Go to originalLocalized version was produced by AI. It may contain inaccuracies.
Preparing document pages…
Page 1
Bendrinė kalba / Standard Language 2025, Nr. 98, p. 1–19 Turinio nuoroda / Contents link ISSN 2351-7204 (elektroninis / online)
CHARACTERISTICS OF STRUCTURAL MODELS OF ANIMATION TERM DEFINITIONS
Structural Models of Definitions of Animation Terms
AUŠRA RIMKUTĖ-GANUSAUSKIENĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language Email: ausra.ganusa ausge?
https://doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2025.98.06
ABSTRACT
The article examines definitions of animation terms that have not previously been studied from a terminological perspective and briefly discusses the concept of definition. Based on material from animation term glossaries, it identifies definition types and their structural models. The study shows that, in terms of their relationship to the concept system, definitions can be divided into systemic, semi-systemic, and non-systemic. Systemic definitions are the most common (56%), with intensional definitions predominating among them (55%), while extensional definitions are very rare. Non-systemic definitions are the least common (14%). Analysis of the structural models of animation term definitions reveals that intensional and extensional definitions best meet the requirements: they have a logical structure and make it possible to establish a concept’s place in the system. Other models (descriptive, mixed, incomplete, and encyclopaedic) satisfy terminological needs only in part, but can, where necessary, be revised into systemic definition models. Referential and synonymous definitions do not perform the proper function of a definition—to reveal a concept’s content and its place in the concept system—but they help ensure the consistent presentation of terms in sources. The results show that all definitions serve a particular function, while their suitability is determined by the extent to which they comply with the general requirements for drafting definitions.
KEYWORDS: animation term, requirements for definitions, definition, definition type, structural model of a definition, concept, terminological meaning, term.
ABSTRACT
The article examines the definitions of animation terms that have not previously been analysed from a terminological perspective and briefly discusses the concept of definition. Using material from animation term glossaries, the study identifies types of definitions and their corresponding structural models. The analysis shows that, in relation to the concept system, definitions can be classified into three categories: systemic, semi-systemic, and non-systemic. Systemic definitions are the most common (56%), with intensional definitions predominating within this group (55%), while extensional definitions are very rare. Non-systemic definitions are the least common (14%). The analysis of structural models of definitions of animation terms shows that intensional and extensional definitions best meet the requirements, as they have a clear logical structure and allow the concept’s place within the system to be established. Other models (descriptive, mixed, incomplete, and encyclopaedic) only partially satisfy terminological needs but can, where necessary, be revised into systemic definitions. Referential and synonymous definitions do not fulfil the function of a proper definition, but they contribute to the consistent presentation of terms in the sources. Overall, the results indicate that all definitions serve specific functions, while their suitability for terminological purposes depends on compliance with the general requirements for drafting definitions.
Animation is an interdisciplinary field that has existed for more than a century. Its origins are associated with the emergence of moving images and the first animated films. Like other fields, it is influenced by scientific progress and new technologies, such as digital technologies and artificial intelligence, and is constantly changing. This also creates a need for new terms denoting animation concepts. The subject of this article is not animation terms themselves, but their definitions; therefore, let us first recall what is understood by a term definition.
In the view of Stasys Šalkauskis, the founder of the theory of Lithuanian scientific terminology, a definition of an action name is “a nominalized (ad modum substantiae) name [and thus] a definition” (Šalkauskis 1991: 204), while the term definition also denotes a completed action and is the result of defining. According to terminologist Kazimieras Gaivenis, a definition (definicija) is the content of a term (Gaivenis 2014 [1998]: 250)—it “must reflect the semes of the intensional of the terminological meaning” (Gaivenis 2002: 19).
A somewhat broader concept of definition is presented in the Introductory Terminology Glossary: “a comprehensive verbal description that reflects the core semes of the terminological meaning and describes the content of a concept, revealing, at a certain level of abstraction, the essential features that distinguish it from neighbouring concepts” (Kvašytė 2005: 13, cf. Gaivenis, Keinys 1990: 22). This can be associated with the description given in the latest international standard for terminology work, ISO 704 Terminology work – Principles and methods. The standard states that a definition must present the essential characteristics of the concept being defined, thereby distinguishing it from other concepts in the same subject field (ISO 704 2022: 33). Thus, based on this understanding, one can argue that a definition should include necessary and supplementary characteristics that reveal how the defined concept is related to other concepts in the same field and how it differs from them; one can also assume that these characteristics should be universal and context-independent (traditionally, it is said that, unlike an ordinary word, a term should be understood without a definition or context). In practice, however, this is not always the case: it is often impossible to identify all the necessary and sufficient characteristics of a concept, and sometimes perhaps not all of them are needed.
Terminologist Juan C. Sager states that a definition, as a product, is a linguistic description of a concept based on the enumeration of certain characteristics that convey its meaning. He also notes that a definition is like an equation—the sum of the component semantic elements of a concept (Sager 1990: 51).
The concept of definition discussed above is considered classical and has a long history of application. The Greek philosopher Aristotle was the first to formulate the theory of definition by genus and specific difference. This type of definition, in which a concept is defined through its nearest superordinate concept and the distinguishing characteristics, was also favoured by Eugen Wüster and Helmut Felber, pioneers of terminology as a distinct branch of linguistics. This type of definition is relatively strict and, compared with other possible types, does not always adequately meet practical needs in contemporary terminology. This view is supported by sociocognitive terminology scholar Rita Temmerman, who argues that many concepts are not clear-cut. According to her, the traditional terminological argument that concepts should be clearly defined in order to ensure unambiguous, unequivocal, and therefore effective communication is unconvincing (Temmerman 2000: 7). Thus, representatives of this approach do not consider the static and immutable nature of a term definition an essential feature. Although they do not reject the rules for formulating such definitions, they point out that the form and content of definitions vary depending on category types and user requirements (Temmerman 2000: 8).
2
Page 3
Teresa Cabré understands a definition as a description of the content of a concept. She points out that, in accordance with E. Wüster’s idealistic conception of terms and definitions, terms partly lose their distinctiveness as units of natural language (Cabré 2023: 13).
Antonio San Martín describes a terminological definition as a description in natural language of the most important content of a concept conveyed by a term (San Martín 2025: 1), and devotes considerable attention to analysing contexts of term use. The scholar does not reject Aristotle’s conception of definition, but emphasizes that the content of a definition depends on context and can change. A. San Martín discusses “flexible definitions” (English flexible definitions) and argues that the identification of necessary and sufficient features of a concept, considered independent of context, should be abandoned as the sole and most important criterion. Instead, it is proposed that relevant (English relevant) features be selected to define a concept. In the researcher’s view, context is particularly important: it determines which features will be included in a definition. Without context, definitions may be either too abstract or misleading. Context allows definitions to be called flexible, since they adapt to the circumstances of use (San Martín 2022).
This brief overview of what is considered a definition shows that the question is relevant to terminology, particularly its practical application, when a concept needs to be defined. Term definitions are examined from various perspectives—logical, lexical-semantic, cognitive, contextual, and others—which, owing to the limited scope of this article, are not analysed in greater detail here. Although contemporary terminology encompasses more than one approach, they all share the fact that none denies the existence or necessity of definitions. A definition is regarded as a means of scientific cognition and communication, subject to requirements of clarity, precision, systematicity, and others. Differences emerge only when a definition is conceptually modelled and aligned within a concept system, its structural elements are selected, and it is adapted to communicative goals and users’ needs.
It has already been noted that definitions differ in structure and can be classified into various types. The diversity of definitions may be determined by the logic of the concept system, the intended audience, the publication medium, the mode of expression, and the domain in which the term is presented, e.g. a standard, a terminology dictionary, or a database. On the basis of logical and other criteria, definitions can be classified in many different ways—from a few types to a dozen or more. For example, the most recent international terminology standard, ISO 704 Terminology work – Principles and methods (not translated into Lithuanian), published in 2022, distinguishes two types: intensional and extensional definitions. Terminologist K. Gaivenis, drawing on a study of definitions of complex terms in dictionaries published in Lithuania in the post-war years, distinguishes six types: full, synonymous, enumerative, comparative, incomplete and referential definitions of complex terms (Gaivenis 2004: 114–115). Polish terminologist Stanisław Gajda distinguishes eleven types of definitions, which may also have subtypes (for more, see Rimkutė-Ganusauskienė 2021: 180). The abundance of classifications shows that they rely on differing classification criteria. Whatever the type, a definition has a structure characteristic of that type.
The aim of the article is to reveal the components that make up definitions of animation terms. The study examines recent publications devoted to animation: Ilja Bereznickas’s scholarly monograph Animation: From Idea to Screen (2017), and the higher education textbooks by Tomas Mitkus and Vaida Nedzinskaitė-Mitkė, The Animation Industry in Lithuania: Analysis and Opportunities (2018) and Fundamentals of Animation (2020). Glossaries of animation terms are provided at the end of all these publications.
To achieve this aim, the following objectives are set: 1) to examine the definitions of animation terms presented in the sources and identify their types, drawing on theoretical insights from terminology; 2) to develop structural models of definitions of animation terms. It should be noted that this study does not assess definitions from a normative perspective or address their shortcomings (flaws). To achieve the study’s aim and conduct the analysis, the most important considerations are the structure of the definitions of the animation terms under examination and their relationship to the concept system of the field in question. The study’s material is expected to show which terminological principles guide the formulation of definitions of animation terms in scholarly and educational discourse. It should highlight
3
Page 4
the structural features of term definitions, which are likely to be useful when refining existing definitions or drafting new definitions of terms in any other field. In addition, a structural analysis of definitions of animation terms will make it possible to check whether the established and conventional terminological conception of a term definition—as a verbal description of the content of a concept—corresponds to the practical formulation of definitions found in the selected types of terminology dictionaries examined here.
Classifying types of definitions of animation terms and investigating their structural models is timely and novel for several reasons. First, as already noted, animation terminology itself has barely been studied. Second, an examination of the definitions in the sources will show which structural components are most often used to construct definitions in the field of animation and reveal which features are considered essential when defining animation terms. In addition, the study will make it possible to assess whether definitions are formulated in accordance with the principles of uniformity and consistency, analogy, correctness, and other terminological principles. Third, it will allow the correspondence between the traditional conception of definition and definitions found in practice to be reconsidered.
Definitions of animation terms in the selected sources are studied using several methods. The analytical-descriptive method is used most frequently, enabling not only a description of the research object—definitions of animation terms—but also a critical assessment of their compliance with the requirements for definitions. This method helps identify imprecision in definitions, including ambiguity, vagueness, deficiencies in logical consistency, and similar cases. In addition, the comparative method is used to highlight similarities and differences between definitions and their structural models, and to identify instances of unification. Where necessary, a computational method is employed to support the research findings both qualitatively and quantitatively and to reveal observed patterns.
1. RESEARCH SOURCES
As already mentioned, the publications examined are recent works on animation. They were written by specialists with extensive experience and expertise in animation from both theoretical and practical perspectives. Glossaries of animation terms are provided at the end of all the sources. It is likely that animation specialists included in them the most important and frequently used terms in the field, together with their definitions. It should be noted that these are not comprehensive terminographic sources, but collections of terms intended to help readers better understand new, less familiar concepts and reveal the content of familiar ones.
On pages 254–257 of the scholarly monograph Animation: From Idea to Screen, a Glossary of Animation Terms containing 35 terms with definitions is provided. A footnote indicates that readers should consult the Dictionary of Audiovisual Media for more information (AIE 2017: 254). This dictionary was prepared in 2013 on the initiative of the Lithuanian Film Centre; its editor was Neringa Kažukauskaitė, and the monograph’s author, I. Bereznickas, also contributed to its preparation. The dictionary has not been approved by the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language, and no terminologist is credited. This indicates that it was prepared solely through the efforts of specialists themselves, who recognized the need to help everyone encountering audiovisual media better understand the concepts in this field. A comparison of the two glossaries shows that the terms and/or their definitions in the monograph do not always correspond to those in the more extensive Dictionary of Audiovisual Media. This suggests that animation terms, like their definitions, have not yet become established.
The textbooks by Tomas Mitkus and Vaida Nedzinskaitė-Mitkė, The Animation Industry in Lithuania: Analysis and Opportunities and Fundamentals of Animation, contain collections of terms and their definitions almost three times larger—94 terms in the first (AIL 2018: 126–133) and 95 in the second (AP 2020: 195–202)1. Both are likewise entitled Dictionary of Animation Terms. Comparison shows that the second glossary differs from the first by 16 terms, for example,
1 The material from the textbooks was collected as part of the project Trends in Terminology Development in Higher Education Textbooks (2025–2027), funded by the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language.
4
Page 5
The glossary in the textbook published in 2018 does not include the terms animation frame chart, twinning, rough animation, cut-out, pitch bible, registration pegs, and others, whereas the glossary of animation terms in the 2020 publication omits animation pitch bible, pencil test animation, co-production, and others; the two sources share 79 terms and their definitions. The textbook authors note that “not all international industry terms have established or approved translations into Lithuanian (the industry—meaning the animation industry—may often use Lithuanianized versions of these English terms; authors’ note),” and add that “different individuals or animation studios may use different definitions for some terms” (AP 2020: 195), thereby indicating that the definitions recorded in dictionaries are not the only possible ones.
The sources selected for examination are alphabetically arranged explanatory glossaries of animation terms2. Altogether, they record 145 different terms and their definitions. Although animation terms appear in sources of different kinds—scholarly and educational—and although these glossaries differ in size, all of them attempt to define scientifically the most important terms in the field of animation. The compilation of such glossaries suggests that the definitions they provide represent not only theoretical but also practical term usage, reflecting the content and scope of the concepts being defined. The definitions of animation terms themselves and their structural models show how their authors generally understand what a term definition is.
2. STRUCTURAL MODELS OF DEFINITIONS
The study revealed that the sources examined contain various structural models of definitions of animation terms. It was observed that K. Gaivenis’s aforementioned classification of definitions of complex terms is only partly applicable to this study, since different classifications use different bases for categorization. Therefore, the animation-term definitions identified in this study are classified according to their relationship to the concept system. The concept system is a point of reference that helps select distinguishing characteristics and formulate a definition. It is taken into account that a concept’s content (intension) is determined by its relations within the concept system. In addition, it was decided not to rely on the classifications of definitions provided in international standards, which are characterized by a strict and formalized approach. Since the study examines definitions of animation terms in publications intended for scholarly and educational discourse, such strict standardization is considered unsuitable and could even make definitions more difficult to understand. Nevertheless, the requirements for drafting definitions are observed in their analysis.
Three types are distinguished according to definitions’ relationship to the concept system: systemic, semi-systemic, and non-systemic definitions. This three-part classification is not the only possible one and may be refined in light of the definitions of terms in a particular field.
2.1. Systemic definitions of animation terms are those that show the concept’s place within the concept system and take either an intensional or an extensional form. Examination of the 145 definitions of animation terms found in the sources reveals that two subtypes of systemic definitions can be distinguished.
2.1.1. It was established that so-called classical term definitions predominate: the first part identifies the nearest generic concept, while the second gives the specific difference by which the concept is distinguished from others. These definitions account for more than half of all definitions examined—55 percent. K. Gaivenis calls them complete definitions (Gaivenis 2004: 114); ISO 704 uses the term intensional definitions (ISO 704 2022: 33). The terminologist argues that they are close to logical definitions known as definitio per genus proximum et differentiam specificam, and draws attention to the fact that in them “the specific difference may
2 There are inaccuracies; for example, in the glossary published in 2018, the term motion capture appears after mon-tage, while the term feature-length (or full-length) film appears after pixel (AIL 2018: 131).
5
Page 6
eiti ne vienas, bet keli požymiai“ (Gaivenis 2002: 30). Alvydas Umbrasas nurodo, kad „[N]ustatyti sąvokos skiriamuosius požymius yra vienas iš svarbiausių tikslų, kuriuos sau turėtų kelti apibrėžties sudarytojas“ (Umbrasas 2022: 133). Remdamasis atliktu teisės aktų terminų apibrėžčių tyrimu, jis tokias apibrėžtis vadina aiškinamosiomis (požymių): „Kaip atraminė, tokioje apibrėžtyje paprastai nurodoma tam tikra bendresnė sąvoka (kartais ne viena) ir skiriamieji požymiai“ (Umbrasas 2022: 132).
The structural model of an intensional definition is described by the following schema: the term being defined equals the combination of the nearest generic term and the essential characteristic(s) that specify the specific difference of the concept being defined (Fig. 1). This definition consists of a single sentence. Definitions of this type are recommended as the primary type of term definition (ISO 704 2022: 33). If definitions in a terminographic source are consistently written according to this structural model, the systemic relations between concepts become apparent, and the terms and definitions in such a source are characterized by consistency and logical precision.
Fig. 1 Structural model of an intensional definition3
Let us consider some examples:
Colorist – a person who colors animation frames using the traditional animation technique.4 AIL 2018: 132
Garso aktorius – asmuo, kuris įgarsina animacinius personažus. AIL 2018: 129
The definitions of the single-word term colorist and the compound term sound actor have the same structure and conform to the structural model of an intensional definition: term = generic term (the word person in both definitions) + distinguishing characteristic of the activity, which differentiates the person being defined from other persons in the same concept system (colors animation frames and voices animated characters). According to K. Gaivenis, specific compound terms should not be explained by intensional definitions “when they denote the same phenomenon (real-world entity) as their separately defined head component, but one characteristic of different objects” (Gaivenis 2004: 106). Thus, the definition of the term sound actor could be refined by using actor as the generic term and specifying the distinguishing characteristics.
In summary, intensional definitions can be said to provide a complete linguistic expression of the relationship between concepts, based on distinguishing characteristics. Thus, a distinguishing characteristic or several such characteristics—their number depends on the scope of the definition—is an important part of this type of definition, on which the classification of concepts is based. The structure of the concept system in a particular field depends on which distinguishing characteristics are selected. For this very reason, the definitions of animation terms examined here are not the only possible ones—their structure, and consequently
3 The illustrations were prepared using the Napkin AI application (https://www.napkin.ai/).
4 The examples are presented as recorded in the sources; their wording has not been edited.
6
Page 7
Structural models are the result of the conceptions held by the authors who formulated the term definitions (let us recall the previously discussed definition of the term sound actor).
Reinerio Arntzo, Heriberto Pichto ir Felixo Mayerio (Arntz et al. 2002: 63), Georgo Löckingerio, Hendriko J. Kockaerto ir Gerhardo Budino (Löckinger et al. 2015: 66–67) bei kitų terminologų teigimu, intensinės apibrėžtys laikomos naudingomis, nes jose nurodoma aukštesnė sąvoka, leidžianti apibrėžiamąją sąvoką priskirti atitinkamos srities sąvokų sistemai, ir pabrėžiami tokie požymiai, kurie padeda atskirti vieną sąvoką nuo kitų. Vertinant norminamuoju atžvilgiu, intensinės apibrėžtis galima skirstyti į taisyklingas ir netaisyklingas: pirmosios apibrėžtos tinkamai nusakant artimiausią gimininę sąvoką ir išskiriant būtinus skiriamuosius požymius, antrosios apibrėžtos netinkamai įvardijant gimininį terminą arba išskiriant nebūtinus ar neesminius skiriamuosius požymius. Pavyzdžiui, terminas aktoriaus triukas apibrėžiamas taip:
ACTOR'S GAG (American slang gag) – a part of a film in which a short humorous action or trick takes place. AIE 2017: 254
As can be seen from the definition given, it formally conforms to the structural model of an intensional definition; however, the term actor's gag is explained using the inappropriate generic term part of a film. The term in question could be defined in two ways: by explaining either the first component of the compound term, gag, or the second, actor. No other inaccuracies in the formulation of intensional definitions are recorded in the sources examined.
It should be added that, in the classification of structural definition models, intensional definitions are distinguished by the presence of explicit structural units and are considered a subtype of systemic definitions, since they show most clearly the concept’s place in the system.
2.1.2. The second subtype of systemic definitions is extensional, or enumerative, definitions, that is, definitions in which, as stated in the latest ISO 704 standard, a terminological concept is defined by listing all subordinate concepts belonging to one level of abstraction or all the constituent parts of a whole (ISO 704 2022: 34); in other words, by listing all the parts that make up the concept. Only one extensional definition was found in the sources (about 1 percent of all the definitions examined). For example:
POST-PRODUCTION (post-production) includes transferring the work to appropriate media, adapting it for audiences and systems, adjusting the sound and image, marketing, and other finishing work. AIE 2017: 254
As can be seen from the definition of the term post-production, it does not state the immediate generic term film work or distinguish the characteristics of the term being defined; instead of a dash, commonly used in explanatory terminology dictionaries after the term, it uses the verb includes and then lists all the activities regarded as post-production. The definition shows that not all constituent parts are listed (and other finishing work), although an attempt was made to apply a similar criterion to describe the parts that make up the concept. Moreover, the marketing mentioned in the definition is semantically more closely related to film marketing than to post-production, so it is worth considering whether it needs to be included in the definition.
Terminological literature (ISO 704 2022: 34; Nilsson 2015: 82–100) notes that a shortcoming of extensional definitions is that it is often impossible to provide all narrower concepts distinguished according to the same criterion of division or all constituent parts; consequently, such definitions are not always precise. Moreover, it should be borne in mind that their scope may change over time.
Based on the example found in the source, an extensional definition can be seen to consist of the following structural parts: the term being defined, the linking verb to include, and the parts making up the term being defined (Fig. 2). Terminographical sources generally use a dash instead of the linking verb to include. These are one-sentence definitions.
7
Page 8
From a practical perspective, it should be noted that extensional definitions, which enumerate all the parts that make up the defined concept, would be useful only if they provided a specific and finite set of constituent parts (objects, processes, phenomena, etc.). However, these definitions do not show the place of the defined concept within the concept system. According to A. Umbrasas, such definitions “explicitly delimit the content of the concept—only what is specifically indicated is included” (Umbrasas 2022: 131).
The aforementioned ISO 704 standard does not recommend definitions of this type. Henrikas Nilsson argues that it is problematic to require extensional definitions to be completely exhaustive, that is, to list all the concepts that make up the definition, because in many cases this is simply impossible, and if it is not done, the definition must be regarded as incomplete. In his view, definitions of this type could in certain cases be useful for educational purposes (Nilsson 2015: 95). It may be added that such definitions are especially useful when they help reveal a whole and make it easier to remember and understand a concept.
Fig. 2 Structural model of an extensional definition
Thus, extensional definitions are used rarely, but are considered acceptable in cases where it is possible to list all the elements belonging to a concept. The enumeration should be finite and logically justified. If it is not possible to compile a finite list of elements, such a definition becomes incomplete and misleading and should therefore be avoided as failing to meet the requirements for definitions.
2.1.3.Concluding remarks. A review of the two subtypes of systemic definitions, which account for 56 percent of all definitions of animation terms found (Fig. 5), shows that the first—the intensional definition model—predominates, with a structure that most clearly demonstrates a concept’s place within the concept system. It can be argued that this is a typical, exemplary definition model that meets the requirements set out in terminological theory. Extensional definitions can also be systemic when all the parts of the same hierarchical level that make up the defined concept are listed, thereby maintaining systematicity.
2.2.Semi-systemic definitions of animation terms are defined here as definitions that reveal only partly the place of the defined concept within the concept system.
2.2.1. Slightly less than a quarter (about 24 percent) of all the definitions found in animation term glossaries are encyclopaedic definitions. Their most characteristic feature is their length; they usually consist of two or more sentences. For example:
8
Page 9
Animation production designer (English production designer) is a person responsible for the overall visual expression of a work. Working with the director and producer, the production designer selects solutions that could best tell the story cinematically. AIL 2018: 127
Sand animation is one of the methods of the stop-motion animation technique in which sand is used to create images. Usually, the animator fixes a pane of glass vertically, with lighting installed beneath it and a camera above. The animator creates the animation frames by manipulating the sand scattered on the glass. AP 2020: 201
The examples show that the first sentence follows the structure of an intensional definition: it gives the generic term (person; a method of the stop-motion animation technique) and the distinguishing feature (responsible for the overall visual expression of a work; in which sand is used to create images). The other sentences supplement, explain, or refine the term being defined by indicating important but non-essential features of its terminological meaning; they may also provide historical, contextual, or other supplementary (encyclopaedic) information (working with the director and producer, selects solutions that...; Usually, the animator fixes a pane of glass vertically,...). For a term definition, such additional information is not necessary to describe the concept precisely or show its place within the concept system; therefore, these definitions cannot be considered fully systemic.
Another example:
Animation style is a distinctive appearance of an animated work, determined by established design principles. Each animation technique can have many different animation styles. AIL 2018: 127
Although it consists of only two sentences, the definition of the term animation style should also be considered encyclopaedic. The first sentence follows the structural model of an intensional definition (generic concept—appearance; distinguishing feature—distinctive, determined by design principles), while the second provides additional (encyclopaedic) information that expands knowledge of the defined concept (an animation technique can have...), but is not terminologically necessary.
A review of the encyclopaedic definitions found in the sources suggests the following structural model: intensional definition (generic term + distinguishing feature(s)—usually one definition sentence) + supplementary encyclopaedic explanations (Fig. 3). Encyclopaedic definitions of terms in other sources may have a different structure.
Fig. 3 Structural model of an encyclopaedic definition
The presence of encyclopaedic definitions in the sources under study is likely related to the authors’ aim of providing as much information as possible about the defined concept for educational purposes. It may be assumed that this is characteristic of educational publications. This assumption could be tested by conducting a broader study of sources of this type.
2.2.2. Based on the source material, another subtype of definitions recorded in animation term glossaries can be distinguished—mixed definitions. These are definitions that exhibit features of more than one definition type. For example:
9
Page 10
AMORTIZATION, PREPARATION – a movement pose that emphasizes the force of an action and the extreme points that end or begin the movement. Amortization must occur immediately before the action itself—this is called preparation: before jumping, a character must crouch or push off. Likewise, while anticipating a strong impact, an object may amortize toward it, even while stationary. See also Stretching. AIE 2017: 254
The definition of the term amortization can be considered mixed, since it combines features of an intensional and an encyclopaedic definition, and at the end includes the reference see also, which is characteristic of referential definitions. It should be noted that the final sentence of the definition is not merely an additional explanation—the reference see also serves a terminological function by indicating the relationship between the concept being defined and another concept in the same field, and therefore belongs to the definition itself.
The definition of the term animation layout should also be considered mixed. It combines features of a synonymous definition (the synonymous term frame layout is given), an encyclopaedic definition (the purpose and application are described in greater detail), and an incomplete definition (essential characteristics are not distinguished). For example:
Animation layout (English layout) – sometimes also called frame layout. This process is carried out somewhat differently in different animation techniques, but its main purpose is to plan all the animated objects and the environment in the frame, so that when the work is handed over to the animators, they can clearly understand what the final version should look like once all the animation layers have been combined. AIL 2018: 127
Structurally, the model of mixed definitions can be represented as follows: the term being defined = a combination of structural elements from different definition types. Of course, sentences selected from different types are not always correct and precise. Bruno de Bessé calls such definitions hybrid (English hybrid definitions) (for further discussion, see de Bessé 1997: 72). In the sources examined, definitions of this type account for slightly more than 4 percent of all definitions of animation terms. They most often display features of systemic definitions, but are classified as semi-systemic definitions because they only partly show the concept’s place in the system and only partly meet the requirements for drafting definitions.
2.2.3. K. Gaivenis, in discussing definitions of compound terms, distinguishes a type opposite to intensional definitions—incomplete definitions. This is a type of definition that lacks one of the two components already mentioned in the discussion of intensional definitions: either the nearest superordinate term is not specified, or the distinguishing characteristics are not identified.
Animation term glossaries record incomplete definitions in which the specific difference of the terminological concept is not stated. For example, in the definition of the term paint-on-glass animation, an attempt is made to specify the superordinate term—one of the methods of the stop-motion animation technique—but the distinguishing characteristics of this method are not clearly identified, that is, how painting on glass differs from other stop-motion methods. For example:
Paint-on-glass animation (English Paint-on-glass) – one of the methods of the stop-motion animation technique. AP 2020: 197
Another example of an incomplete definition is one in which the superordinate term is not specified. For example:
The definition of the term episode should be considered semi-systemic. An attempt is made to specify the superordinate term (sequence of frames), but this is done imprecisely—the superordinate term is too general and does not make the concept sufficiently specific. The distinguishing characteristic (continuous) is also insufficient—it does not help to reveal precisely the concept’s relationship to other concepts in the system.
10
Page 11
As the examples show, incomplete definitions are usually short. According to Irene Magdalena Cramer, a common feature of short definitions of this kind is that they provide only minimal (sometimes even metalinguistic) information, enabling the reader to understand the defined term, which is important for understanding the text as a whole (Cramer 2011: 8). To ensure logical precision and conceptual systematicity, such definitions should be refined and aligned with other concepts in the same field, in accordance with general terminological principles and requirements.
Interestingly, the findings of K. Gaivenis’s study conducted more than five decades ago indicate that this is “probably the most productive type of term explanation” (Gaivenis 2004: 108). This claim is not borne out by the sources on animation examined here—in them, incomplete definitions account for only about 2% of all the definitions studied. The nature of the selected sources likely accounts for these results. It is worth noting that K. Gaivenis distinguishes two types of incomplete definitions: those that take the form of a logical definition and those that do not (Gaivenis 2004). In the international standard ISO 704, definitions of this type are discussed in the section devoted to imprecise definitions (ISO 704 2022: 41–45).
2.2.4. Concluding remarks. Semi-systemic definitions may be useful for conveying information and learning, that is, for meeting educational and communicative objectives, but they do not always meet the requirements of precision and correctness. Such definitions can be regarded as an intermediate form between systemic and non-systemic definitions. Given the fairly strict linguistic and logical requirements for definitions (correctness, clarity, precision, brevity, etc.), definitions of this type can be edited to bring them closer to a logical, systematic definition model. Semi-systemic definitions account for about 30% of all the definitions examined (Fig. 5).
2.3. Non-systemic definitions of animation terms are definitions that do not reveal the place of the defined concept within the concept system or highlight its relationship to neighboring concepts.
2.3.1. About 6% of the animation term definitions in the sources examined can be considered descriptive definitions. Their main function is to explain the defined concept clearly to the dictionary user and discuss its use. Such definitions are considered non-systemic because they do not aim to show where the defined concept belongs within the concept system. They differ from the encyclopaedic definitions discussed above in that they do not name a generic concept or distinguish the specific characteristics of the concept; instead, all the information is presented descriptively rather than in the form of a logical definition. ISO 704 (2022: 33–34) notes that definitions that do not indicate a concept’s place within the concept system but merely provide a general description of it are not considered suitable for terminological purposes. For example:
Anime5 – a term used in the West to denote an animation style that developed in Japan. AP 2020: 197
The definition of the term anime has no generic term and does not specify distinguishing characteristics; based on the definition provided, it is impossible to determine the defined term’s place in the concept system or its relationship to other terms at the same level. From a terminological perspective, this descriptive definition is non-standard because it was formulated without observing the requirements for drafting definitions. Definitions following this structural model are most often replaced with intensional definitions, which, as noted above, make it possible to show the concept’s relationships more clearly
5 The Recommended List of Foreign Word Equivalents of the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language, published on 11 December 2014, recommends the form animė, which is also included in the latest Dictionary of Standard Lithuanian.
11
Page 12
within the system and indicate its distinguishing features. It cannot be ruled out that descriptive definitions arise from inappropriate formulation of definitions or a lack of terminographic experience.
This subtype of non-systemic definitions may also include cases in which adjectives or infinitives are described. According to the literature on terminology, neither adjectives nor infinitives usually perform the function of an independent term, and their meaning is most often revealed only in term combinations. In such cases, the definitions are descriptive in nature and do not show the concept’s place in the concept system. For example:
Wooden (slang; English wooden) – an adjective describing the animation of an object whose movements lack vitality. AIL 2018: 130
In the source, the adjective wooden is presented as a word used in professional language, with the clarification that it is a slang word.
Non-systemic descriptive definitions, which lack the structure of a classical definition, may be used to define terms that have not yet become established in the animation terminology system and are often used as slang units. Essentially, this shows that glossary compilers record actual term usage without attempting to formalize it terminologically.
2.3.2. Another subtype of non-systemic definitions is synonymous definitions. Few were found—three (about 2 percent of all the definitions examined). The structure of these definitions is not based on the logical model characteristic of a classical definition: they do not specify a generic concept and distinguishing features, but provide only a terminological equivalent. For example:
Cel animation – before the digital revolution, this was the name for a traditional animation technique (Cel is short for celluloid). AP 2020: 197
The definition of the term Cel animation shows that structurally it consists of an explanation of the defined term using another term (traditional animation technique), which is considered a synonym. Definitions of this type do not indicate the defined concept’s place in the concept system and are not considered logical definitions; they are therefore rare in terminography. Furthermore, as the example shows, additional historical information is provided and the context of use is described (before the digital revolution), which is usually characteristic of encyclopaedic definitions.
K. Gaivenis notes that “[I]n Lithuanian terminology dictionaries, this mode of explanation appears to be underused. It is especially practical in cases where the main (standardized) terms have at least several vernacular (term) synonyms. International synonyms are also well suited to explaining Lithuanian terms in this case” (Gaivenis 2004: 107).
2.3.3. Another subtype of non-systemic definitions of animation terms is referential definitions. In analysing definitions of complex terms, K. Gaivenis also distinguishes these and points out that references in terminology dictionaries are usually of two kinds: some indicate standardized terms recommended for scientific communication, to be used instead of stylistically marked, expressive terms or narrowly used professionalisms, while others restrict the use of derivationally defective, outdated, or other synonyms (Gaivenis 2004: 110). In the sources examined, referential definitions—that is, cases where the term itself is not defined but the reader is directed to the relevant definition using the word see6 (or its variants)—are uncommon, making up about 2 percent of all the definitions examined. For example:
6 In terminographic sources, a reference can be not only a word or its abbreviation, but also special symbols or arrows.
12
Page 13
Animacijos sluoksnių kompozicija – žiūrėti montavimas. AIL 2018: 127
The entry for the term animation layer composition directs the reader to look for the definition in the entry for the term editing:
Editing – a technical and creative process in which separately created frames and a soundtrack are combined into a whole—an audiovisual work. In animation, all editing decisions are made during the pre-production stage, so editing is essentially a technical, not a creative, task. By comparison, in live-action cinema, editing decisions are made during post-production, so editing requires creative as well as technical work. AP 2020: 200
After reading a fairly long, three-sentence definition and, for now, without examining its structure in depth, one may wonder whether the terms animation layer composition and editing can really be considered synonyms. In terminographic sources, the infinitive of the verb to see is usually used to indicate a cross-reference to a more correct, more widely used, or standardized term. Since this cross-reference is not explained in the sources examined, its purpose can only be guessed at. Perhaps the term animation layer composition describes only a particular stage of the editing process, in which case the cross-reference see would point to a broader, encompassing definition.
The definition of the term 2D animation points to a dictionary entry that is absent from the source published in 2020, and thus the definition itself is absent as well. It can therefore be concluded that the cross-reference definitions found in the sources are used improperly. For example:
2D animation – see traditional animation. AP 2020: 195
When assessing the structure of such a cross-reference and attempting to identify its structural model, one can conclude that it lacks the binary logical structure characteristic of term definitions; therefore, from the perspective of terminological theory, such cases are generally not considered genuine definitions. It is recommended that such definitions be avoided. The international standard ISO 704 states that cross-references such as see, see also, etc., are regarded as editorial devices that help link a term to its actual definition. Thus, in the animation terminology dictionaries under analysis, cross-references function as substitutes for definitions: they direct the reader to another entry where the content of the concept being defined is presented. Because of this functional substitution, such cross-reference definitions belong to the type of non-systemic definitions, with the understanding that they lack the usual terminological structure and that their use may be associated with aims of economy, consistency, or standardization.
A cross-reference definition consists of different structural components: the term being defined, a cross-reference word, and the target term (Fig. 4). The primary function of such a definition in the dictionaries examined is to direct the user to another location in the same source. The essential drawback of a cross-reference definition is that it does not show the term’s place in the concept system, which is precisely why it is considered non-systemic.
Fig. 4 Structural model of a cross-reference definition
2.3.4. Another subtype of non-systemic definitions is definitions that do not meet the requirements (cf. English deficient definitions, ISO 704 2022: 41). In the sources examined, they account for
13
Page 14
about 4% of all definitions. These definitions are quite diverse. Some of them may be considered tautological definitions, that is, definitions in which the defined term is explained using the same or a very similar term, and therefore the defined concept’s place in the concept system is not revealed. For example:
Each animated frame (English singles or ones) – this means that every frame in an animated work is animated. AP 2020: 199
As can be seen, this definition repeats the defined term (animated frame and every frame... is animated), and therefore provides no new information about the concept’s content, while the definition does not perform a logical distinguishing function. Such definitions should not be considered terminologically appropriate and should be refined to describe the concept’s characteristics and its place in the system more clearly.
Also identified were overly broad definitions; for example, the term dialogue is explained without specifying the generic term or the distinguishing characteristics that set the described term apart, and is also defined too broadly, since it includes the concept of a monologue (all text spoken by characters). For example:
Dialogas – visas personažų kalbamas tekstas (garsas) kūrinyje. AIL 2018: 129
Tautologies also occur in more complex, multi-sentence definitions. For instance, in I. Bereznik’s glossary, the term background is first explained tautologically—as itself, that is, using the same word, background—and is then explained using the word environment. The first sentence of the definition does not reveal the concept’s place in the concept system or specify distinguishing characteristics. The definition is further expanded by a second sentence, which is more like a comment than comprehensive information supplementing the term background. For example:
BACKGROUND (BG, background) – background, the environment in which the action takes place. In classical animation, the background is created in greater detail and with higher quality. AIE 2017: 255
A very similar entry is found for another term. For example:
MODEL SHEET (model sheet) – a model sheet that depicts a character precisely and in detail from various angles and in different poses. It is used as a guide by the entire creative team involved in the animation drawing process. Animators are usually also provided with a character sheet depicting the essential structure of the characters. AIE 2017: 256
The definition of the term model sheet begins with the identical wording model sheet, in which <...>, and should therefore be considered tautological. The international standard ISO 704 (2022: 42) recommends avoiding repetition of the term or part of it when formulating a definition, since such repetition provides no new information and does not reveal the concept’s content. This definition does not specify the distinguishing characteristics required for a logical definition, while the information in the second sentence concerns use or purpose and is therefore explanatory in nature. The third sentence mentions the term character sheet and even appears to attempt to define it. Therefore, both sentences are more reminiscent of notes or comments than parts of a definition. This definition should be considered imprecise and tautological, and thus deficient.
Tautological definitions, like other deficient definitions, are misleading and fail to provide precise and clear information about the concept being defined. It is recommended that they be revised (for more, see ISO 704 2022: 42; Gaivenis 2002: 74; Rickevičiūtė 1960: 156).
2.3.5.Concluding remarks. The examples presented show that the definitions of animation terms recorded in animation glossaries and considered non-systemic do not, in fact, identify the place of the defined concept in the concept system. They are imprecise and have been written without observing the most important requirements for definitions. Some non-systemic definitions,
14
Page 15
e.g., synonymous and referential definitions, prompt us to reconsider the very concept of a definition and consider what should be regarded as a definition, and whether definitions that lack an independent logical definition structure and are expressed only by a reference or synonym can be considered term definitions at all. On the other hand, one may ask whether all definitions must be comprehensive verbal descriptions or statements, since in terminology there are cases where concepts are expressed by diagrams, formulas, or other means. Most often these are simply additional information following a definition, but this shows that the content of a concept can be conveyed in ways other than verbal ones. Therefore, the presence of referential or synonymous definitions in terminographic sources should not be considered an error; there is no basis for doing so. Clearly, their function is different—not to describe a concept comprehensively, but to stand in for a definition, in other words, to indicate a link to another concept or direct the reader to where the definition is provided. It is likely that these subtypes of definitions arise for practical reasons, to ensure interrelationships and consistency among terms and terminographic economy, i.e., concise term descriptions.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The analysed definitions of terms in the field of animation are classified as systemic, semi-systemic, and non-systemic (Fig. 5). Nine subtypes of these categories are distinguished. Systemic definitions were found to predominate, accounting for 56% of all definitions; of these, as many as 55% are intensional definitions. As is usual in terminology, intensional definitions are best suited to revealing essential characteristics of concepts and systemic relations between concepts. They are brief, precise, and logical. According to the findings of K. Gaivenis’s study conducted more than fifty years ago, incomplete, full, and referential definitions were the most productive. The results of this study indicate a different trend: incomplete, referential, and synonymous definitions are rare among definitions of animation terms. This is likely due to the nature and limited scope of the sources selected for analysis. Nevertheless, the findings of both studies confirm the same trend: intensional, or full, definitions are the most common and should be regarded as the typical, most systemic definition model.
Fig. 5. Distribution of animation term definitions by frequency (%) and classification
Semi-systemic definitions rank second in frequency. They account for 30% of all definitions found. These definitions are usually longer and provide more information, which is not always necessary for defining a term precisely. The encyclopaedic subtype predominates, accounting for 24% of all definitions. K. Gaivenis does not distinguish the mixed-definition type in his classification; however, based on material from animation term glossaries, this type can be distinguished because of the structural features of the sentences that make up the definitions and their informational character.
15
Page 16
Non-systemic definitions were the least common, accounting for 14% of all definitions examined. Based on the study data, four subtypes are distinguished: descriptive, synonymous, referential, and non-compliant definitions. The first subtype—descriptive definitions—predominates (6%).
It may be supposed that the abundance of mixed, explanatory, and encyclopaedic definitions is due to the nature of the sources examined, as well as to the aim not only to define terms but also to explain them to readers in greater detail for educational and informational purposes. What stands out is that these definitions are comprehensive and broad in scope. They provide various kinds of additional information: some, in addition to the main information, discuss the use of a term extensively in the professional field of animation; others mention historical aspects; still others provide synonymous terms, and so on. In normative terminology work, such overly broad definitions are usually edited and standardized—most often shortened to a single comprehensive sentence typical of an intensional definition and adapted to the definition model prevailing in the source.
The structural models distinguished for different types of term definitions suggest that the structure of a definition is determined by various factors. One is the place of the defined concept in the concept system. Another is the type of definition chosen by the author who formulates it. A third is the source in which the definition appears (a dictionary, a scholarly or educational text, and so on). There may, of course, be other factors. These could be identified more precisely by conducting further studies of definitions in a greater variety of sources. It is also possible that the choice of definition structure is indirectly influenced by the very awareness that one is writing a term definition—this awareness may encourage the writer to draw on examples of definitions or analogous patterns already encountered in dictionaries or other sources.
Based on the practice of explanatory terminology dictionaries and analysis of explanatory definitions of animation terms, it is clear that some definition types are more suitable, while others need revision or are even unsuitable. The distinguished definition types and their structural models, even the rarest ones, are possible as long as the primary function of a definition is kept in mind: to reveal the content of a concept and show the place of the defined concept in the concept system. The more frequent selection of certain definition models indicates an effort to systematize and standardize definitions in accordance with the principal requirements for drafting term definitions.
CONCLUSIONS
A term definition is a logical, comprehensive statement that differentiates the defined term from others and reveals its conceptual and systemic relations with other terms in the same field. Terms can be defined using different types of definitions, which differ in structure and in the amount of information presented. The research data show that, according to their relation to the concept system, definitions of animation terms fall into three types: systemic, semi-systemic, and non-systemic. Systemic definitions are the most common (56% of all definitions studied), with intensional definitions predominating (55%), while extensional definitions account for a smaller proportion. Non-systemic definitions are the least common—descriptive, referential, synonymous, and those that do not meet terminological requirements (14% of all definitions).
Term definitions are formulated according to established rules and requirements: they must reflect the essential characteristics of a concept; a definition must be logical, clear, concise, neither too narrow nor too broad, and must also reveal the defined term’s place in the concept system. In other words, a definition must reveal the essence of the term. Some structural models of definitions correspond to those recommended for use in terminology—intensional and extensional definitions. Other models are essentially considered non-terminological, that is, unsuitable or only partly suitable for terminological purposes. These include incomplete, mixed, descriptive, synonymous, enumerative, and encyclopaedic definitions.
The structural models of definitions of animation terms depend on the type of definition chosen. Intensional and extensional definitions best meet the requirements imposed on them
16
Page 17
—they have a clear logical structure and make it possible to determine precisely the concept’s place in the concept system. Descriptive, mixed, incomplete, and encyclopaedic definitions meet terminological criteria only partly—some lack distinguishing characteristics, while others have different structural or logical shortcomings; however, where necessary, they can be revised and restructured as intensional definitions. Referential and synonymous definitions differ structurally from the others: their function is not to define, but to direct the reader to the place where the actual description of the concept is provided. They help maintain a consistent and economical presentation of concepts in terminographic sources. The diversity of structural models of definitions of animation terms reveals varying degrees of compliance with terminological principles and requirements.
The classification of term definitions, like their structure, is partly conditional. It depends on the aspects in terms of which a definition is interpreted and the requirements imposed on it. Different researchers apply different classification criteria: some classify according to logical structure (intensional, extensional), others according to degree of correctness (compliant, in need of revision, unsuitable, etc.), while still others rely on different characteristics. In this study, the basis for classification was chosen to be definitions’ relation to the concept system. This diversity shows that the classification of definitions is not absolute and cannot be the only one.
ŠALTINIAI
AIE 2017: Animacijos terminų žodynėlis [Glossary of Animation Terms]. – Ilja Bereznickas. Animacija: nuo idėjos iki ekrano [Animation: From Idea to Screen], Vilnius: Vilniaus dailės akademijos leidykla.
AIL 2018: Animacijos terminų žodynas [Glossary of Animation Terms]. – Tomas Mitkus, Vaida Nedzinskaitė-Mitkė. Animacijos industrija Lietuvoje: analizė ir galimybės [Animation Industry in Lithuania: Analysis and Opportunities], Vilnius: VGTU leidykla „Technika“, 126–133.
AP 2020: Animacijos terminų žodynas [Glossary of Animation Terms]. – Tomas Mitkus, Vaida Nedzinskaitė-Mitkė. Animacijos pagrindai [Fundamentals of Animation], Vilnius: Vilniaus Gedimino technikos universitetas, 195–202.
BLKŽ: Bendrinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas (rengiamas) [Dictionary of the Standard Lithuanian Language], vyr. red. D. Liutkevičienė, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Prieiga internete: https://ekalba.lt/bendines-lietuviu-kalbos-zodynas/.
LITERATŪRA
Arntz Reiner, Picht Heribert, Mayer Felix 2002: Einführung in die Terminologiearbeit, Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag AG.
Cabré Teresa 2023: Terminology: Cognition, Language and Communication, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/ivitra.36.
Cramer Irene Magdalena 2011: Definitionen in Wörterbuch und Text: Zur manuellen Annotation, korpusgestützten Analyse und automatischen Extraktion definitorischer Textsegmente im Kontext der computergestützten Lexikographie: Inauguraldissertation, TU Dortmund.
De Bessé Bruno 1997: Terminological Definitions. – Handbook of Terminology Management 1: Basic Aspects of Terminology Management, ed. S. E. Wright, G. Budin, Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co., 63–74.
Gaivenis Kazimieras 2014 [1998]: Keletas minčių apie terminologiją [A Few Thoughts about Terminology]. – Rinktiniai raštai, K. Gaivenis, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 248–251.
17
Page 18
Gaivenis Kazimieras 2002: Lietuvių terminologija: teorijos ir tvarkybos metmenys [Lithuanian Terminology: Foundations of Theory and Standardization], Vilnius: LKI leidykla.
Gaivenis Kazimieras 2004: Sudėtinių terminų pateikimas ir aiškinimas terminų žodynuose [Presentation and Explanation of Complex Terms in Terminological Dictionaries]. – Terminologijos istorijos ir dabarties problemos: straipsnių rinkinys Kazimierui Gaiveniui atminti [Problems of the History and Present-Day Terminology: A Collection of Articles in Memory of Kazimieras Gaivenis], sud. A. Auksoriūtė, ats. red. S. Keinys, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 85–117.
Gaivenis Kazimieras, Keinys Stasys 1990: Kalbotyros terminų žodynas [Dictionary of Linguistic Terms], Kaunas: Šviesa.
ISO 704 2022: ISO 704: 2022 (E) Terminology work – Principles and methods, Geneva / Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization.
Kvašytė Regina 2005: Mokomasis terminologijos žodynėlis [Educational Glossary of Terminology], Šiauliai: Šiaulių universiteto leidykla.
Löckinger Georg, Kockaert Hendrik J., Budin Gerhard 2015: Intensional definitions. – H. J. Kockaert, F. Steurs, Handbook of Terminology 1, Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 60–81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/hot.1.
Nilsson Henrik 2015: Enumerations count: Extensional and partitive definitions. – H. J. Kockaert, F. Steurs. Handbook of Terminology 1, Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 82–100. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/hot.1.
Rickevičiūtė Kristina 1960: Apibrėžimas per artimiausiąjį giminę ir rūšinį skirtumą [Definition by Proximate Genus and Specific Difference]. – Problemos 1, 149–164. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15388/Problemos.1960.0.7259.
Rimkutė-Ganusauskienė Aušra 2021: Sudėtinio termino dėmenų ir apibrėžties subordinacija: vieno atvejo analizė [Subordination between Components and Definition of a Combinative Term: Case Study]. – Terminologija 28, 175–191. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35321/term28-08.
Sager Juan C. 1990: A Practical Course in Terminology Processing, Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
San Martín Antonio 2022: A Flexible Approach to Terminological Definitions: Representing Thematic Variation. – International Journal of Lexicography 35(1), 53–74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/ecab013.
San Martín Antonio 2025: Optimizing Contextonym Analysis for Terminological Definition Writing. – Information 16(4). DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/info16040257.
Šalkauskis Stasys 1991: Raštai 2: Filosofijos ir pedagogikos terminija [Writings, Vol. 2: Philosophy and Pedagogy Terminology], Vilnius: Mintis.
Temmerman Rita 2000: Towards New Ways of Terminology Description: The Sociocognitive Approach, Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Umbrasas Alvydas 2022: Teisės aktų terminų ir jų apibrėžčių reikalavimų klausimu [On the requirements for the terms of legal acts and their definitions]. – Terminologija 29, 120–138. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35321/term29-07.
VLKK: 2014 m. gruodžio 11 d. protokolinis nutarimas Nr. PN-6 „Dėl Valstybinės lietuvių kalbos komisijos 2010 m. spalio 28 d. protokolinio nutarimo Nr. PN-6 „Dėl
18
Page 19
svetimžodžių atitikmenų sąrašo“ papildymo“ [Protocol Decision No. PN–6 of 11 December 2014 “On the Supplementation of the Protocol Decision No. PN-6 of 28 October 2010 of the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language ‘On the List of Equivalents of Loanwords”]. Prieiga internete: https://www.vlkk.lt/vlkk-nutarimai/protokoliniai-nutarimai/del-svetimzodziu-atitikmenu-saraso-papildymo-3.
AUŠRA RIMKUTĖ-GANUSAUSKIENĖ
STRUCTURAL MODELS OF DEFINITIONS OF ANIMATION TERMS
Summary
This article examines the definitions of animation terms that have not previously been analysed from a terminological perspective. The empirical analysis draws on three glossaries of animation terms included in Ilja Bereznickas’s monograph Animacija: nuo idėjos iki ekrano (2017) and in the textbooks by Tomas Mitkus and Vaida Nedzinskaitė-Mitkė, Animacijos industrija Lietuvoje: analizė ir galimybės (2018) and Animacijos pagrindai (2020). In total, 145 definitions were analysed. The study employed descriptive, comparative, and other methods.
It has been established that, with respect to their relation to the concept system, the definitions of animation terms can be classified into three types: systemic, semi-systemic, and non-systemic. Systemic definitions were the most frequent (56% of all cases); within this group, intensional definitions predominated. Overall, intensional definitions accounted for 55% of all definitions, whereas extensional definitions were extremely rare (1%). Semi-systemic definitions (24%) can be further subdivided into encyclopaedic, mixed, and incomplete types; these definitions only partially conform to the structure and requirements of a logical (intensional) definition. Non-systemic definitions were the least common (14%) and comprise descriptive, synonymous, referential, and definitions that do not conform to terminological requirements. By their nature, non-systemic definitions do not locate the defined concept within the system of concepts.
Based on the analysis of the definitions of animation terms, intensional definitions can be regarded as the typical model that best accords with the notion of definition and with the requirements for terminological definition. Their structural model can be expressed as: defined concept = nearest superordinate (genus) + differentiating characteristic(s) (differentiae) that distinguish the defined concept from co-ordinate concepts. This yields a single-sentence definition. The structural model of extensional definitions is useful far less often and only in cases where it is possible to provide an exhaustive enumeration of all parts that constitute the terminological concept. Encyclopaedic and mixed definitions are applicable primarily in educational discourse. The types identified as descriptive, synonymous, and referential do not exhibit the binary logical structure characteristic of classical definitions; the same holds for definitions that do not conform to terminological requirements. Definitions of animation terms display variation, and their suitability for terminological purposes depends on compliance with the general requirements for drafting definitions.
