doi.org/10.35321/term28-07

Construction terms of the 20th century – early 21st century

Cognitive propositional models of compounds

LINA RUTKIENĖ

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

ORCID id: https://0000-0001-6661-3115

ABSTRACT

Applying the cognitive modelling method, this article identifies and discusses the cognitive propositional models of indigenous and hybrid compound construction terms. It is assumed that knowledge of a propositional nature correlates with the onomasiological structure of a compound, in which the relationship between concepts is always apparent. The empirical material revealed that indigenous and hybrid compound construction terms are formed by activating 16 cognitive propositional models. Objects are at the centre of the construction domain, mainly material products of human activity; therefore, the basic OBJECT concept is also activated most frequently when construction realities are named.

KEYWORDS: compound, cognitive propositional model, concept, object, construction domain.

ABSTRACT

The article identifies and discusses the cognitive propositional models of indigenous and hybrid construction terminology compounds using the cognitive modelling method. It is believed that the knowledge of propositional nature correlates with the onomasiological structure of the compounds, and the connection of concepts is always visible there. The empirical material has revealed that indigenous and hybrid construction terminology compounds are made on the basis of 16 cognitive propositional models. Objects, mostly the material products of human activity, are in the center of the construction field; therefore, in naming the realities of construction, the basic concept of the OBJECT is actualized most often.

KEYWORDS: compound, cognitive propositional model, concept, object, construction field.

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

In recent years, cognitive linguistics, which is closely related to philosophy, psycho-

Terminologija | 2021 | 28

153

logy and investigates the relationship between language and consciousness, knowledge structures, and their encoding in linguistic forms, has been actively developed in both international and Lithuanian linguistics. In Lithuanian linguistics, perhaps the greatest attention has been devoted to conceptual metaphor theory, and numerous studies have examined conceptual metaphors in different discourses (e.g., Aliūkaitė, Sideravičiūtė-Mickienė 2006; Marcinkevičienė 2006; Kvašytė, Župerka 2011; Kvašytė, Papaurelytė 2013; Būdvytė-Gudienė et al. 2014, among others).

Cognitive research is also important for terminology. Proponents of cognitive terminology understand a term as a particular cognitive-informational structure that expresses, in linguistic form, professional knowledge accumulated over the long course of societal development. In understanding, memorizing, and activating the information denoted by terms, people not only use that information but also interpret, supplement, modify, and so on. Cognitive analysis of terms makes it possible to explain how knowledge of the world of science developed, resulting in the functioning system of terms. However, compared with research on general vocabulary, there is far less cognitive research on terms, especially on compounds used as terms. Therefore, this article adopts a cognitive approach to compounds in general language when examining compound construction terms.

The aim of this article is to identify the cognitive propositional models of native and hybrid compound construction terms from the 20th century to the beginning of the 21st century, which may serve as a basis for naming construction concepts. To achieve this aim, the article discusses theoretical premises concerning cognitive propositional models; on the basis of empirical material, it identifies the basic concepts activated by the constituents of compounds; assesses which other concepts they can combine with to form propositional cognitive models; and determines which types of word formation realize these models.

A total of 518 native and hybrid compound construction terms, whose constituents are based on free (independent) stems, were collected from 73 scholarly texts in the field of construction from the 20th century to the beginning of the 21st century (textbooks, monographs, dictionaries, etc.¹). The article does not examine compounds with prepositional and postpositional international combining forms, such as photo-, geo-, macro-,²

¹ The genre of a considerable portion of the texts from the early 20th century is not specified.

² A compound is considered native if both its constituents are Lithuanian (based on Indo-Europeanisms, Balto-Slavic commonalities, or words characteristic only of the Baltic languages or only of Lithuanian). A compound is called hybrid if one constituent is Lithuanian and the other is borrowed.

154

Lina Rutkienė

XX a. – XXI a. pr. statybos terminų dūrinių kognityviniai propoziciniai modeliai

micro-, nano-; -graph and so on. When a combining form is a linking stem without grammatical features, determining its connection with a concept is difficult³.

The material is examined using one of the methods of cognitive linguistics—the so-called cognitive modeling (Russian когнитивное моделирование), whose purpose is to identify cognitive models, in this case of a propositional nature. As Natalija Besedina writes, the modeling method is one of the principal methods of cognitive analysis. Applying this method—in linguistics generally—makes it possible to obtain a certain schematic construct (model) that replaces a more complex object. According to the scholar, a model makes it possible to record the most important features of the object under study (Беседина 2014: 121). In this article, the cognitive modeling method is combined with the analytical-descriptive method.

THEORETICAL PROVISIONS

Representatives of cognitive linguistics also connect the formation of new words with cognitive processes. In Jelena Kubriakova’s view, word formation should be understood as a system whose essence is to satisfy the human need to distinguish and record particular knowledge structures in linguistic forms. It is precisely the derived word’s property of being a nominative unit convenient for packaging information (Russian для упаковки информации) and using in linguistic activity that characterizes it as a special cognitive structure (Кубрякова 2004: 393–394).

In forming new words, including terms, certain thought patterns—or, in other words, cognitive models—are involved, according to scholars representing cognitive linguistics. In interacting with the environment, a person distinguishes phenomena, objects, or features. According to J. Kubriakova, this act of distinguishing, as the initial stage in becoming acquainted with these things, is established in language through nomination, realized by means of word-formation devices (Кубрякова 2004: 393).

To name something, one must identify the referent, determine its place in the cognitive system, and assign it to a particular category. In performing nomination, a person tries to find some familiar model or schema according to which new words can be created. Thus, there are certain thought models based on existing knowledge, and these models are universal algorithms that make it possible both to create and to understand a new word.

³The cognitive propositional models of construction-term compounds were examined in preparing the doctoral dissertation “Compounds in Construction Terminology: Formation and Development,” which also attempted to discuss the cognitive propositional models of pseudo-compounds, i.e., compounds with international combining stems (see Rutkienė 2021).

Terminologija | 2021 | 28

155

When a person encounters a new word, these schemas (models) become activated in the person’s mind and are applied to understand the word’s meaning and the text in which it occurs (Бабина 2013: 15–16). Suzanne Kemmer writes similarly: according to her, schemas are patterns of experience characteristic of our thinking, rooted so deeply that they can be applied in creating and understanding linguistic expressions (Kemmer 2003).

J. Kubriakova points out that an act of nomination cannot occur without a proposition: the precursor to the act of nomination is “the formation of a proposition from existing, ready-made concepts; however, as soon as a new word emerges as the result of this act, it becomes the representative of a new, separate concept, and people gain the opportunity to operate with it as a new, integral structure” (Кубрякова 2004: 317). A proposition is a construct that links concepts, and it is understood as analogous to a word-formation model in terms of knowledge representation. A proposition enables us to understand that all events, objects, phenomena, and so on in the world are not isolated but interact with one another.

Thus, representatives of cognitive linguistics argue that knowledge structures are essentially structures of interacting concepts, and the unions of these concepts are called propositions. In George Lakoff’s view, a cognitive model is called propositional when it is formed without the mechanisms of imagination, that is, when it does not use metaphor, metonymy, or mental imagery (Lakoff 1990). In other words, a proposition is a model consisting of arguments and a basic predicate that links those arguments.

Proposition theory is also applied to compounds, on the grounds that propositional knowledge correlates with the onomasiological structure of a compound. Compounds are special linguistic units because the relationship between concepts is always visible in them. According to J. Kubriakova, a derived word that belongs to a group of units with the same propositional structure expresses the same cognitive situation (Кубрякова 2004: 393–394).

In this context, the concept itself—one of the principal notions in cognitive linguistics—also needs to be discussed. As Aloyzas Gudavičius states, a concept is most often understood as “a heterogeneous, multidimensional unit of knowledge about the world and experience” (Gudavičius 2011: 112). The Short Dictionary of Cognitive Terms defines a concept as a term used to explain “the mental or psychological resources of our consciousness and of the information structure that reflects human knowledge and experience”; it also provides another definition: a concept is “an operative content-bearing [having content – author’s note] unit of memory, the mental lexicon, the conceptual system, and the language of the brain (lingua mentalis), of the whole world

156

Lina Rutkienė

XX a. – XXI a. pr. statybos terminų dūrinių kognityviniai propoziciniai modeliai

žemėlapio, atsispindinčio žmogaus psichikoje, vienetas“ (Кубрякова ir kt. 1996: 90). „Žmogus mąsto konceptais, jis analizuoja, lygina ir susieja skirtingus konceptus“, – rašo Silvija Papaurėlytė-Klovienė (2007: 16). A. Gudavičius pabrėžia, kad, „sakydami „koncepto raiška kalboje“, turėtume suprasti: koncepto dalis, kuri reiškiama kalbos vienetais“ (Gudavičius 2011: 113). Kalbant apie koncepto raišką, minėtina ir N. Besedinos pozicija: kalbininkė atkreipia dėmesį, kad, konceptą reprezentuojant kalbą, aktyvinamas ne visas konceptas, o tik tam tikra jo dalis. Taigi, nė vienas konceptas nėra verbalizuojamas iki galo (Беседина 2006).

In cognitive linguistics, the so-called basic concepts⁴ are distinguished first and foremost: OBJECT, PARTS OF AN OBJECT, ACTION, PLACE, or SPACE, TIME, PROPERTY, etc. (Jackendoff 1990). The scholar Lucy Vanderwende suggests identifying concepts by using questions that begin with Wh in English (SUBJECT (who?) (English Subject (Who / what?)), TIME (when?) (English Time (When?)), MATERIAL (what is it made of?) (English Material (Made of what?)), etc. (Vanderwende 1994).

This article draws primarily on the concepts presented by Anastasia Fedenko and the predicates that connect them into a propositional structure, since this author’s subject of study is also compounds. In her work, A. Fedenko identifies the following basic concepts, which, together with predicates, form the cognitive propositional models of Russian compounds: ACTOR, OBJECT, PLACE, TIME, OPERATION. In addition to these, the concepts of GOAL and MANNER are relevant to compounds. These concepts are linked into a propositional structure by the predicates BELONG TO / BE CHARACTERISTIC OF, BE TYPE OF, DEAL WITH, BE USED FOR, BE USED BY, BE MADE FROM, BE USED, BE PART OF, CONTAIN, and BE LIKE (Феденко 2015). As the collected data show, when examining construction-term compounds, it is also useful to distinguish the concepts of STATE and RESULT.

⁴ Various typologies of concepts can be found in contemporary cognitive linguistics.

Terminologija | 2021 | 28

157

COGNITIVE PROPOSITIONAL MODELS OF CONSTRUCTION-TERM COMPOUNDS

Cognitive propositional model with the ACTION and OBJECT concepts

The main concept included in most cognitive propositional models of construction-term compounds is the OBJECT concept, which denotes things belonging to various categories: abstract entities, objects, their parts, materials, and so on. Scholars generally regard two properties as fundamental to an object: its precise physical demarcation from another object (even if it is flour or spilled water), and its internal connections, homogeneity, and stability (Langacker 1991; Кубрякова 1997). With regard to the demarcation of one object from another, the insights of Yuri Stepanov are worth noting: objecthood is primarily connected with the idea of figure and ground in the human environment, that is, with the idea of space and its division. An object is the simplest result of discretizing the universe, of distinguishing its separate fragments in space (Степанов 2016). In Roland Langacker’s view, the presence of clear boundaries, contour, and the fact that a thing occupies a fairly defined place in space are precisely the essential properties that help us recognize an object (Langacker 1991: 63). E. Kubriakova emphasizes that an object should nevertheless not be understood solely as a physical thing—such an understanding is too narrow. Objects may also be abstract entities, that is, things that cannot be touched. They have no physical properties but do have mental characteristics (Кубрякова 1997).

It is difficult to say how specific construction realities are perceived; however, from a cognitive perspective, it may be assumed that their objecthood is perceived first.

In naming construction concepts, a cognitive propositional model composed of the basic OBJECT and ACTION concepts is often used. When abstract concepts in the construction domain are named, the action directed at or performed on a particular object is identified as the primary feature. The OBJECT concept in this model encompasses several kinds of things: natural phenomena, abstract entities, and objects. Below, we discuss the scope of the OBJECT concept in this model in greater detail.

The construction of buildings is closely connected with the natural world: people protect themselves from its elements, admit them into their homes to improve living conditions, use natural realities in the construction process, and so on. Therefore, the OBJECT concept in some instances of this model also encompasses natural realities. Such

158

Lina Rutkienė

XX a. – XXI a. pr. statybos terminų dūrinių kognityviniai propoziciniai modeliai

A wide variety of construction-related things are named by compounds: buildings, their parts, machines, devices, and so on. Some compounds of the discussed ACTION – OBJECT model are formed with first constituents based on nouns denoting natural phenomena: dangus (dangoraižis TRLT 1949, RLKP 1959, MK 1977, SMSM 2008), dujos (dujotiekis CPŽŪ 1969, SM 2008; dujopūtė SMGT 2014), dūmai (dūmtraukis PK 1962; dūmlaidis RLSTŽ 1992), lietus (lietmatis RLSTŽ 1992, STŽ 2002), pūga (pūgomatis AKTA 1995), smėlis (smėliapūtė ALLA 1993; smėliasvaidė MTPM 1976, KSŽ1988), oras (ortraukis ŪTSV 1935; orvilka MMPK 1988; orlaidė DD 1967, KSŽ 1988, STŽ 2002, MAVL 2002 / orlaidis SDTSS 1930, SSB 1943, MMPK 1988), vanduo (vandenruoša SMSM 2008; vandentieka RLSTŽ 1992, HS 2008, STŽ 2002), vėjas (vėjalaikis SSB 1943; vėjagaudis SSB 1943).

The object of the action expressed by the second constituent of compounds in this cognitive-propositional model may also be quantities or properties that need to be assessed and whose numerical value needs to be determined. The second constituent of most of these compounds is based on the transitive verb matuoti ‘to measure’, for example: dažniamatis STŽ 2002; jėgomatis STŽ 2002; kietmatis RLSTŽ 1992, SIŽ 2004; kreivėmatis STŽ 2002; lygmatís SMGT 2014; gylmatis, gilumo matuoklė RLKP 1959; ilgiamatis RLSTŽ 1992, STŽ 2002; įlinkiamatis SKb 1989, STŽ 2002; slankmatis RLSTŽ 1992, MAVL 2002, SMB 2007, AKTM 2011; slankiamatis STŽ 2002; storimatis SMD 1992 / stormatis ALKPŽ 1958, STŽ 2002; traukomatis RLSTŽ 1992, STŽ 2002.

A large group of construction-term compounds consists of formations whose OBJECT concept is associated with concrete things and materials. Combining the OBJECT concept encompassing the things under discussion with the ACTION concept yields various construction terms—mostly names of building structures, components, and machines, for example: gegnėšis STŽT 1978 / gegnianėsis SAV 1935; langaaerė MMPK 1988; stiklalaikis SSB 1943; stiklalutis SSB 1943; akmenskalde SPM 1964; betonkrėtė RLKP 1959, STŽ 2002; betonvežis RLSTŽ 1992, ALLA 1993; blokvežis ST 1992, RLSTŽ 1992; paklotvežis RLSTŽ 1992; panelvežis SP 1965; plokštvežis ST 1992; santvarvežis STŽ 2002; bėgiagrežė SDKŽ 1940; poliakalė RLKP 1959, SP 1965, RLSTŽ 1992; žvyr(a)plovė ALLA 1993, STŽ 2002.

In the ACTION – OBJECT compounds of the model discussed above, the ACTION concept, denoted by verbs occurring as the second constituent, was mostly expressed as an active action directed toward the external world. The action in compounds with the pronominal first constituent savi- is the opposite—not directed toward the external world, but toward oneself: to-

Terminologija | 2021 | 28

159

ward oneself: savikontrolė RLSTŽ 1992; savireguliacija UGP 1997; savigalba UGP 1997; savitan ka STŽ 2002; savitrauka STŽ 2002; saviįtampa MK 1977; savisauga UGP 1997; savistaba RLKP 1959.

Cognitive-propositional models with both OBJECT concepts

Propositional compound models can involve two OBJECTS at once: one object may be used for another object, one object may be part of another, one object may be made from another, or the two objects may be joined to form a whole material.

A large number of construction-term compounds are formed by activating the cognitive-propositional model OBJECT 1 – BE USED – OBJECT 2. Objects may be related closely, or one object may be used to avoid or repel another. Close relations are much more common: they indicate that the objects do not repel one another, but rather combine.

The object used to repel another object in order to avoid it is expressed by the second constituent of the compound, while the first constituent usually names the natural phenomenon against which protection is sought, for example: lietsargė ŪTSV 1935; gaisrasienė STŽT 1978; sniegatvorė (“snow fence”) SG 1930, AKTA 1995; ugniasienė SDKŽ 1940.

Among objects related closely, one may also be a natural phenomenon; the second object is then used to collect that natural entity and release it from the building (dūmatakis SDTSS 1930 / dūmtakis SP 1965; dūmavamzdis ALKPŽ 1958, SP 1965, STŽ 2002; lietvamzdis SSB 1943, RSD 1962), or, conversely, to let it into the building: šviesangis SEŽ; švieslangis SSM 1937, SDKŽ 1940, ALKS 1972; orlangė MMPK 1988; šviesiastogis SSB 1943.

Compounds of the model under discussion, whose constituents denote objects closely related to one another, can also express other relationships: a smaller object is used for a larger one: kaminakaištis, kaminkaištis STŽT 1978; skliautatrama SSB 1943; skliautrėmis SGBT 1931; stiklajuostė PK 1962, MAVL 2002; staktaramstis STŽ 2002; staktajuostė MAVL 2002; kluonaraktis STŽT 1978; a room or building is used for living beings (domestic animals): avitvartis STŽT 1978; karvi atvartis STŽT 1978; kiaulėtvartis STŽT 1978; kiauli atvartis STŽT 1978; keltvargtis STŽT 1978; kiauliagurbis STŽT 1978; an object is used to hold, supply, or shape a material: betonvamzdis BDT 1976; cementtakis RLSTŽ 1992; dumblia-

160

Lina Rutkienė

XX a. – XXI a. pr. statybos terminų dūrinių kognityviniai propoziciniai modeliai

vamzdis STŽ 2020; skiedintakis RLSTŽ 1992; tešlaskydis (a board for holding plastering mortar) SSB 1943; mūrkaltis TRLT 1949, RLKP 1959, STŽ 2002; tinkašukės SSB 1943.

The objects denoted by the components of compounds in the cognitive propositional model OBJECT 1 – BE WITH – OBJECT 2 are related only by close association. Compounds in this model name building materials, and their components denote the principal constituents of those materials. The second components of most building-term compounds in this model are based on the international nouns betonas and cementas. The propositional structure and abundance of these compounds reflect a cognitive process: concretes—artificial structural materials widely used in construction, with excellent properties and a broad range of applications—are studied, improved, and combined with other materials to obtain materials with even better properties. The first component of the compounds under discussion denotes the object (most often a material) with which concrete or cement is combined: akmenbetonis SDKŽ 1940, SMSM 2008; gelžbetonis MGN 1933; gelžcementas SSB 1943; degutbetonis SM 1966, AKTA 1995; dervabetonis RLKP 1959; medbetonis RLSTŽ 1992, SIŽ 2004; molbetonis RLKP 1959, CPŽŪ 1969, STŽ 2002, AKTA 1995; pjuvenbetonis RLSTŽ 1992; plaušacementis ŠSDV 2015; pelenbetonis RLSTŽ 1992, STŽ 2002; plienbetonis SSB 1943, ALLA 1993, STŽ 2002, SKT 2009; stiklabetonis SMG 1974, STŽ 2002; smėlibetonis SP 1965.

Repetition of components is not characteristic of other compounds in this model; compare: derviadažiai SSB 1943; stiklavilinė SŽD 1939; gudrondegutas SMG 1974; putgumė SIŽ 2004.

Compounds in the cognitive propositional model OBJECT 1 – BE A PART OF – OBJECT 2 name construction realities that form part of a whole. That whole is usually a building structure, part of a building, or the building itself. For example, the term kluonraštis STŽT 1978 denotes the ridge of a barn; the terms langabalkis SSB 1943; langarėmis SSB 1943 denote a window beam (balkis) and a window frame, respectively; and the terms laiptasijė SP 1965, SEŽ 1967; laiptotakis TRLT 1949 denote a staircase beam and a stairway. The following terms also belong to the group of compounds in this model: mašinsuolis MMPK 1988; skliautanarys SSB 1943 (“a part, member forming a vault”); skliautapėdis SSB 1943; skliautsija SGBT 1931; skliautarkė SSB 1943; tuorlentė RLSTŽ 1992. The objects denoted by components of compounds in this cognitive propositional model, as in the model OBJECT 1 – BE WITH – OBJECT 2, are related by conjunctive relations.

Terminologija | 2021 | 28

161

In the cognitive propositional model OBJECT 1 – BE MADE OF – OBJECT 2, the OBJECT 1 concept in building-term compounds usually denotes the material from which a building, a building structure, or a construction product embodying the OBJECT 2 concept is made. Some sources give, alongside a one-word compound term, synonymous two-word and sometimes three-word terms that make these relations between objects clearer; alternatively, the term is explained in several words. For example: lentarkė, lentinė arka, arka iš lentų SSB 1943; medjuostė TRLT 1949, MMPK 1988, RLSTŽ 1992 (“a strip covering the junction between the floor and the wall”).

In construction, compounds in this model commonly name types of brick: durpiaplytė SŽD 1939, SDKŽ 1940, SSB 1943; gipsaplytė SSB 1943; kamščiaplytė SSB 1943; medžplytė SSM 1937; plaušaplytė STŽ 2002; stiklaplytė SSB 1943 / stikliapytė SSM 1937. The following formations also belong to the compounds in the cognitive propositional model under discussion: drožliaplokštė DS 1960 / drožleplokštė STŽ 2002; plaušaplokštė STŽ 2002; metal­tinklis SSB 1943; plytskli autis SSB 1943; stiklab lokis STŽ 2002; stiklaplokštė SSB 1943.

Cognitive propositional models with the concepts of OBJECT and ATTRIBUTE, PLACE, TIME, PURPOSE, and STATE

The OBJECT concept can form a cognitive propositional structure not only with another OBJECT and with an ACTION, but also with the concepts PROPERTY, LOCATION, TIME, PURPOSE, and STATE.

The PROPERTY concept conveys information about color, shape, quantity, and other characteristics of a thing, and together with the OBJECT concept forms the cognitive propositional model OBJECT – BE CHARACTERISTIC OF – PROPERTY. The OBJECT concept in this model encompasses things such as buildings, their parts, construction products, tools, equipment, and so forth. A characteristic feature is that the words denoting these things are already terms in the construction field. The distinguishing feature of the things under discussion may be related to color (geltonmedis SAV 1935; raudonmedis SSM 1937, MAVL 2002), shape (skerslangis SSB 1943; skerslentė DD 1967; skerstakis ALKS 1972; stačiaplytė STŽ 2002; statvamzdis SP 1965), size (didžianamė STŽT 1978; didžkelis LPMK 1931; didžmedis SSM 1937; laibraštis SMG 1974, StM 2012; siauralentė DSD 2008; storlentė DSD 2008), quantity (daugiabutis ŠVOK 2019; daugpjūklis SAV 1935; daugiašakis ALLA 1993; keturstubė STŽT 1978; trišakis SDTSS 1930, SP 1965), or evaluation (brangmedis RLSTŽ

162

Lina Rutkienė

XX a. – XXI a. pr. statybos terminų dūrinių kognityviniai propoziciniai modeliai

1992; dailyjuostė STŽ 2002; dailylentė TRLT 1949), an action (klijuotmedis SSM 1937; klotsienė SŽD 1939; skeltvinė DS 1960; soditkelis SAV 1935; spraustsienė SŽD 1939).

When combined with the LOCATION concept, the OBJECT concept forms the cognitive propositional model OBJECT – BE – LOCATION. The LOCATION concept expresses information about the position of an OBJECT in space. In this model, the LOCATION concept is often expressed by the component tarp: tarpatramis GSTŽ 2009; tarpcentris RLSTŽ 1992; tarpduris MTPM 1976; tarpkniedis RLSTŽ 1992; tarpkolonis RLSTŽ 1992; tarplangis SKPP 2008; tarplatakis RLKP 1959, SSKR 1989; tarprėmis SAV 1931, DD 1967; tarpsankabis STŽ 2002; tarp- santvaris RLSTŽ 1992; tarpsijis STŽ 2002; tarpslaitis RSD 1962; tarpulангis CPŽŪ 1969, etc.

Some compounds in this model indicate the object’s position on the vertical axis top–bottom: viršduris RLKP 1959, RLSTŽ 1992; viršlangis PK 1962 / viršulangis SP 1965, DD 1967; žemulangis SP 1965. In other compounds, the LOCATION concept is realized by a second component based on the noun vieta ‘place’: laidovietė SDKŽ 1940; laiptavietė SSB 1943; dumblavietė STŽ 2002, or by a component based on the more specific noun duobė ‘pit’: kalkduobė TD 1934; durpduobė RLKP 1959, AKTA 1995; žvyrduobė KS 1936.

The PURPOSE concept, when combined with the OBJECT concept, conveys information about the intended purpose of an object. In discussing construction term compounds formed according to the cognitive propositional model OBJECT – BE USED FOR – PURPOSE, it should be noted that identifying the PURPOSE concept may require more than in other cases relying on context, conducting a semantic analysis, and drawing on the word’s lexical meaning. For example, the terms dailoblis SAV 1935, slopiamedžiagės SSB 1943, and slopiaplytė SSB 1943 could also be assigned to the group of compounds in the cognitive propositional model OBJECT – BE CHARACTERIZED BY – PROPERTY, that is, one might assume that certain properties (neatness, sound-dampening capacity) characterize the objects—plane, materials, brick. However, context and semantic analysis make it possible to understand that the first component indicates not, for example, the neatness of a plane, but its purpose: the plane is intended for smoothing (“The most suitable tool for smoothing wood is a smoother, or dailoblis” SAV 1935: 86) (cf. a plane used to make grooves—vagoblis, or rumbaoblis STŽ 2002). The first component slop- in compounds also denotes purpose: slopiamedžiagės and slopiaplytės are objects intended to dampen sound.

Terminologija | 2021 | 28

163

There are further examples of such compounds in construction terminology: the compound kyliaplytis SS 1940 denotes a brick used as a “wedge,” that is, a shim; its purpose is to be inserted, or “wedged in”; the compound jungialapis SSB 1943 names a component used to join beams; the compound sargšulis RLKP 1959, SG 1930, LPMK 1931 denotes a roadside post, a “stake,” whose purpose is to act as a guard and prevent a vehicle from leaving the road. The OBJECT concept in this model often encompasses tools designed for a particular purpose: skerspjūklis SAV 1935—a saw intended for crosscutting; malksnojūklis STŽ 2002, vamzdžiapjūklis SP 1965, IŠŠŽ 1983—saws intended for cutting shingles or pipes; akmenkaltis SŽD 1939, kirstkaltis SAV 1931—chisels used for cutting stone; orpompis SŽD 1939, vandenpompis SŽD 1939—pumps intended for pumping water.

The cognitive propositional model OBJECT – BE – STATE is used relatively rarely in naming construction concepts. In construction term compounds of this structure, the first component indicates a material, while the second indicates the form (state) of that material. The compounds belonging to this group include cementmilčiai RLSTŽ 1992; klintmilčiai (“limestone in flour form”) RLSTŽ 1992, SKKS 1998, SIŽ 2004; medmilčiai SSB 1943, RLSTŽ 1992; pemzamilčiai SAV 1935 (“Pumice flour is very finely ground and purified pumice” SAV 1935: 37). As can be seen, the STATE concept in all the compounds mentioned is expressed by the nominal component milt-.

As noted, the OBJECT concept can also form a propositional structure with the TIME concept, which expresses a period during which an object is used. However, only a few compounds in construction terminology follow the model OBJECT – BE USED FOR – TIME. The first component of compounds in this model denotes an object (a building or its structure), while the second denotes the period of use of that object: vasarlangis SSB 1943; vasarnamis ALLA 1993, STŽ 2002, RNS 2012; žiemlangis SSB 1943.

Cognitive propositional models with ACTION and MANNER, RESULT, PURPOSE, and LOCATION concepts

As discussed above, when forming construction term compounds, the ACTION concept is most commonly combined with the OBJECT concept. In addition to this, however, the ACTION concept can form propositional models with the MANNER, RESULT, PURPOSE, and AGENT concepts. Nevertheless, models with the concepts listed are not often used to form construction term compounds.

164

Lina Rutkienė

XX a. – XXI a. pr. statybos terminų dūrinių kognityviniai propoziciniai modeliai

For the compound terms savigrinda HS 2008 and savitaka RLSTŽ 1992, ST 1992, savieiga ALKPŽ 1958, one may assume that the propositional structure ACTION – MANNER is characteristic, since the first, nominal element indicates not so much the object toward which the action is directed as the manner of the action, that is, it makes it possible to understand how the actions of grounding, flowing, and walking take place. The first element of other compounds in this cognitive propositional model is based on adverbs of manner: greitai: greitmaišė SSM 1937, ŠŽD 1939; pusiau: pusiauopiova PMST 1923 / pusiauupiūva PMST 1923; skersai: skerspjovė JŠSŽ 1983, RLSTŽ 1992.

Compounds whose second element is based on the transitive verb daryti (dujodaras SMU 2006, SP 2008 / dujodaris SM 1966, BABJ 2006 / porodaris BABJ 2006, SMB 2007; putodaris StM 2012; stiklodaris STP 1995), should probably be considered formed according to the cognitive propositional model ACTION – RESULT, although the object-like nature of the entity denoted by the second element is also prominent. The first element in this group of compounds denotes the result of the act of making, that is, what is made, e.g., gas, pores, foam, glass. The compounds sriegpjovė SP 1965, JŠSŽ 1983, RLSTŽ 1992; vagapjovė SIŽ 2004 were also formed according to this model—the meaning of result is actualized by their first element, namely, the result of the act of cutting: a thread and a furrow.

The term graužmilčiai SSM 1937, found in interwar literature, could also be assigned to compounds in this cognitive propositional model, since the entity denoted by the second element has a distinct result-of-action meaning: flour is the result of the act of grinding, not the object being ground. In this case alone, the result is expressed by the second element and the action by the first.

If we associate both elements of the terms slopiaklotis SSB 1943 and slopiakabis SSB 1943, denoting insulating structures intended to protect against noise, with verbs (semantic reflection probably requires this), we should distinguish one more cognitive propositional model—ACTION – PURPOSE. Compounds in this model indicate that, for example, a structure is laid or hung in order to dampen sound. As the examples show, compounds with this propositional structure have been found only in the book of one author, Jonas Šimoliūnas. No such compounds were formed later.

The ACTION concept can also be joined in a propositional structure with the LOCATION concept; however, very few such compounds have also been found in construction terminology—only two: šondėlis SSB 1943 and aukštalipys SP 1965. The first compound denotes a component placed at the side; the second denotes a person who climbs and carries out construction work at a height.

Terminologija | 2021 | 28

165

Cognitive propositional models with the concepts of AGENT and OBJECT, ACTION, and MANNER

Next, another important concept should be discussed—the AGENT, also called a hyperconcept. This concept can encompass both a subject characterized by consciousness, initiative, the ability to assess the environment and control actions—that is, usually a human being—and an action performer, generally a natural phenomenon, which also acts upon an object, changing its position in space, form, or other properties. However, the specific nature of the construction field and construction science means that the AGENT concept is not often actualized; in this context, it is much more appropriate to consider objects. Here, the focus of cognition is not the agent but the product of the agent’s activity—the artifact. Thus, the construction field is not characterized by an abundance of compounds whose structure corresponds to cognitive propositional models involving the AGENT concept.

Several compounds actualize the cognitive propositional model AGENT – ACTION: sulčiatekis SAV 1935; ledostova RLSTŽ 1992; lietlašė MMPK 1988; vandentekis MGN 1933, that is, they indicate an action performed by a natural phenomenon, expressed by an intransitive verb: sap flows, ice stands, rain drips, water flows.

The AGENT concept is involved in two further cognitive propositional models of compounds in construction terminology: AGENT (inanimate) – ACTION – OBJECT and AGENT (animate) – ACTION – MANNER. The first model is used in naming devices designed to protect buildings from lightning; compounds formed according to this model indicate that the action performed by the agent is directed toward protecting from an object: žaibgynėjs / žaibgynėjas ŽG 1900; perkūnsargis SBTĮ 1922, PTŽ 1925, SBPK 1995. Compounds in the second model indicate that the agent performs the action in a particular manner, e.g., metals are worked cold or by electricity: šaltkalvis SDTSS 1930, SAV 1935, SDKŽ 1940; elektrosuvirintojas ASŠ 1969.

Relationship between cognitive propositional models and word-formation types

When examining cognitive propositional models of construction-term compounds, their relationship with word-formation types and parts of speech should be emphasized: each model corresponds to a particular word-formation type or several types, and each concept is realized by a particular part of speech or several parts of speech (see Table 1).

166

Lina Rutkienė

XX a. – XXI a. pr. statybos terminų dūrinių kognityviniai propoziciniai modeliai

Table 1. Relationship between cognitive propositional models and word-formation types of construction terms

COGNITIVE PROPOSITIONAL MODEL

WORD-FORMATION TYPE

EXAMPLES

ACTION – OBJECT

noun + verb, pronoun + verb, pronoun + noun

dujotiekis, vėjagaudis; savistaba, savitrauka; savikontrolė, savireguliacija

OBJECT 1 – BE USED – OBJECT 2

noun + noun

sniegatvorė, ugniasienė

OBJECT 1 – BE WITH – OBJECT 2

noun + noun

akmenbetonis, stiklav ilnė

OBJECT 1 – BE PART OF – OBJECT 2

noun + noun

staircase, arch frame

OBJECT 1 – BE MADE OF – OBJECT 2

noun + noun

board lath, fibreboard

OBJECT – BE CHARACTERISTIC OF – PROPERTY

adjective + noun, adverb + noun, numeral + noun, participle + noun

redwood, narrow board; multi-blade saw, many-branched; four-stemmed, three-pronged; split-groove, garden spade

OBJECT – BE – PLACE

noun + noun, preposition + noun

peat pit, burial place; between-rivet, between-window

OBJECT – BE USED FOR – PURPOSE

verb + noun

decorative plane, damping materials

OBJECT – BE – STATE

noun + noun

klintmilčiai, medmilčiai

OBJECT – BEING USED – TIME

noun + noun

vasarnamis, žiemlangis

ACTION – MANNER

adverb + verb, pronoun + verb, pronoun + noun

greitmaišė, pusiaupliūva; savigrinda, savitaka; savieiga

ACTION – RESULT

noun + verb, verb + noun

sriegpjovė, vagapjovė; graužmilčiai

ACTION – PURPOSE

verb + verb

slopiaklotis, slopiakabis

AGENT – ACTION

noun + verb

sulčiatekis, ledostova

AGENT – ACTION – OBJECT

noun + noun

lightning conductor, lightning rod

AGENT – ACTION – MANNER

adverb + noun, noun + noun

blacksmith; electric welder

Terminologija | 2021 | 28

167

From a cognitive perspective, a part of speech can be understood as one of the forms of language that convey mental content. J. Kubriakova maintains that concepts in language “can be objectified not only by specific words, but also by different word classes and categories” (Кубрякова 1997: 118). As Nikolajus Boldyrevas states, for example, spatial characteristics in Indo-European languages are most often expressed by prepositions or other parts of speech that can mark the variability of these characteristics and their dependence on the speaker’s or observer’s point of view (Болдырев 2006).

The empirical material makes it clear that thingness, wholeness, boundedness, and temporal stability, which are denoted by nouns, are characteristic of the AGENT and OBJECT concepts; accordingly, these concepts are also realized by nouns in compounding. The PLACE concept is expressed by prepositions or nouns with locative meaning. The ACTION concept is expressed by verbs, which characteristically denote real-world features associated with actions. PROPERTIES are expressed by adjectives or passive participles denoting characteristic, usually invariable features of a referent, or by numerals and adverbs indicating quantitative properties of referents.

CONCLUSIONS

1. Applying the cognitive modelling method, 518 construction term compounds were examined, and it was established that they were all formed by instantiating 16 cognitive propositional models. Over 100 years, that is, from the beginning of the 20th century to the present, cognitive propositional models have hardly changed (only the ACTION – PURPOSE model has disappeared). It may be argued that, as the construction field has developed and its concepts have been named, the fundamental structures for recognizing and naming the worldview of this field have essentially remained the same.

2. The concepts that make up the cognitive propositional models of native and hybrid construction term compounds reflect the specific character of the construction field. At its centre are objects, mostly material products of human activity. Thus, the basic OBJECT concept, too, is instantiated most often when naming construction realities. The largest number of compounds have a propositional structure containing the OBJECT concept: ACTION – OBJECT, OBJECT – BE CHARACTERISTIC OF – PROPERTY, OBJECT 1 – BE USED FOR – OBJECT 2, OBJECT 1 – BE PART OF – OBJECT 2.

3. In keeping with the cognitive view that language and its units provide access to knowledge structures, one could say that cognitive propo-

168

Lina Rutkienė

XX a. – XXI a. pr. statybos terminų dūrinių kognityviniai propoziciniai modeliai

sitional models of compounds make it possible to understand, at least in part, how the naming of construction realities took (and takes) place. The research data show that this naming most often occurs through recognizing and considering objects, indicating which other objects and purposes they are used for, when they are used, how they relate to other objects, and what distinguishing features they have.

4. In naming construction realities, the ACTION concept is instantiated fairly often: the action performed on an object is indicated, along with the manner in which it is performed, its purpose, and its result. The TIME, AGENT, LOCATION, PURPOSE, and RESULT concepts are less salient in the construction field.

5. Cognitive propositional models are realized in language through particular word-formation types, while concepts are realized through particular parts of speech that convey the characteristic features of the concept.

ŠALTINIAI

AKTA – Automobilių kelių terminų aiškinamasis žodynas, sud. E. Palšaitis, Vilnius: Technika, 1995.

AKTM – Automobilių kelių tiesybos medžiagos: vadovėlis, aut. A. Vaitkus, D. Čygas, A. Laurinavičius, A. Tumavičė, Vilnius: Technika, 2011.

ALKPŽ – Anglų–lietuvių kalbų politechninis žodynas, sud. A. Novodvorskis, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 1958.

ALKS – Anglų–lietuvių kalbos statybos terminų žodynėlis, sud. J. Stonys, Vilnius: VISI, 1972.

ALLA – Anglų–lietuvių kalbų statybos terminų žodynas, sud. A. Kudzys, Vilnius: Technika, 1993.

AŠŠ – Atmintinė statybų šaltkalviui, vert. A. Kazlauskas, Vilnius: Lietuvos TSR MT Valstybinio statybos reikalų komiteto Centrinis techninės informacijos ir propagandos biuras, 1969.

BABJ – Beautoklavis akytasis betonas ir jo gaminiai: monografija, aut. A. Laukaitis, A. Sinica, Vilnius: Technika, 2006.

BDT – Betonavimo darbų technologija: metodinė medžiaga, reng. V. Rimvydienė, Vilnius: „Orgtechstatybos“ tresto spaustuvė, 1976.

CPŽŪ – Civiliniai, pramoniniai ir žemės ūkio pastatai, aut. V. Krasenskis, L. Fedorovskis, Vilnius: Mintis, 1969.

DD – Dailidystės darbai, aut. A. Jevstiugovas, A. Pokrovskis, Vilnius: Mintis, 1967.

DS – Drožliaplokštės statyboje, aut. M. Šaltenis, Vilnius: Vaizdas, 1960.

DSD – Dailidės ir stogdengio darbai: vadovėlis, aut. J. Burokienė, Vilnius: Mintis, 2008.

GSTZ – Gelžbetoninių sijų tempiamosios zonos elgsenos modeliavimas armatūros diagrama, aut. D. Salys, G. Kaklauskas, V. Gribniak. – Statybinės konstrukcijos ir technologijos 1(3), 2009.

HS – Hidrotechnikos statiniai: mokomoji knyga, aut. V. Damulevičius, J. Vyčius, Kaunas: Ardiva, 2008.

JŠŠŽ – Jaunojo šaltkalvio santechniko žinynas, aut. B. A. Žuravliovas, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1983.

KS – Kaimo statyba, aut. P. Drąsutis, P. Gaižutis, L. Gudzinskas, J. Juška, P. Kalita, E. Kersnauskas, V. Švipas, Kaunas: Spindulys, 1936.

KSŽ – Kaimo statybininko žinynas, aut. J. Jacinavičius, V. Matkevičius, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1988.

LPMK – Lietuvos plentai ir moderniškosios konstrukcijos. I dalis, aut. L. Tuskenis, Kaunas: Spindulys, 1931.

MAVL – Medienos apdirbimas: vienvėrių langų gamyba, įsprūdinių (filinginų) durų gamyba, aut. G. Blažys, R. Avižienis, Vilnius: Agora, 2002.

MGN – Miesto gyvenamieji namai: jiems statomi reikalavimai ir jų projektavimas, aut. V. Švipas, Kaunas: Varpas, 1933.

MK – Metalinės konstrukcijos: vadovėlis, aut. J. Paulauskas, A. Kvedaras, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1977.

MMPK – Mediniai ir mūriniai pastatai, konstrukcijos ir elementai: mokomoji knygelė, aut. V. Michalauskas, Vilnius: VISI rotaprintas, 1988.

Terminologija | 2021 | 28

169

MTPM – Medžiagyot yra tinkuotojams, plytelių ir mozaikos klotojams: vadovėlis, aut. A. V. Aleksandrovskis, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1976.

PK – Pastatų konstrukcijos. I dalis: vadovėlis, aut. A. Bistrickas, N. Geršas, J. Kapčius, K. Kaušinis, J. Mikuckas, V. Verbickis, B. Ziberkas, A. Žintelis, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 1962.

PMST – Papr asčiausiųjų medinių sijinių tiltų tipai⁵, Kaunas: Valstybės spaustuvė, 1923.

PTŽ – Perkūnsargiai (trobų nuo žaibo apsaugojimo būdai), aut. J. Šliogeris, Kaunas: Spindulys, 1925.

RLKP – Rusų–lietuvių kalbų politechninis žodynas, red. kol. A. Novodorskis, L. Kumpikas, J. Mikuckas, J. Stanaitis, S. Vasauskas, J. Vidmantas, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 1959.

RLSTŽ – Rusų–lietuvių kalbų statybos terminų žodynas, aut. J. Kiviliša, A. Kudzys, A. Rosinas, Vilnius: Lietuvos ūkis, 1992.

RNS – Rastinio namo statyba: žinynas, aut. R. Bortkūnas, T. Braškys, V. Č eikauskas, R. Daraškevičius, T. Gecas, T. Lapinskas, E. Norvaišas, M. Sakaitis, A. Sirvydis, T. Šlivinckas, G. Unikas, V. Uosaitis, Vilnius: Balto print, 2012.

RSD – Ruloniniai stogai ir jų dengimas, aut. S. K. Noskovas, Vilnius: Centrinis techninės informacijos ir propagandos biuras, 1962.

SAV – Stalių amato vadovėlis amatų mokykloms ir staliams. I dalis. Medžio sunėrimai, aut. P. Dankšas, Klaipėda: Rytas, 1931.

SAV – Stalių amato vadovėlis. II dalis. Pagalbinė, arba gretimoji medžiaga medžio dirbiniams: užbaigiamieji medžio dirbinių paviršiaus darbai: beicavimas, politūravimas ir dažymas, aut. P. Dankšas, Klaipėda: Rytas, 1935.

SBPK – Suvirintų ir besiūlių plieninių konstrukcijų saugos ir ilgalaikiškumo įvertinimas, aut. A. Kudzys, V. Vaitkevičius, Vilnius: Solertija, 1995.

SBTĮ – Statybos ir butų tvarkymo įstatymai, taisyklės, reng. K. Zubauskas, Tilžė: E. Jagomasto sp. „Lituania“, 1922.

SDKŽ – Statybos darbininkų kvalifikacijos žinynas, reng. S. V. Bašinskij, P. V. Blaževič, I. A. Petrov, Kaunas: Vilnius, 1940.

SDTSS – Statybos darbams technikinės sąlygos, sutartys ir kainos (gelžbetonas, kanalizacija, vandentiekis, centrinis apšildymas, elektros šviesos instalacija ir t. t.), aut. K. Dušauskas–Duž, Kaunas: A. Bako spaustuvė, 1930.

SEŽ – Statybos ekonomisto žinynas, aut. P. Rogožinas, Vilnius: Mintis, 1967.

SG – Sauskeliai. Gruntkeliai (vieškeliai). Dalis 2, aut. J. Gabrys, [n. d.], 1930.

SGBT – Sauskeliai. Gelžbetoniniai ir betoniniai tiltai, aut. J. Gabrys, Kaunas [n. s.], 1931.

SIŽ – Statybos inžinieriaus žinynas, aut. Č. Aksamitau skas, A. Ambrasas, A. Astrauka, T. Bal tušis, V. Barkauskas, J. Binkis, R. Bliūdžius, G. Brazauskas, G. Cinelis, V. Čaplikas, A. Čekanavičius ir kt., Vilnius: Technika, 2004.

SKb – Statybinės konstrukcijos 15. Mokslo darbai, red. kolegija: G. Marčiukaitis, J. Meškauskas, V. Stankevičius, K. Šapalas, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1989.

SKKS – Statybinės konstrukcijos: kūrimas ir stiprinimas, aut. D. Bačinskas, A. Baltrušaitis, A. Bičiulaitienė, E. Dulinskas, A. Endriukait ytė, A. Jarmolajev, V. Jokūbaitis, G. Jurkėnas ir kt., Vilnius: Technika, 1998.

SKPP – Statinių konstrukcijų projektavimo pagrindai: vadovėlis, aut. J. Parasonis, Vilnius: Technika, 2008.

SKT – Statybinės konstrukcijos ir technologijos. Engineering Structures and Technologies 1(1), red. kolegija: G. Marčiukaitis, A. Daniūnas, R. Šalna, A. Andruškevičius, J. Atkočiūnas, M. Augonis ir kt., Vilnius: Technika, 2009.

SM – Statybinės medžiagos: vadovėlis, aut. S. Ščesnulevičius, Vilnius: Mintis, 1966.

SMB – Statybinės medžiagos. Betonai: mokomoji knyga, aut. A. Naujokaitis, Vilnius: Technika, 2007.

SMD – Statybinės medžiagos ir dirbiniai, aut. M. Peliksa, A. Rumševičius, Kaunas: Technologija, 1992.

SMG – Statybinės medžiagos ir gaminiai: vadovėlis, aut. B. Grigaliūnas, Vilnius: Mintis, 1974.

SMGT – Statybinių medžiagų gamybos technologiniai procesai ir įranga: vadovėlis, aut. Dž. Nagrockienė, G. Skr ipkiūnas, Vilnius: Technika, 2014.

SMSM – Statybos menas, statybinės medžiagos, bendrieji statybos darbai, aut. A.Vaidila, J. Vėlyvis, Vilnius: Mintis, 2008.

SMU – Statybinės medžiagos. Užpildai: mokomoji knyga, aut. A. Naujokaitis, Vilnius: Technika, 2006.

⁵ Kalba netaisyta.

170

Lina Rutkienė

XX a. – XXI a. pr. statybos terminų dūrinių kognityviniai propoziciniai modeliai

SP – Statybos pagrindai, aut. A. Iljičiovas, A. Kokinas, J. Rebortovičius, vert. R. Kuosaitė. Vilnius: Vaizdas, 1965.

SP – Statybos pagrindai: mokomoji knyga, aut. D. Ramukevičius, Kaunas: Ardiva, 2008.

SPM – Stambiablokių pastatų montavimas, aut. N. Svorcovas, vert. D. Markauskas, Kaunas: Šviesa, 1964.

SS – Statyba. III tomas. Sienos, aut. J. Šimoliūnas, Kaunas: Spindulys, 1940.

SSB – Statyba. IV tomas. Stogai, bokštai, lubos, grindys, laiptai, durys, langai, tinkavimas, dažymas, apmušalai, stiklavimas, sanitariniai bei ūkiniai įrenginiai, aut. J. Šimoliūnas, Kaunas: Spindulys, 1943.

SSKR – Sutapdintųjų stogų konstrukcijų ir remonto žinynas, aut. K. Ilginis, K. Vaikšnoras, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1989.

SSM – Statyba. I tomas. Statybinės medžiagos, aut. J. Šimoliūnas, Kaunas: Spindulys, 1937.

ST – Statybos technologija: vadovėlis, aut. V. Krušinskas, V. Mažeika, P. Mikša, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1992.

StM – Statybinės medžiagos: vadovėlis, aut. R. Žurauskienė, A. P. Naujokaitis, R. Mačiulaitis, R. Žurauskas, Vilnius: Technika, 2012.

STP – Silikatų technologijos pagrindai: vadovėlis, aut. A. Balandis, V. Jasiukevičius, M. Martynaitis, K. Strazdas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1995.

STŽ – Statybos terminų žodynas, aut. A. Kudžys, A. Rosenas, B. Kudzienė, Vilnius: Lietuvos mokslas, 2002.

STŽT – Statybos terminų žodynas. Trobesiai, aut. V. Michalauskas, Vilnius: VISI, 1978.

SŽD – Statyba. II tomas. Žemės darbai, aut. J. Šimoliūnas, Kaunas [n. s.], 1939.

ŠN – Šiaudiniai namai: straipsnių rinkinys, antroji laida, Vilnius: Atsinaujinančios energijos informacijos konsultacinis centras, 2010.

ŠSDV – Šlaitinio stogo dengimas vienetine ir lakštine danga: vadovėlis, reng. J. Burokienė, Vilnius: Ard reklama, 2015.

ŠVOK – Šildymas, vėdinimas, oro kondicionavimas: teorija ir praktika, aut. J. Čiuprinskienė, K. Čiuprinskas, V. Motuzienė, Vilnius: Super namai, 2019.

TD – Trobesių dažymas, aut. V. Švipas, Kaunas: Spindulys, 1934.

TRLT – Trumpas rusiškai–lietuviškas techninis žodynas, aut. A. Novodvorskis, Kaunas: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 1949.

UGP – Ugniagesybos ir gelbėjimo pagrindai, aut. A. Rutkauskas, Vilnius: Justitia, 1997.

ŪTSV – Ūkiškų trobų statybos vadovas, aut. V. Kindurys, Kaunas: Žaibas, 1935.

VPPG – Vienaukščio pramoninio pastato gelžbetoninių kolonų ir pastatų projektavimas: mokomoji knyga, aut. R. Balevičius, V. Jokūbaitis, D. Zabulionis, Vilnius: Technika, 2011.

ŽG – Žaibas ir griaustinis, aut. V. V. Lynkevič, vert. P. Vileišis, Tilžė: Otto Mauderodes spaustuvė, 1900.

LITERATŪRA

Aliūkaitė Daiva, Sideravičiūtė-Mickienė Ilona 2006: Gėrio ir grožio konceptai lietuvių kalbinėje sąmonėje. – Liaudies kultūra 6(111), 16–22.

Budvytytė-Gudienė Aina, Gudavičius Aloyzas, Jurgaitis Nedas, Papaurelytė-Klovienė Silvija, Toleikienė Reda 2014: Konceptualiosios metaforos viešajame diskurse: konceptualiųjų metaforų žodynas, Vilnius: BMK leidykla.

Jackendoff Ray 1990: Semantic Structures, Cambridge: MIT Press.

Gudavičius Aloyzas 2011: Reikšmė – sąvoka – konceptas ir prasmė. – Res humanitariae 10, 108–119.

Kemmer Suzanne 2003: Schemas and lexical blends. – Motivation in Language, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 69–97.

Kvašytė Regina, Papaurelytė Silvija 2013. Kai kurie koncepto LIGA bruožai Lietuvos viešajame diskurse. – Filologija 18, 107–117.

Kvašytė Regina, Župerka Kazimieras 2011: Ašarų konceptualizavimas lietuvių ir latvių frazeologijoje. – Baltistica XLVI(1), 113–122.

Lakoff George 1990: Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind, Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Langacker Ronald Wayne 1991: Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar, Berlin–New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Marcinkevičienė Rūta 2006: Konceptualioji metafora vertime. – Darbai ir dienos 45, 109–118.

Papaurelytė-Klovienė Silvija 2007: Lingvistinės kultūrologijos bruožai, Šiauliai: Šiaulių universiteto leidykla.

Terminologija | 2021 | 28

171

Rutkiene Lina 2021: Statybos terminijos dariniai: formavimasis ir raida: daktaro disertacija, Vilnius: Lietuvos kalbos institutas.

Vanderwende Lucy 1994: Algorithm for automatic interpretation of noun sequences. – Proceedings of the 15th conference on Computational linguistics, COLING ’94, Kyoto, Japan, 782–788.

Бабина Людмила 2013: Об одном из способов изучения производных слов в рамках когнитивно-дискурсивного подхода. – Теоретические и прикладные аспекты изучения речевой деятельности 8(1), 15–19.

Беседина Наталья 2006: Морфологически передаваемые концепты: монография, Тамбов: ИздвоТГУ.

Беседина Наталья 2014: Когнитивное моделирование процессов репрезентации знаний в морфологии. – Когнитивные исследования языка 8: сборник науч. трудов, 121–123.

Болдырев Николай 2006: Языковые категории как формат знания. – Вопросы когнитивной лингвистики 2(7), 5–22.

Феденко Анастасия 2015: Двухкомпонентные сложные существительные как модели репрезентации знаний о человеке и артефактах в современном английском языке: диссертация канд. филол. наук, Тамбов.

Кубрякова Елена 1997: Части речи с когнитивной точки зрения, Москва: Наука.

Кубрякова Елена 2004: Язык и знание. На пути получения знаний о языке (Части речи с когнитивной точки зрения. Роль языка в познании мира), Москва: Языки славянской культуры.

Кубрякова Елена, Демьянков Валерий, Панкрац Юрий, Лузина Людмила 1996: Краткий словарь когнитивных терминов, Москва: Издательство Московского государственного университета.

Степанов Юрий 2016: В трехмерном пространстве языка. Семиотические проблемы лингвистики, философии, искусства, Москва: Ленанд.

COGNITIVE PROPOSITIONAL MODELS OF COMPOUNDS IN CONSTRUCTION TERMINOLOGY IN THE 20ᵗʰ – 21ˢᵗ CENTURIES

S u m m a r y

The linguistic representation of the cognitive structures studied by cognitive linguistics, which focuses on the relationship between language and mind, changes the attitude towards compounds. From the cognitive perspective, compounds are viewed as special language units, in which we can see the relation between concepts. Compounding may be studied in the framework of the propositional theory by asserting that the knowledge of propositional nature correlates with the compound’s onomasiological structure.

The article studies indigenous and hybrid construction terminology compounds of the early 20ᵗʰ – 21ˢᵗ centuries from the scientific literature on construction of the aforesaid period using the cognitive modelling method. The aim of the article is to identify the cognitive propositional models of these compounds, which may serve as the grounds for the nomination of construction concepts. To achieve this aim, the theoretical viewpoints pertaining to cognitive propositional models are discussed; the basic concepts expressed by the components of compounds are identified; it is evaluated with which other concepts they may form the cognitive propositional models of construction terminology compounds. The study investigates the word-formation types followed in the actualization of these models.

The analysis of the empirical data revealed that compound construction terms are coined on the basis of 16 cognitive propositional models. The concepts comprising these models reflect the specificities of the field of construction. Objects, usually material man-made products, are in the centre of the construction field. Hence, in nom-

172 Lina Rutkienė │ XX a. – XXI a. pr. statybos terminų dūrinių kognityviniai propoziciniai modeliai

inating construction realities, the basic concept of the OBJECT is actualized most often. Most compounds feature the threefold propositional structure: ACTION – OBJECT (dangoraižis TRLT 1949, RLKP 1959; dujopūtė SMGT 2014; lietmatis RLSTŽ 1992), OBJECT – TO BE CHARACTERISTIC OF – FEATURE (skerstakis ALKS 1972; stačiaplytė STŽ 2002; statvamzdis SP 1965) and OBJECT 1 – TO BE USED FOR – OBJECT 2 (dūmatakis SDTSS 1930; kluonaraktis STŽT 1978; svieslangis SSM 1937), OBJECT 1 – TO BE A PART OF – OBJECT 2 (kluonraštis STŽT 1978; langabalkis SSB 1943; skliautarkė SSB 1943).

As revealed by the latter two models, the concept of the OBJECT may also enter into a propositional structure with the concept of another OBJECT. There are more models of this type: OBJECT 1 – TO BE WITH – OBJECT 2 (gelžbetonis MGN 1933; gelžcementas SSB 1943; degubetonis SM 1966), OBJECT 1 – TO BE MADE OF – OBJECT 2 (kamščiaplytė SSB 1943; drožliaplokštė DS 1960; metaltinklis SSB 1943). By joining the concept of the PLACE, the concept of the OBJECT creates the propositional model OBJECT – TO BE – PLACE (laiptavietė SSB 1943; tarpatramis GSTŽ 2009; tarpduris MTPM 1976; viršduris RLKP 1959); meanwhile, by joining the concept of the PURPOSE, it makes up the cognitive propositional model OBJECT – TO BE USED FOR – PURPOSE (dailoblė SAV 1935; slopiamedžiagės SSB 1943; slopiaplytė SSB 1943). In rare cases, the nomination of construction concepts resorts to the cognitive propositional models OBJECT – TO BE – STATE OF MATTER (cementmilčiai RLSTŽ 1992; klintmilčiai RLSTŽ 1992; medmilčiai SSB 1943, RLSTŽ 1992) and OBJECT – TO BE USED FOR – TIME (vasarlangis SSB 1943; vasarnamis ALLA 1993; žiemlangis SSB 1943).

The concept of the ACTION may not only form the propositional models with the concept of the OBJECT but also the MANNER (savitaka RLSTŽ 1992; savieiga ALKPŽ 1958), the RESULT (dujodaras SMU 2006; porodaris BABJ 2006; putodaris StM 2012), the PURPOSE (slopiaklotis SSB 1943; slopiakabis SSB 1943), the PLACE (šondėlis SSB 1943; aukštalipys SP 1965), the AGENT (lietlašė MMPK 1988; vanden-tekis MGN 1933).

The concept of the AGENT plays a role in two more cognitive propositional models of construction terminology compounds: AGENT (non-living) – ACTION – OBJECT (žaibginėjis ŽG 1900; perkūnsargis SBTĮ 1922) and AGENT (living) – ACTION – MANNER (šaltkalvis SDTSS 1930, SDKŽ 1940; elektrosuvirintojas ASŠ 1969).

In the analysis of the cognitive propositional models of compounds in construction terminology, their connection with word-formation types and parts of speech should be highlighted: each model corresponds to a certain word-formation type or several of them, whereas every concept is expressed by a certain part of speech or several parts of speech.

The research revealed that over the last century, i.e. from the beginning of the 20ᵗʰ century until now, cognitive propositional models have remained virtually unchanged (only the model ACTION – PURPOSE is no longer in use). It can be pointed out that with the development of the field of construction and the nomination of its concepts, the principal structures underlying the recognition and designation of the field of construction stay largely the same. Following the cognitive approach according to

Terminologija | 2021 | 28

173

which language and its units grant access to cognitive structures, we could state that the cognitive propositional models of compounds enable us to comprehend, at least in part, how the nomination of construction realities actually took place (takes place). The research data show that this nomination usually occurs by recognizing and reflecting upon the objects, specifying for which other objects, for what purposes and at what time they are used, what their relationships with other objects and their distinguishing features are.

Gauta 2021-09-25

Lina Rutkienė

Lietuvių kalbos institutas

P. Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius

E. paštas [email protected]

174

Lina Rutkienė

XX a. – XXI a. pr. statybos terminų dūrinių kognityviniai propoziciniai modeliai