Ilona Mickienė, Birutė Briaukienė. Lietuvių terminologijos aspektai: metodinė mokomoji knyga

240 Jolanta Gaivenytė-Butler | Ilona Mickienė and Birutė Briaukienė LITHUANIAN TERMINOLOGY ASPECTS: METHODOLOGICAL TEACHING BOOK [Electronic resource] London: Cambridge University Press, 2016. – 67 p. ISBN 978-609-459-710-7. JOLANTA GAIVENYTĖ-BUTLER Lietuvių kalbos institutas In 2016, the Kaunas Faculty of Humanities of Vilnius University published electronic version of the book, prepared by Ilona Mickienė and Birutė the demonstrative textbook Aspects of Lithuanian Terminology. The Briaukienė, was approved for publication by the Council of the Kaunas Faculty of Humanities of Vilnius University. The publication is very relevant. There are not many publications dedicated to Lithuanian terminology, especially educational ones. Students probably have to rely mainly on Stasys Keinis’s Terminology alphabet, published in 1980, and Kazimieras Gaivenis’s book Lithuanian terminology: theory and organizational outline (2002). On the Internet there was available a summary of Jūratė Lubienė’s lectures on terminology, summaries of lectures prepared by Antanas Smetona and Egidijus Zaikauskas on individual terminology topics, a short terminology handbook for translators prepared in 2006 by the Lithuanian Language Department of the Directorate-General for Translation of the European Commission, theoretical and practical terminology subjects discussed in professional language handbooks. 241Terminologija | 2016 | 23 pages, but there has not been a separate, comprehensive educational tool for Lithuanian terminology so far. The textbook Aspects of Lithuanian Terminology discusses the most important issues of terminology – starting from theoretical aspects, then moving on to practical ones. The book consists of eleven chapters, which introduce the development of Lithuanian terminology, the history of terminology as a scientific and practical discipline, explain the basic concepts of terminology, discuss the sources of terms, production, requirements, shortcomings and methods of terminology management. At the end of the publication is a list of used and recommended literature. The preface of the book begins with the words of the authors: “Science is great and eternal, and human life is short. Some branches of science are rapidly strengthened and make progress, while the development of others is long and sluggish. Terminology is a branch of applied science. All over the world, it is forming slowly and difficultly, as if not knowing where to turn – to linguistics, computer science or any other branch of science” (p. 5). Nicely written. Almost as beautifully, as K. Gaivenis wrote in the article “Some thoughts on terminology”, published in the Journal of Terminology: “It is said that in the courtyard of the Sorbonne University there is a sundial with the Latin inscription “Sicut umbra dies nostrae” (“Like a shadow of our day”). Science is indeed great and eternal, and man's life is short. But science is not equal to science. Some branches of science, after their emergence, quickly strengthen and immediately make great progress, while the development of others is long and sluggish. Terminology is the branch of applied science. All over the world it is forming slowly and hard, as if not knowing where to go – to linguistics, computer science or another branch of science.” (Gilmore 1998: 89). Let's assume that the authors simply forgot to add a link. The first chapter of the publication is devoted to the development of Lithuanian terminology. The first thing that falls into the eye when reading it is that the authors use two words – terminology and terminology – for confusion when talking about terminology. In fact, the set of terms is named twice in Lithuanian: two meanings of the terminology are recorded in the Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian Language (DLKŽ 2015), the Dictionary of Vocabulary Terms (KTŽ 1990) and the Dictionary of International Words (TŽŽ 2013). Stasys Šalkauskis, in his 1925 study “Theory of terminology and Lithuanian terminology of philosophy”, drew attention to the two meanings of the word terminology and suggested the use of two words. According to S. Šalkauskas, terminology should be called “the set of technical terms of one science or art”, and terminology is “the science or at least the theory of terminology” (Šalkauskis 1991: 10). Tokia 242 Jolanta Gaivenytė-Butler | The distinction between terminology and terminology is common in modern Lithuanian lexicology, terminology works, textbooks for general or professional language (cf. Gaivenis 2002; Jakaitienė 2010; Rutkienė 2015; Vladarskienė 2013; Bielinskienė et al. 2014). The distinction of two meanings of the word terminology in the dictionaries of common language or the use of terminology in the meaning of terminology in non-terminological works is probably not an evil, but in a work dedicated to terminology such diversity is an obstacle. It would not be surprising if students would ask themselves whether Lithuanian terminology is a particularly old branch of science, because the authors, who wrote that “the beginning of Lithuanian terminology is not the first printed Lithuanian books, but much earlier”, add on the same page that “the terminology of European languages at the time when the first Lithuanian books were written had only just begun to be created” (p. 6). It seems that the author considers as terms any words that designate special or abstract concepts. Mentioning the works of Martynas Mažvydas, Mikalojus Daukša and Konstantinas Sirvydas, they write: “The authors of the first Lithuanian books <...> laid a good foundation for the further development of the common language. Their work also left its mark on Lithuanian terminology. Although the work of Lithuanian terminologists at that time had neither an organized character nor clear principles and was decided [sic] by the sources to be translated, many of their terms still remind the authors of those books today” (p. 7). The importance of the works of M. Mažvydas, M. Daukša and K. Sirvydas for the development of the Lithuanian language is undoubted, but they can hardly be called terminologists. Here it would not be by the way to remember again S. Šalkauskas, who stated: "In order for a word, meaning a concept, to acquire a term name in these days, it is necessary that the concept he states <...> enters the scope of some scientific research objects. Thus, not every word that means a concept is a scientific term, although every term is a word that means a concept” (Šalkauskis 1991: 14). Later, in the third chapter, the authors explain how terminology differs from terminology (mini and S. Šalkauskį), but in subsequent chapters they again use these two terms interchangeably. Perhaps it would have been appropriate to start the book with the concept of term, terminology and terminology, and then tell the history of the development of Lithuanian terminology and terminology. The second chapter of the textbook is almost Darwinianly titled "Theories of the Origin of Terminology". It does not talk about origin theories, but attempted to review the development of terminology as a science of terms. This chapter mainly refers to K. Gaivenis and briefly discusses the terminology of S. Šalkauskas, Eugen Wüster, Dmitrijus Lotte and Valerija Danilenko. 243Terminology | 2016 | 23 theories. It would be possible to specify the names of the authors on whose works S. Šalkauskis relied: not Venderyes, but Vendryes, the medieval philosopher D. Scotus is usually called John Duns Scotus in Lithuanian. K. Gaivenis, writing about the works of Russian scholars best known to the terminologists of his generation, drew attention to the fact that Lithuanian libraries did not receive the works of foreign terminologists, so little was known about them. Currently, it is not difficult to find works of foreign terminologists in Lithuanian university libraries. At least a few names could have been mentioned. The chapter somehow ends with a criticism of the tendency to substantiate and terminology of the scientific language. Writing about the characteristics of the scientific language would probably have been more appropriate in the fifth chapter “Terms – the basis of the scientific language”. At the beginning of the chapter there is a reference to J. Gaivenytė’s article about E. Wüster (p. 10), but there is nothing like that in it. In fact, the authors relied on a subsection of K. Gaivenis’ book on the theories of terminology of E. Wüster and Helmut Felber (Gaivenis 2002: 110-111). After an overview of terminology and terminology development, the interpretation of the term is undertaken. In the third chapter, "Term. The relationship between term and word, term and concept” has tried to cover a lot: it starts from terminology as a system, mentions the requirements for terms (the ninth chapter will be about them), defines the term, tries to show the relationship between the term and the word, explains the narrow and broad concept of the term, talks about quasiterms and pseudoterms, tells what is terminology and terminology, distinguishes two directions of terminology, explains what is terminography, discusses the concept of professionalisms and tells what relationships link concepts and terms. When talking about the relationship between the term and the word, the authors are somewhat confused. The book says: “The word and the term are related by a kind relationship – the word is a broader concept; terms are a kind of words, more precisely a functional and semantic kind. However, the concept of a term does not limit itself to a word, because a term is not necessarily a word. In other words, certain combinations of words (or symbols) also have a defined meaning and scope of use in the language. Such combinations of words are considered composite terms. Thus, the concept of the term transcends the boundaries of the word” (p. 12). If a word and a term are related in terms of species (or rather species and genus) and the meaning of the word is broader, can the meaning of the term transcend the boundaries of the word? Speaking about the relationship between word and term, the authors refer to the book by K. Gaivenis, but this book states the opposite: “The concepts of “word” and “term” are not related in a genus-species relationship, because 244 Jolanta Gaivenytė-Butler | terms are not merely a kind of words. In addition, the concept of “term” does not fit into the boundaries of “word”, because a term can be both a single word and a constant combination of words” (Gaivenis 2002: 14). In fact, it was based on St. Keinis (Keinys 1980: 15-16), only a couple of sentences from K. Gaivenis’s book were added to his unreferenced thoughts. By the way, Evalda Jakaitienė does not consider the relationship between the concepts of “word” and “term” to be purely a relation of genus and species (Jakaitienė 2010: 182). I wonder which view the authors of the textbook would support. The statement that “the words terminology and terminology have more than one meaning in common language” (p. 13) should be clarified (the word terminology is used only in one meaning). The fourth chapter explains what a definition is and describes the shortcomings of definitions. In recent years, it has become more common to refer to the description of the distinctive features of a concept as a definition, and its result as a definition. This term is not only used by terminologists (see Jakaitienė 2010; Rutkienė 2015). In the third chapter of the textbook it is written that “the descriptive statement defining a concept, helping to distinguish it from related concepts, is called a definition” (p. 16) and intentional (=intense) and extensive (=extensive) definitions are distinguished, but in the fourth chapter definitions are called definitions. The subsection “The concept of definition” begins as follows: “Definition is the disclosure of the content of a concept […]. The statement that forms the article of the term must explain what the concept is. After selecting the terms, you can select the definitions of the terms and specify whether the terms correspond to the concepts. However, it is not so simple. In terminographic work, it is not possible to use a group of definitions of any one science, because: (a) many concepts have no definitions; (b) in the scientific literature, definitions are replaced only by approximate explanations; c) many definitions are outdated, illogical; (d) many of the existing definitions lack the sufficient and necessary features to highlight the specificity of the concept to be defined. This means that definitions and concepts need to be constantly reviewed, i.e., outdated, non-scientific ones must be abandoned and new ones created” (p. 18). Such a start is not very clear. Who, from where and why is selected and excluded? Where are the wrong definitions – in dictionaries, scientific papers, textbooks? Why is it not possible to use a “group of definitions” in terminographic work? Those who work in terminology are usually able (or are assisted by terminologists) to formulate and refine definitions. At the end of the subsection it says: "Definition must not constrain scientific thought. Most often it is verbal, and, for example, mathematical formulas are 245Terminology | 2016 | 23 only auxiliary material. In other words, if we describe a physical phenomenon only in mathematical terms, we do not reveal the content of the concept. However, there are some concepts that cannot be defined without mathematical formulas” (p. 19). How do definitions constrain scientific thought? Why are they mostly verbal? Definitions are always verbal. The essence of the concept, specialists, perhaps, can understand from the formula. The next paragraph states: “If the definitions use terms with multiple meanings, then it is necessary to indicate the meaning in which tas terminas vartojamas“ (p. 19). Sunku įsivaizduoti, kaip praktikoje taikomas reikalavimas apibrėžtyje nurodyti daugiareikšmio termino reikšmę. the subsection “Principles of definition and shortcomings” is written only about shortcomings. The principles are listed in the subsection ‘Definition’. This subsection states: "The term errors arise because the definition that was used to create the term also had flaws. Every scientific concept must be precise” (p. 19). Is it possible to demand accuracy from a concept? The term that identifies the concept must be precise, and definitions should accurately reflect the essential, distinctive characteristics of the concepts. Furthermore, terminological errors may not only arise from inadequate definitions. The short fifth chapter “Terms – the basis of scientific language” consists of two paragraphs. The first paragraph contains general considerations about the importance of terms for the progress of science and the development of the language, while the second paragraph deals with the organization of Lithuanian terms and lists Lithuanian linguists who have defended their dissertations on terminology. By the way, Aušra Rimkutė and Markas Paura were not mentioned. In 2016, Liudmila Mockienė defended her dissertation in the field of terminology. It would probably have been more appropriate to talk about the research of terminology in the second chapter. The information in K. Gaivenis’s book about the preparation of “10,000 standardized terminology dictionaries” (p. 22) is taken out of context and misleading. It appears that this refers to the dictionaries of terms published in Lithuania, while K. Gaivenis mentioned this number when speaking about E. Wüster and the influence of his works on the standardization of terminology on an international scale. In the sixth chapter “Classification of terms” the terms are divided in terms of form, content and interrelationships. “1) primary (ordinary) words (eye); 2) derived words (derivatives) (glass); 3) enriched words (dūriniai) (kreivaakis)” (p. 23) (or is kreivaakis a term?). This should be corrected, as the dampers are also derivatives. Apparently, ordinary words, Vedic and Punic were meant. In the seventh chapter, “Sources of terminology”, three main sources are discussed: the lexicon of one’s own language, the means of word formation and the 246 Jolanta Gaivenytė-Butler | lexicon. Examples illustrating the relationship between international and Lithuanian terms are taken from the book of K. Gaivenis. It was possible to look for more typical cases. The statement that “beside the Lithuanian word we have its international equivalent, but it is a passive member of that word pair” (p. 27) is supported by the example of epilepsy. It is hardly used more frequently now. In the Dictionary of Psychology Terms (PTZ 1993) and the Dictionary of Medical Terms (MTZ 1980) presented on the website Raštija.lt – see epilepsy. The international terms are certainly the active members of the pairs placenta and diaphragm, but it is doubtful whether such pairs exist in modern terminology at all. The textbook distinguishes two kinds of international terms – “true international terms, which are used in the world science in Latinized form and in no language are changed either in their spelling or they are transliterated into other alphabets” and “non-Latin” terms borrowed from other languages directly or through intermediate languages (p. 27). It is a pity that the authors did not provide examples of such terms, because it is not clear what “condensed” terms are being referred to. Is this classification accurate? According to K. Gaivenis, “international words coming into our terminology mostly come from ancient Greek and Latin languages. They are arranged according to the laws and rules of phonetics, morphology, spelling of our language and become normative” (Gaivenis 2002: 58–59). Further writing about international terms, it is stated that “currently Lithuanian equivalents are being created very intensively for international terms”, as a result of which “the synonymy of international and Lithuanian terms is increasing” (p. 27). As an example of such a synonymy, the terms vacuum (=vacuum) and emptiness are not synonyms. It is true that Lithuanian equivalents of international terms are being created, but the statement that this is happening “very intensively” is highly doubtful. K. Gaivenis and Angelė Kaulakienė, in a presentation at KTU in 1996, drew attention to the opposite trend – the internationalization of terminology and the unwillingness to look for Lithuanian equivalents (Gaivenis, Kaulakienė 2014: 232). This trend has hardly disappeared. The overview of borrowed local terminology ends with the correct observation: “The most important thing is that the borrowed terms do not push out of usage established Lithuanian terms and that a proper proportion between own (national) and foreign (international) terms is maintained in the terminology system” (pp. 30–31). The article of the Lithuanian language encyclopedia Terminologija (LKE 2008: 553) is written in the same way, so a reference should be added (this article of the encyclopedia was also referred to without reference in the first chapter (p. 7–8)). 247Terminologija | 2016 | 23 The eighth chapter is devoted to the construction of terms. It accounts for about a fifth of the entire book. The introductory part of the chapter is rather lengthy and scattered, it tells about the same things again and again, for example, three times the main ways of word formation are mentioned, twice it is stated that “word formation plays a huge role in terminology, because most of the single-word terms and composite terms are derivatives” (once it is stated that St. Kenis was referred to, the other time it is not mentioned) (p. 32) and, based on K. Gaivenis, it is further established – “derivates make up the majority of single-word terms” (p. 33). In terms of the naming of species concepts, it is stated that "in the language of science, it is necessary to name more complex, including species concepts. Such concepts are designated by single-word terms, but they are made into composite terms, e.g., set – abstract set, open set, infinite set” (p. 33). What is being done? Although there is no reference, it can be seen that the idea is incorrectly transcribed from the Terminology alphabet (hence the examples). St. Keinys wrote that species concepts are often "denoted by single-word terms, but nevertheless most often translated here by composite names" (Keinys 1980: 17). By the way, mathematical terms are abstract set, open set. Further in this section one of the requirements for deadlines is recalled: “When creating a new building, it is necessary to know that regularity is one of the most important requirements for deadlines. In the standard of the Republic, regularity is described as complying with the rules of pronunciation, spelling, grammar, word formation, grammar and usage (LR standard, 2009) [sic]” (p. 33). Strange description in an even stranger document. What is the "standard of the republic"? It is not possible to find out more about this publication, because it is not included in the reference list. The first subsection, “Monosyllabic terms”, which is divided into sections, discusses the formation of homogeneous terms (derivatives and conjugations of adverbs, endings and prepositions). Adverbial derivatives are discussed in two smaller sections on verb derivatives and noun derivatives, so for example, the names of noun possessors and places are discussed in two places. Perhaps it would be more convenient if they were discussed in one place. The examples should be chosen more carefully: as an example of the possessor of the verb property, the word is given – tyrimas, as an example of the self-acting – gydymas. It is doubtful that the suffix -tė, ė(i)uotė is used in contemporary Lithuanian “only for the creation of terms” (p. 36). It is impossible to disagree with the statement that “compound terms help to name homogeneous concepts easily and systematically”. This is clearly seen from the examples given (savidulka, vejadulka). Only hardly correct such a right- 248 Jolanta Gaivenytė-Butler | arguments: “A compound term is often more unified, more defined, more special in terms of its meaning than the combination of its base words. Therefore, enriched words are suitable for a more precise, more substantive, more meaningful way of expression” (p. 43). At the end of the section about punctuation, it is explained which parts of speech can be punctuated. The examples given (long-legged, brown-tailed (cat), something, twenty, stubborn, weak-hearted, insane) have little to do with terminology. In this subsection there are also more examples of words that are not very thermal (at least not in modern terminology): žabaras, skystimas, kartumynai, vočiukė, apysakaitė, rankytė, upokšnis, užkandinė, dainius and others. The second subsection of the eighth chapter “Terms – word combinations” is devoted to compound terms. It should be noted that the elements of compound terms are called components at the beginning of the chapter and elements at the end. Examples of doubtful regularity are given: iris scissors, minus glasses, plantsindicators. The subsection briefly describes the syntactic relationships that can be used to link the elements of compound terms, but the structure of compound terms and the number of elements are not examined. It would also be useful for students to learn about the order of the dots. The ninth chapter discusses the time requirements. The authors distinguish seven requirements, which they name by adjectives. It would not be unusual to write in the text that “the term must be accurate”, but nouns would be better suited as the titles of the requirements (and subsections), especially since the first subsection of this chapter begins with the statement “correctness is one of the most important linguistic requirements of terms” (p. 47). The standards mentioned in this subsection have symbols that should be written exactly: the symbol of the standard “Terminology principles and methods” (1115-90) should be LST 1115-90, this standard was prepared not according to the international standard 980: 704-87, but according to ISO 704-87. Regularity, accuracy, systematicity, brevity, stylistic neutrality and creative convenience are described in detail – from a couple of paragraphs to almost three pages, while clarity is described in one sentence. We should have written more about this requirement or not mentioned it at all. Clarity is defined as “the requirement that the internal form of the term clearly conveys the concept” (p. 47). Clarity lacks clarity. What is the "internal form of a term"? Describing the accuracy of a term, the authors distinguish three groups of terms: correctly orienting terms, neutral terms and incorrectly orienting terms. The definition of neutral terms should be corrected: “Neutral terms can be considered all those terms whose literal meaning cannot be determined. In such circumstances, 255Terminology | 2016 | 23 LITERATŪRA AETŽ 2010: Aiškinamasis elektrotechnikos terminų žodynas: lietuvių k., vokiečių k., anglų k., prancūzų k., rusų k. Vyr. red. Stasys Žebrauskas, Kaunas: Technologija. Prieiga per internetą: http://terminai.vlkk.lt, [žiūrėta 2016-11-15]. Baranauskienė R., Šarkauskienė S., Juzelėnienė S. 2016: Mokslo darbų metodiniai nurodymai lituanistams: metodinė mokomoji knyga. Elektroninis išteklius, Kaunas: VU KHM, 79 p. Prieiga per internetą: http:// www.knf.vu.lt/dokumentai/failai/katedru/lietuviu/MOKSLO_DARB%C5%B2_METODINIAI_NURODYMAI_LITUANISTAMS.pdf [žiūrėta 2016-12-08]. Bielinskienė A., Kazlauskienė A., Rimkutė E., Tamošiūnaitė A. 2014: Lietuvių bendrinė kalba: normos ir vartosena. Vadovėlis aukštųjų mokyklų studentams, Kaunas: VDU, Vilnius: Versus aureus, 416 p. CHTŽ 2003: Daukšas K. et al. Chemijos terminų aiškinamasis žodynas. 2-asis patais. ir papild. leid., Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Prieiga per internetą: http://terminai.vlkk.lt [žiūrėta 2016-12-05]. DLKŽ 2015: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas. 7-as patais. ir papild. leid.; elektroninis variantas, Vilnius: LKI. Prieiga per internetą: http://www.lkiis.lki.lt [žiūrėta 2016-11-15]. Gaivenis K. 1991: Lietuviškų terminų vaizdingumo klausimu. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 29, 26–31. Gaivenis K. 1994: Kalbiniai ir loginiai terminų reikalavimai. – Terminologija 3, 204–213. Gaivenis K. 1998: Keletas minčių apie terminologiją. – Terminologija 5, 89–92. Gaivenis K. 2002: Lietuvių terminologija: teorijos ir tvarkybos metmenys, Vilnius: LKI l-kla, 148 p. Gaivenis K., Kaulakienė A. 2014: Ekstralingvistiniai terminų norminimo principai. – Kazimieras Gaivenis. Rinktiniai raštai, Vilnius: LKI, 229–235. Jakaitienė E. 2010: Leksikologija. Studijų knyga. Antras pakartotinis leidimas, Vilnius: VU l-kla, 351 p. Kaulakienė A. 2009: Lietuvių fizikos terminijos raida, Vilnius: Technika, 439 p. Keinys St. 1980: Terminologijos abėcėlė, Vilnius: Mokslas, 116 p. Klimavičius J. 2003: Lietuvių terminografija: praeities bruožai, dabarties sunkumai ir uždaviniai. – Terminologija 10, 9–32. KTŽ 1990: Gaivenis K., Keinys St. Kalbotyros terminų žodynas, Kaunas: Šviesa, 278 p. LKE 2008: Lietuvių kalbos enciklopedija, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos centras, 634 p. LKTŽ 2008: Gaivenytė-Butler J., Keinys St., Noreikaitė A. Lietuvių kalbos terminų žodynai. Anotuota 19002005 bibliografijos rodyklė, Vilnius: LKI, 260 p. MTŽ 1980: Astrauskas V. et al. Medicinos terminų žodynas, Vilnius: Mokslas. Prieiga per internetą: https:// www.raštija.lt [žiūrėta 2016-11-15]. PTŽ 1993: Psichologijos terminų žodynas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Prieiga per internetą: https://www.raštija.lt [žiūrėta 2016-11-15]. Rutkienė L. 2015: Technologijų specialistų profesinė kalba: sistema ir vartosena. Vadovėlis, Vilnius: Technika, 160 p. Šalkauskis S. 1991: Raštai 2, Vilnius: Mintis, 351 p. TŽŽ 2013: Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas, Vilnius: Alma littera, 896 p. Umbrasas A. 2013: Lietuvos Respublikos terminų bankas: 10 metų po įstatymo priėmimo. – Terminologija 20, 96–122. Vladarskienė R. 2013: Kūrybinių industrijų specialybės kalbos kultūra. Vadovėlis, Vilnius: Technika, 127 p. Retrieved 2016-12-19. Jolanta Gaivenytė-Butler Lietuvių kalbos institutas P. Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius, Lithuania E-mail: jolanta.gaiven[email protected]