciences, has been working with great focus and success. In 1958, the Commission’s concise Lithuanian–Russian translation dictionary, “Dictionary of Physics Terms,” was published, drawing on the terminology card file begun before the war in the Department of Physics at the University of Lithuania and subsequently expanded during the Soviet years at Vilnius University. In 1971 and 1973, a draft of a large, four-language translation dictionary of physics terms was published in two volumes; after detailed and careful discussion at Commission meetings, it was published by the “Mokslas” publishing house in 1979. That dictionary contained nearly 20,000 physics terms in Lithuanian, Russian, English, and German. In addition, the Commission prepared the “Dictionary of Laser Physics Terms,” reviewed in 1981 by the Terminology Group of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature and approved at the end of that same year by the Terminology Council under the Presidium of the Lithuanian SSR Academy of Sciences, and began preparatory work on an encyclopedic physics dictionary 12. The zoology, mathematics, agronomy, and some other commissions are also working fruitfully and in an organized manner. It is regrettable that the work of the Terminology Commission of the Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Physical and Technical Problems of Energy, which had worked very productively for a dozen years from the end of the 1960s, came to a halt (from 1960 to 1969, this commission published 29 booklets of terms from various technical fields, amounting to more than 350 pages in total). It was skillfully led by Candidate of Technical Sciences J. Stasiulevičius (1923–1973). 11 For more on the work of the Botanical Dictionary Commission, see: Dagys J. How Lithuanian botanical term dictionaries were compiled.— In: Lithuanian Terminology (Issues in Lithuanian Linguistics). V., 1975, vol. 16, pp. 244–248. 12 For more on the organization of Lithuanian physics terminology, see: Brazdžiūnas P. The Creation of Lithuanian Physics Terminology.— Language Culture, 1983, issue 44, pp. 4–8. 191 The success of the work of the aforementioned botanical, physics, and other terminology commissions is due to the fact that their membership includes leading specialists in the relevant fields from both research institutions and higher education establishments, who work actively; that they are led by the most authoritative and energetic scholars; that they always have specific goals and tasks in view, which they carry out in a planned and systematic way; and that they cooperate continuously with linguist terminologists. The experience accumulated over many years in organizing Lithuanian terminology shows that these factors are the key to successful commission work. Particularly noteworthy is the concern shown by the republic’s most prominent scholars for the terminology of their own fields and for their native language in general. This old and fine tradition in Lithuanian science and terminology is continued by professors P. Brazdžiūnas, A. Buračas, J. Dagys, K. Daukšas, A. Gučas, V. Gudelis, J. Kubilius, J. Macevičius (KPI), S. Pavilonis, P. Slavėnas, R. Šarmaitis, P. Vasinauskas, J. Vidmantas, A. Vitkus, and many others. This tradition must be supported and preserved in every way. It is important for terminology commissions to have specific tasks at all times and, having completed them, to move on to new, more complex work. Only terminology work that is organized in this way and carried on without interruption can ensure that the terminology of the relevant fields keeps pace with scientific and technological progress and helps advance it. The most practical and, with organized effort, achievable work for terminology commissions is to standardize and systematize the terms of their fields and generally organize them on the basis of card files, prepare term dictionaries, and publish their drafts or bulletins. A particular phase of work is completed by preparing a normative term dictionary or a collection of recommended terms. Such work not only helps standardize and systematize the terms of a particular field, but also harmonize them with terms in neighboring and other related fields. It also brings national terminology into alignment with the corresponding terminology of other languages. Such harmonization is highly important for the success of scientific work, production, and other activities as well. A current concern for Lithuanian terminology in any field is achieving semantic adequacy with the Russian terminology of the corresponding field. This is important both for better specialist training and for scientific and industrial activity in a multinational state. As mentioned, Lithuanian terms in more than one field were created and organized on the model of Russian terminology as early as the beginning of this century. Under Soviet conditions, Lithuanian and Russian terminology are in contact, one might say, constantly. As a result, there is no significant gap between the terminology of these two languages. Harmonization of terminology is also pursued with other languages, especially those in which most of the latest scientific and technical information is published; for some time now, English has been such a language in many fields. Other languages must also be taken into account. Moreover, those scientific fields that have an international Latin terminology and nomenclature must, of course, take these as their primary point of reference. 192 The main task of practical work on Lithuanian terminology is to accelerate the standardization, normalization, and supplementation of terms, to further improve their correspondence with the respective terms in international, Russian, and other languages, and to raise the overall level of terminology itself and of the work carried out in this field. The standardization of Lithuanian terminology in many fields still awaits more active attention. Both the preparation of republican terminology standards and the arrangement and approval of Lithuanian equivalents for all-Union state terminology standards remain highly relevant tasks, but so far little progress has been made on them. 4. Theoretical and methodological work on terminology Theoretical and applied research in this field, as well as methodological work carried out in the republic, help improve Lithuanian terminology and its standardization. Most of the work in this area has been done by researchers at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature of the Academy of Sciences, while linguists at Vilnius University have also investigated specific issues in Lithuanian terminology. The main direction of theoretical research into Lithuanian terminology is linguistic. From this perspective, researchers have examined the formation and development of Lithuanian terminology, the structure, formation, and semantics of terms, the influence of language contacts on Lithuanian terminology, and other issues. Four candidate dissertations in philology have been defended, dealing with the history of Lithuanian linguistic terminology (A. Balašaitis, 1961), the formation of one-word Lithuanian terms (S. Keinys, 1968), compound terms in contemporary Lithuanian (K. Gaivenis, 1969), and calques in Lithuanian technical terminology (A. Kaulakienė, 1983). Over the past decade, two volumes of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature’s scholarly series “Questions of Lithuanian Linguistics,” devoted to terminology research, have been published: “Lithuanian Terminology” (V., 1975) and “Specialized Vocabulary of the Lithuanian Language” (V., 1983). In addition, part of the publication “Problems of Sociolinguistics” (V., 1979) is devoted to these issues. Relevant questions of Lithuanian terminology theory and practice are also discussed in articles by terminologists published in Series A of “Proceedings of the Lithuanian SSR Academy of Sciences.” General principles for creating and standardizing Lithuanian terminology have been examined 13, Lithuanian educational terminology dictionaries have been reviewed and proposals for their improvement presented 14, several articles on calques of Lithuanian technical terms have been published 15, and so on. 13 Gaivenis K. Bendrieji lietuvių terminijos kūrimo ir norminimo principai.— Lietuvos TSR Mokslų Akademijos darbai. A serija, 1979, t. 3(68), p. 77—85. 14 Gaivenis K., Keinys S. Min. veik. 15 Kaulakienė A. Compound calques in Lithuanian polytechnic terminology.— Proceedings of the Lithuanian SSR Academy of Sciences. Series A, 1981, vol. 1(74), pp. 73—82; also her. Semantic calques in Lithuanian polytechnic terminology.— Ibid., 1981, vol. 4(77), pp. 99—107; also her. Phraseological and compound calques in Lithuanian technical terminology.— Ibid., 1983, vol. 4(85), pp. 91—100. 13 Užsak. Nr. 1007 193 The publication “Language Culture” of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature devotes considerable space to terminology, especially practical matters. Three issues of this publication were prepared by the Institute’s Terminology Group. Those issues are devoted exclusively to terminology 16. A substantial amount of material useful for language practice, both on terminology and, above all, on language-culture issues in various specialized fields, has been published in “Lithuanian Language Section Notebooks” 17 and in the periodical “Our Language,” which replaced them in 1971. Quite a number of articles and shorter pieces discussing individual terms and matters of language culture in science, technology, trade, and other fields have also appeared in other scholarly publications, as well as in newspapers and journals published in the republic. These matters are raised in radio and television broadcasts. It must be said, however, that terminology issues are not always discussed and written about competently enough, and unjustified or ill-advised corrections and proposals do occur. Sometimes linguists and specialists in other fields correct individual terms in isolation from the established systematic relationships among the terms of a particular field, without taking account of Lithuanian terminology traditions and the requirements imposed on terms, and disregarding the established procedure for proposing, changing, and approving terms. In many cases, such corrections can only be regarded as proposals, not as definitive recommendations to be put into use immediately. Such proposals may be useful to terminology chiefly because they draw the attention of terminologists and terminology commissions to matters that merit consideration and perhaps standardization. The success of terminology work depends greatly on the terminological and linguistic education of specialists in various fields. To this end, popular publications on terminology and language culture, as well as methodological tools for terminology work, should be prepared. Some progress has been made in this area. The Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature has published, by rotary printing, a concise “Instructions for Compiling a Terminology Dictionary Card Index,” prepared by its Terminology Group (V., 1972.—14 p.). A few years later, the Lithuanian Geological Research Institute also issued a similar set of instructions by rotary printing 18. A methodological guide prepared by the USSR Academy of Sciences’ Committee on Scientific and Technical Terminology, “Как работать над терминологией” (М.: Наука, 1968.—76 с.), was translated into Lithuanian 19, while the “Mokslas” publishing house issued a popular introduction to the fundamentals of Lithuanian terminology in its “Language and People” series 20. However, what has been accomplished can only be considered the beginning of terminological education for specialists and the public at large. In the future, it will be necessary to accelerate both research into Lithuanian terminology and the preparation of methodological and popular resources for non-philologist specialists engaged in terminology work. Theoretical issues of Lithu- 16 Kalbos kultūra, 1973, sąs. 27.—100 p.; 1979, sąs. 35.—88 p.; 1983, sąs. 44.—88 p. 17 Lietuvių kalbos sekcijos sąsiuviniai, 1968—1970, sąs. 1—22. 18 Geologijos terminų kortelių užpildymo instrukcija.—V., 1975.—28 p. 19 Terminologinis darbas (Pagalbinė priemonė pagal D. Lotės ir TSRS MA Mokslinės-techninės terminologijos komiteto darbus / Vertė A. Kaulakienė).—V., 1973.—70 p. 20 Keinys S. Terminologijos abėcėlė.—V., 1980.—116 p. 194 the foundations of Lithuanian terminology; the history of the formation and development of terminology in various fields; its present state and development trends; and to shed comprehensive light on the past and present relations between Lithuanian terminology and the terminology of other languages. Comparative studies of terminology in corresponding fields in Lithuanian and other languages should be developed. Under the present conditions of the scientific and technological revolution and with communication among specialists from different nations having become so widespread, a more thorough synchronic comparative study of Lithuanian and Russian terminology is particularly relevant. This should help further improve Lithuanian terminology and facilitate the learning of terms in both languages. Studies of this kind are already being conducted at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature and at some higher education institutions. Broader and more comprehensive studies are also still needed of the language of Lithuanian science and other special fields in which terms are used. It is true that these matters are discussed in general terms in style manuals, and a host of articles and shorter pieces have been published on particular questions. However, the latter are mostly corrections of individual language errors and linguistic reviews of various books and booklets. The time has come to undertake comprehensive studies of the language of science as well. For terminology practice, among other things, it is important to examine the question of how so-called international terms are transcribed into Lithuanian and the tendencies involved in adapting them to Lithuanian. Although these matters have a fairly long tradition and are almost settled, variants of Lithuanianization still occur, and certain uncertainties sometimes arise when newly borrowed terms are adapted. It would be useful to prepare recommendations, or even instructions, for Lithuanianizing such terms. Those engaged in terminology work greatly need methodological tools for term standardization and the preparation of terminology dictionaries. A summary of the terminology work carried out in the republic and of the activities of the most effective terminology commissions should also help with this. Methodological tools prepared on the basis of experience in standardizing Lithuanian terminology and of terminology work in other Soviet republics and foreign countries would be a great support to the many enthusiasts engaged in terminology work, most of whom lack the philological and lexicographical training needed for this work. Only some of the current issues in Lithuanian terminology have been listed here. Examining them and preparing appropriate practical recommendations should help make the work of standardizing Lithuanian terminology even more successful. This is especially important given that terminology stands at the forefront of the language’s contemporary development. Nearly everything new that emerges in the lexicon and word formation of the standard language, and partly in other levels of language as well, is usually connected with terminology and its use in the various functional varieties of language. The rapid progress of science and technology and the rising general culture of Soviet people call for further improvement and expansion of terminology work and for accelerating the standardization of terms. 195 THE SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL REVOLUTION AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF LITHUANIAN TERMINOLOGY Abstract The article surveys the development of Lithuanian terminology and the preparation and publication of terminology dictionaries. It also discusses organizational and methodological work, as well as theoretical and applied research on Lithuanian terminology during the Soviet period and in the conditions of the contemporary scientific and technological revolution. The first chapter briefly surveys the formation and development of modern Lithuanian terminology and notes that, by now, the terminology of many fields in Lithuanian has not only been created but also systematized to a certain extent. It also emphasizes the great importance of published scholarly works, encyclopedias, and textbooks for higher, specialized secondary, vocational, and other educational institutions. The second chapter surveys the state of Lithuanian terminography and identifies the types of published and forthcoming terminology dictionaries (monolingual explanatory, explanatory-translation, translation, and others). The third chapter is devoted to the organization of terminology work in Soviet Lithuania. The main focus is on the work of the Terminology Council under the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences of the Lithuanian SSR, established in 1971, and the activities of sectoral terminology commissions. The fourth chapter presents a brief survey of the state of theoretical research and the preparation of methodological guides for terminology work. In each chapter, in addition to describing the state of the issue in question, certain shortcomings are identified and immediate tasks for improving terminology work in the republic are outlined.