Толковые словари лингвистической терминологии в восточнославянских странах: сравнительный анализ

Explanatory Dictionaries of Linguistic Terminology in the East Slavic Countries: A Comparative Analysis ВЯЧЕСЛАВ ЩЕРБИН Center for System Analysis and Strategic Studies of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus KEYWORDS: dictionary typology, entry unit, lexical unit, microstructure of a dictionary entry, macrostructure of a dictionary, megastructure of a dictionary, consolidated explanatory dictionary of East Slavic linguistic terminology Comparative, cross-country research is prompted by a number of objective reasons, described in considerable detail in the publications of comparativists: 1) “comparison is a means of acquiring knowledge. Since awareness of an individual fact is connected with understanding many facts, and since we grasp the particular better in the light of general, universal conceptions, conducting comparisons between states at the cross-country level multiplies many times over the possibility of explaining a given phenomenon. A researcher studying only one country may interpret as normal what in fact appears anomalous to a comparativist” (Dogan, Pelassy 1994: 19); 2) “there are two main reasons for conducting specific inter-state comparisons. One is related to the empirical testing of various explanatory hypotheses that supposedly extend beyond state borders... The second reason for the need to conduct specific inter-state comparisons consists in what can best be defined as evidential clarification. The central task of such analysis is to gain a deeper understanding of the characteristics of a country by comparing its experience with that of other states” (Sanders 1995: 32); 28 Вячеслав Щербин Толковые словари лингвистической терминологии в восточнославянских странах: сравнительный анализ 3) inter-state comparative research helps identify “knowledge tested by time and international scholarly practice (sometimes called the international scholarly tradition),” taking which into account “allows researchers not to squander the time and energy allotted to them in life on something ‘fashionable’ but not very significant for the development of the chosen field of knowledge” (Shcherbin 2008: 43). However, besides the most general reasons indicated above that determine the conduct of any comparative, cross-country research, there are also more specific reasons for carrying out such comparisons, arising from the particular nature of the field of knowledge being studied. With regard to comparative research in terminography, one such specific reason was described by the Russian researcher Yu. N. Marchuk. Drawing on statistical data on the number of first editions of terminological dictionaries, he showed that “new sciences are characterized by the publication of an increasing number of terminological dictionaries. This is necessary for intensive work and for the development of these new fields of knowledge. The subject matter of terminological dictionaries is extremely important for scientometrics, since it makes it possible to identify the fields of science and technology undergoing intensive development” (Marchuk 1992: 21–22). In particular, table 3, “Absolute Number of First Editions of Dictionaries,” compiled by Yu. N. Marchuk on the basis of the review published in Moscow, Современное состояние научно-технической лексикографии (ССНЛ 1986), shows that among the rapidly developing fields of scientific knowledge in countries around the world, in which a significant increase in the publication of terminological dictionaries is observed, are informatics, ecology, energy, linguistics, polymers, biology, biochemistry, and others (Marchuk 1992: 21). The trend noted by Yu. N. Marchuk toward a rapid increase in the number of published dictionaries of linguistic terminology (among others) was confirmed in the course of our creation of a disciplinary classification of terminological dictionaries published in Belarus. Thus, among the nearly four dozen thematic groups of specialized dictionaries that we identified through a comprehensive survey of Belarusian bibliographic dictionary Terminologija | 2014 | 21 29 indices (Чарняўская, Цыхун 2000; Кіпель, Саўка 2002), dictionaries of linguistic terminology (hereafter DLTs) rank fifth (46 titles), surpassed in number only by biological dictionaries (141 titles), economic dictionaries (137), historical dictionaries (66), and mathematical dictionaries (48) (Щербин 2009: 19). Moreover, our comprehensive examination of the contents of Russian and Ukrainian bibliographic indices of dictionary publications (НТС 1988; Комова 2003; Дубичинский 2013) showed that the trend under consideration—the rapid increase in the number of DLTs published—is also present in Russian and Ukrainian terminographies. Finally, it should also be noted that the creation of DLTs as a distinct area of lexicographic activity received its own terminological designation in Russian linguistics (“lexicography of linguistic terminology,” “lexicography in the field of specialized linguistic terminology”) as early as the beginning of the 1960s (Ахманова, Полторацкий 1962: 189–190). At the same time, our accumulated experience in constructing various dictionary typologies and classifications in order to identify dictionary publications that are most comparable in scope and organizational principles (Шчэрбін 1981; Шчэрбін 2002; Щербин 2005; Щербин 2008) convinces us that the existence of a general positive megatrend in DLT publishing in East Slavic countries does not at all mean that there are no significant differences between Belarusian, Russian, and Ukrainian terminographies in this area of lexicographic knowledge. As the Russian scholar В.Г. Гак rightly observed regarding the challenges of comparing large groups of dictionaries in different languages, “grouped objects are discrete in themselves, but taken together they form nondiscrete series, in which different objects differ from one another in particular, sometimes hard-to-detect features, allowing them to be classified in different ways....even when dictionaries distinguish the same (or roughly the same) meanings of a word, their grouping and sequence in the dictionary entry may differ, and the treatment of the same word in dictionaries of even comparable scope may therefore be dissimilar. The reason is that the meanings of many words are distinguished on the basis of overlapping features. When establishing a hierarchy of meanings, different sequences of these features may be chosen” 30 Вячеслав Щербин Толковые словари лингвистической терминологии в восточнославянских странах: сравнительный анализ “which predetermines the differing forms of a word’s semantic structure in different dictionaries” (Гак 1978: 17-18). For the reasons stated above, this article is devoted to identifying common and specific characteristics in the contents of the most comprehensive explanatory DLTs published in Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine. We will first explain why explanatory DLTs published in East Slavic countries have been chosen as the primary subject of comparative analysis. From the perspective of lexicographic semiotics, dictionary-reference publications include not only explanatory, bilingual, educational, and other dictionaries of terms published as separate books, but also a) various dictionary appendices, subject indexes, and term indexes found in monographs, dissertations, scholarly articles, and other publications; b) numerous electronic dictionaries, terminological databases, and data banks, which generally exist only in computer memory. The scope of such nontraditional dictionary-reference works (dictionary appendices, electronic dictionaries, etc.) may range from a single page to many thousands of pages of text (for example, in Wikipedia). If all of the nontraditional dictionary-reference works listed above are included in compiling an exhaustive list of East Slavic DLTs, then, by our estimates, that list would already comprise many hundreds of titles today. Even if the list of East Slavic DLTs is restricted to specialized dictionaries published as separate books, their total number still amounts to about a hundred titles. A comparative analysis of the contents of so many East Slavic DLTs can be carried out only as part of a dedicated monographic study. Thus, from the very outset of work on this article, the problem of properly delimiting the terminographic material in the East Slavic languages was highly pertinent. Such problems are usually resolved by constructing a sufficiently comprehensive and detailed typology of DLTs, followed by selecting specialized dictionaries that are most comparable in scope and organizational principles. By now, a number of such specialized dictionary typologies have been developed, whose authors have sometimes clearly exaggerated their classificatory potential. Thus, Terminologija | 2014 | 21 31 the Soviet terminologist В.М. Перерва once held that “the entire diversity of terminological dictionaries can be classified according to various criteria, for example: a) by the number of languages represented—monolingual, bilingual, multilingual; b) by the presence and principle of interpretation—encyclopedic, explanatory, containing no interpretations; c) by the field or fields of knowledge represented—field-specific, narrowly field-specific, multidisciplinary (including polytechnical); d) by the completeness of the terminology represented—comprehensive, medium-sized, concise; e) by special purpose—conceptual, frequency, reverse” (Перерва 1976: 199). In turn, Russian scholars Н.А. Слюсарева and Г.Н. Макарова group the foreign DLTs they identified into the following five basic types of specialized reference works (Слюсарева, Макарова 1977: 283–286): 1) general encyclopedic dictionaries. These include, for example, Encyclopedia of linguistics, information and control by A.К. Митхем and Р.А. Хадсон (Oxford, London, 1969); 2) specialized encyclopedic dictionaries. These include Kenkyusha Dictionary of new linguistics (Tokyo, 1971); 3) general explanatory dictionaries. Russian scholars classify Glossary of linguistic terminology by M. Pei (New York, London, 1966) as a DLT of this type; 4) specialized explanatory dictionaries. A notable example of a DLT of this type is A glossary of American technical linguistic usage by E. H. Hamp (4th ed.—Utrecht, Antwerp, 1968); 5) word lists (glossaries). An example of the latter is Multilingual lexicon of linguistics and philology. English, French, German, Russian by P. Nash (Florida, 1968). An even more detailed typology of DLTs was developed by Russian scholars И.С. Куликова and Д.В. Салмина, who, drawing on the typological ideas of В.А. Ицкович and Н.В. Васильева (Ицкович 1964; Васильева 1990) and further developing the method of dictionary antinomies proposed by Л.В. Щерба (Щерба 1974), identified the following typological oppositions among DLTs: “1) encyclopedias—reference dictionaries (explanatory dictionaries, according to Васильева); 2) ‘academic’—educational; 3) alphabetical—thematic (thesauruses); 4) original (Russian)—translated; 5) dictionaries of a metalanguage—dictionaries of a metadialect or idiolect; 6) general—field-specific (specialized, according to Васильева); 7) dictionaries—word lists (in the ЛЭС: explana- 32 Вячеслав Щербин Толковые словари лингвистической терминологии в восточнославянских странах: сравнительный анализ …descriptive – nomenclatural); 8) quotation-based – non-quotation-based; 9) monolingual – bi-(multi-)lingual. Frequency dictionaries stand apart” (Kulikova, Salmina 2002: 59). Within the framework of S.V. Grinev-Grinevich’s History of the Development of Dictionary Classification (Grinev-Grinevich 2009: 155–191), other, more general classifications of terminological dictionaries are also analyzed. These include: 1) strictly hierarchical dictionary classifications, presented in the works of V.N. Sergeev (1973), V.P. Petushkov and V.N. Sergeev (1976), A.I. Vasiliev (1978), L.A. Sosnovskaya (1978), and others; 2) faceted dictionary classifications, used in the works of V.M. Pererva (1976), V.F. Romenskaya (1978), A.S. Gerd (1981), A.Ya. Shaikevich (1983), R.Yu. Kobrin (1985), V.V. Morkovkin (1988), L.M. Pologi and L.A. Simonenko (1991), V.V. Dubichinsky (1993), and others; 3) parametric dictionary classifications, developed in the works of P.N. Denisov (1976), Yu.N. Karaulov (1981), S.V. Grinev (1986), Ya.L. Donskoy (1986), E.V. Koroleva (1986), V.M. Leychik (1988), Yu.N. Marchuk (1992), and others; 4) comprehensive dictionary classifications, reflected in the works of L.M. Novichkova (1978), S.V. Grinev-Grinevich (2008), and others. However, as one studies them, one quickly becomes convinced that each of the dictionary classifications listed above, despite having certain positive features, nevertheless fails to “put into their proper pigeonholes” all the East Slavic linguistic terminology dictionaries (LTDs) published to date, whose typological diversity clearly exceeds the classificatory capacity of any single typology of LTDs. Moreover, in East Slavic countries, LTDs of fundamentally new types are published almost every year, and their place in existing dictionary classifications has yet to be established. Examples of such recent LTDs include a number of terminological dictionaries published in East Slavia in 2005–2007: a) L.V. Popova’s Comprehensive Dictionary of Functional Grammar Terms (Omsk, 2005), which combines the qualities of explanatory, ideographic, synonym, and thematic dictionaries; b) O.O. Selivanova’s Modern Linguistics: A Terminological Encyclopedia (Poltava, 2006), which harmoniously combines elements of an encyclopedic, general explanatory, and specialized explanatory LTD; 3) Dictionary of Intercultural Terms Terminologija | 2014 | 21 3 3 коммуникации Ф.С. Бацевича (Киев, 2007), реестр которого включает не только лингвистические термины. Поэтому следует согласиться, на наш взгляд, с выводом С.В. Гринева-Гриневича о том, что в каждом конкретном случае «в основу классификации словарей в первую очередь должны быть положены их наиболее важные отличительные особенности» (Гринев-Гриневич 2009: 185). For our comparative analysis of the content of East Slavic LTDs, which aims at a deeper understanding of the particular features of the development of linguistic terminology lexicography in Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine, the following characteristics served as the most important distinguishing features of the LTDs under analysis: 1) the degree of completeness of their headword lists; 2) physical volume (in standard printed sheets and number of volumes); 3) dictionary type; 4) method of textual organization (type of dictionary macrostructure); 5) their metalinguistic orientation; 6) the degree to which the LTDs being compared are comparable across all their main characteristics, and so on. As for the first characteristic (the completeness of the LTD headword list), at present the largest explanatory (Akhmanova 1969; Bulakhov 2002–2005; Zahnitko 2012), bilingual (RBSLT 1988; ARSLS 1996; AURSTNK), and encyclopedic (LES 1990; BME 1994; RE 1998; UME 2000) East Slavic LTDs contain the greatest numbers of headwords. We will begin our examination by analyzing the most comprehensive explanatory LTDs. In particular, the most comprehensive explanatory LTDs of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine have the following headword counts: O.S. Akhmanova 1969—about 7,000 terms; M.G. Bulakhov 2002–2005—about 6,500; and A.P. Zahnitko 2012—about 8,000 terms. In the Russian LTD (Akhmanova 1969) and, in part, the Ukrainian LTD (Zahnitko 2012), which use an alphabetical-nest organization of dictionary text, almost all terms of narrower semantic scope included in the dictionary nest of a main term are also represented in the headword lists of these dictionaries (by means of cross-reference entries). Moreover, “if a term is a phrase, it is given in the dictionary as many times as there are terminological elements in it, once with a definition and in the other instances with a cross-reference” (Akhmanova 1969: 24). In the Belarusian dictionary (Bulakhov 2002–2005), however, which makes even more extensive use of alphabetical-nest 34 Вячеслав Щербин Толковые словари лингвистической терминологии в восточнославянских странах: сравнительный анализ organization of dictionary text, terms of narrower semantic scope included in the dictionary nest of a generic term are not represented either in the dictionary’s general headword list or in the “Subject and Terminological Index” contained in the fifth volume of the dictionary. Given the very considerable size of some nested dictionary entries in the Belarusian LTD (for example, the entry for the term language occupies 80 pages of text and, by our count, includes more than 5,200 terms of narrower semantic scope or, in O.S. Akhmanova’s terminology, “segments of metalinguistic discourse” (Akhmanova 1969: 10); the entry for word occupies 42 pages; the entry for speech occupies 14 pages, providing definitions and addressee-related characteristics for 894 “within-nest terms” or “segments of metalinguistic discourse”), it may be assumed that the number of terms of narrower semantic scope omitted from the “Subject and Terminological Index” appended to the fifth volume of the Belarusian LTD runs into the tens of thousands (by our count, the total number of headwords and terms included in the dictionary nests of the main headwords in the Belarusian explanatory LTD is approximately 60,000). The most comprehensive East Slavic explanatory LTDs are also quite similar in terms of the second key indicator (physical volume): the Russian LTD (Akhmanova 1969) was published in one volume and has a length of 45.9 standard publishing sheets; the Belarusian LTD (Bulakhov 2002–2005) was published in five volumes with a total length of 197.3 standard publishing sheets; and the Ukrainian LTD (Zahnitko 2012) comprises four volumes with a total length of 91 standard publishing sheets. The somewhat greater volume of the Belarusian explanatory LTD (compared with the analogous Russian and Ukrainian LTDs) is due to the following reasons: a) the more extensive presentation in the Belarusian dictionary of metalinguistic, combinatorial, and addressee-related characteristics of all the headwords described in it, as well as of related terms of narrower semantic scope; b) the inclusion in the dictionary nest of the term language (Bulakhov 2005 V 40–119), together with terms of narrower semantic scope (Genealogy of Languages, Dialectal Basis of a Language, Ideology of Language, History of Language, Classification of Languages, Literary Language, Generally Accepted Language Norms, Syntactic Units of Language and others) and “segments of metalinguistic discourse” (more colloquial coloring of language, zna- Terminologija | 2014 | 21 35 understanding language as a means of communication, purifying language of its motley foreign admixture, the relationship between thought and language, the use of language, the problem of the origin of language, the old and modern diversity of language, etc.), as well as all the language names identified in the examined textual sources (several thousand names, such as Abyssinian languages, Abkhaz language, Avestan language, Australian languages, Austronesian languages, Azerbaijani language, Asian languages, Akkadian language, Albanian language, Alemannic language, Amharic language, American languages, etc.). By way of comparison, the Ukrainian dictionary (Zahnitko 2012) does not include the names of the world’s languages “because of its limited format and the existence of specialized publications on this issue” (Zahnitko 2012: 6). The explanatory East Slavic LDTs compared above belong to the same dictionary type: they are general explanatory dictionaries “whose purpose is to provide as complete a list as possible of terms from all areas of linguistics (the extensive type)” (Vasilyeva 1990: 461). For this reason, the explanatory East Slavic LDTs under consideration have the highest possible degree of comparability according to the third key indicator as well (dictionary type). The high degree of similarity between the explanatory East Slavic LDTs compared here (Akhmanova 1969; Bulakhov 2002–2005; Zahnitko 2012) in terms of their fourth characteristic (the method of organizing textual space) is largely due to similar factors. The same alphabetical-nesting principle serves as the primary macrostructural method for ordering their contents. The explanatory East Slavic LDTs compared here are also extremely similar in such a characteristic as their metalinguistic orientation. In other words, in compiling their dictionaries, their authors fully subscribed to the following methodological principles: 1) “terminology is extracted, like metal from ore, from the entire body of metalinguistic works of the period under study” (Akhmanova 1969: 5); 2) “the primary and feasible task at present is the lexicographic description of the language (imperfect, inconsistent, and heterogeneous though it may be) through which linguists communicate with one another and which they use in teaching” (Akhmanova 1969: 9). Evidence for this conclusion can be found in the Belarusian, Russian, and Ukrainian LDTs compared here 36 Вячеслав Щербин | Толковые словари лингвистической терминологии в восточнославянских странах: сравнительный анализ the long lists of sources for terminological material in the LDTs (dictionaries of various types, grammars, monographs, textbooks, and research articles in various branches of contemporary linguistics), used by the authors of these dictionaries to identify the main body of linguistic terms. The only difference between the East Slavic LDTs compared here with respect to the metalinguistic sources of terminological material used is that, unlike the Russian and Ukrainian explanatory LDTs, which list only the main such sources (40 and 49 titles, respectively), the Belarusian explanatory LDT provides a complete list of the materials used (867 titles in all). Thus, the most comprehensive explanatory LDTs published in East Slavic countries are highly comparable, as measured by the following indicators: a) similar entry-list characteristics (7–8 thousand terms); b) comparable physical (typographic) sizes; c) the same typological classification as general explanatory LDTs; d) virtually identical methods of organizing textual space (the alphabetical-nesting principle); e) a similar metalinguistic orientation toward texts used as terminological material (dictionaries, grammars, monographs, textbooks, and research articles in linguistics). The high degree of comparability of the explanatory East Slavic LDTs considered above is not substantially affected even by the fact that their first editions appeared at considerably different times: the first edition of the Russian explanatory LDT was published in 1966, the Belarusian one in 2002–2005, and the Ukrainian one in 2012. This is because the chronological and addressee-related characteristics of the source metalinguistic materials used in these dictionaries largely coincide. It is also significant that various editions of the Russian dictionary (Akhmanova 1966; Akhmanova 2007) are included among the main sources of metalinguistic materials used in the Belarusian and Ukrainian LDTs, although, as will be shown below, far from all the entries in O. S. Akhmanova’s dictionary were included in the entry lists of the Belarusian and Ukrainian LDTs. The very fact, however, that the Russian terminological dictionary in question is regularly reissued (a new, fifth edition of O. S. Akhmanova’s dictionary appeared in 2010) and remains to this day the most Terminologija | 2014 | 21 37 comprehensive explanatory LDT in Russian provides the strongest evidence that claims by some Russian researchers that “today Akhmanova’s dictionary no longer reflects the current state of the scientific metalanguage, i.e., it no longer serves its primary purpose and is used by researchers only as an additional lexicographic source” (Kulikova, Salmina 2002: 80) are premature. Summary data on the most comprehensive explanatory LDTs published in Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine are presented in Table 1. Table 1. Summary data on the most comprehensive explanatory East Slavic LDTs Name of LDT (abbreviation) Characteristics of explanatory East Slavic LDTs Size of entry list Physical size (in author’s sheets) Number of volumes Dictionary type Text organization principle Number of textual sources Print run (number of copies) Akhmanova 1969 About 7,000 45,9 1 General explanatory dictionary of linguistic terminology Alphabetical-nest-based 40, including 17 dictionaries of linguistic terminology in 9 languages 40 000 Bulakov 2002–2005 About 6,500 197,3 5 General explanatory dictionary of linguistic terminology Alphabetical-nest-based 867, including 10 dictionaries of linguistic terminology in Russian 50 Zahnitko 2012 About 8,000 91,02 4 General explanatory dictionary of linguistic terminology Alphabetical-nest-based 49, including 32 dictionaries of linguistic terminology in three languages 100 A different situation is observed with regard to the comparability of the most comprehensive East Slavic TLTs of the translation and encyclopedic types. Their degree of comparability can be judged from the differences between the main characteristics of East Slavic translation and encyclopedic TLTs. In particular, the main characteristics of the most comprehensive translation TLTs of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine are presented in Table 2. 38 Вячеслав Щербин Толковые словари лингвистической терминологии в восточнославянских странах: сравнительный анализ Table 2. Summary data on the most comprehensive East Slavic translation TLTs TLT titles (abbrev.) | Characteristics of East Slavic translation TLTs | Size of the entry list | Physical extent (publisher’s sheets) | Number of volumes | Dictionary type | Principle of textual organization | Print run (copies) | RBSTT 1988 | About 5,500 | 10.8 | 1 | General bilingual TLT | Alphabetical | 4,300 | ARSLS 1996 | About 8,000 | 40.25 | 2 | General bilingual TLT with explanatory elements | Alphabetical | 1,000 | AURSTNK | About 5,000 | (in press) | 1 | Specialized trilingual TLT | Conceptual | (in press) The summary data in Table 2 on the most comprehensive East Slavic translation-type TLTs show that these dictionaries differ quite substantially: 1) in the size of their entry lists; 2) in their physical extent; 3) in the typological affiliation of the TLTs being compared; and 4) in the principles of their textual organization. These differences account for the relatively low degree of comparability among the data on East Slavic translation TLTs. In turn, the main characteristics of the most comprehensive encyclopedic TLTs published in Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine are presented in Table 3. The summary data in Table 3 on the size of the entry lists and physical extent of East Slavic encyclopedic TLTs also reveal substantial quantitative discrepancies among these encyclopedic TLTs according to the selected indicators. The quantitative discrepancies among the TLTs under consideration can be supplemented with qualitative information, showing, for example, the following: 1) of the 517 encyclopedic articles included in the Belarusian encyclopedia (BME 1994), 143 are devoted to biographies of well-known linguists and writers, i.e., are non-terminological in nature. Similarly, of the 1,797 articles included in the Ukrainian encyclopedia (UME 2000), 438 present- Terminologija | 2014 | 21 39 Table 3. Summary data on the most comprehensive encyclopedic TLTs published in Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine TLT titles (abbrev.)Characteristics of East Slavic encyclopedic TLTsSize of entry listPhysical extent (publisher’s sheets)Number of volumesDictionary typePrinciple of textual organizationPrint run (copies)LES 1990700162.931General encyclopedic TLTAlphabetical150,000RYAE 199869698.141Specialized encyclopedic TLTAlphabetical50,000BME 1994517111.371Specialized encyclopedic TLTAlphabetical10,000UME 2000179798.141Specialized encyclopedic TLTAlphabetical5,000 biographies of Ukrainian and foreign linguists; 2) BME 1994 and UME 2000 lack subject and terminology indexes that would make it possible to determine the total number of linguistic terms used in their encyclopedic articles. For comparison: in the Russian encyclopedic dictionary (LES 1990), 1) all 700 entries are devoted to terms, meaning that it contains no biographies at all; 2) the terminological index appended to LES 1990 includes about 6,000 linguistic terms; a similar index in RYAE 1998 also contains several thousand terms. Substantial qualitative differences also exist, in terms of typological affiliation, between the Belarusian (BME 1994), Russian (RYAE 1998), and Ukrainian (UME 2000) TLTs being compared—which are encyclopedias of Belarusian, Russian, and Ukrainian linguistics, respectively—and the Russian encyclopedic TLT (LES 1990), which is general-linguistic in nature. In particular, it is precisely the general-linguistic nature of LES 1990 that accounts for its “broad inclusion of linguistic ‘nomenclature,’ primarily linguonyms: the languages of the world 40 Вячеслав Щербин Толковые словари лингвистической терминологии в восточнославянских странах: сравнительный анализ are presented both as separate entries and in the very comprehensive (approximately 2,500-item) “Index of the Languages of the World” (Kulikova, Salmina 2002: 76). All the differences noted above indicate that the East Slavic encyclopedic DLTs being compared are not sufficiently comparable, which prevents their use as terminographic sources for conducting a valid comparative analysis. While the problem of identifying the most comparable East Slavic DLTs can be considered largely resolved (the most comprehensive explanatory DLTs published in Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine will be examined below), the method for conducting their comparative analysis still raises many questions. In our view, the best way to conduct a comparative analysis of East Slavic explanatory DLTs is by using the technique of parallel dictionary reading, developed and tested by Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences O.N. Trubachev. The Russian scholar “spent many years working toward the contemporary forms of this technique, comparing dictionaries of different languages and types and gradually refining the methodology for their comparative study” (Shcherbin 2007: 13). Having begun by identifying (for the purposes of comparative evaluation in his dictionary reviews) only individual elements of the structure of the dictionaries under consideration—the total number of headwords, their derived forms, definitions, user information, and so forth—O.N. Trubachev later arrived “at ‘parallel reading’ proper, that is, a contrastive characterization of: a) the objectives served by the dictionaries under consideration; b) the principles underlying them; and c) the methods used by their compilers in preparing these dictionaries. The macro- and microstructures of the dictionaries were also compared, as were their scholarly value, the composition of their headword vocabularies, the extent to which the approaches used in them corresponded to the established Slavistic tradition, the language affiliation of the dictionaries being compared, and the legitimacy of the compilers’ use of individual lexicographic parameters (for example, cross-reference words)” (Shcherbin 2007: 14). Drawing on O.N. Trubachev’s methodological work on the use of parallel dictionary reading, let us begin with a comparative analysis of the headword inventories of East Slavic explanatory Terminologija | 2014 | 21 41 DLTs. To make the material manageable, the headword material from three fairly substantial dictionaries was limited to a comparative study of linguistic terms beginning with the letters А, Р, Я (the choice of terms beginning with these letters was motivated by the desire to examine a sufficiently representative body of headwords selected from the initial, middle, and final parts of the DLTs being compared). The final outcome of the comparative study of the headword inventories of East Slavic explanatory DLTs was the compilation of consolidated indexes of the headwords in these dictionaries beginning with А (995 items), Р (762 items), and Я (58 items). Taken together, these consolidated indexes cover almost 10% of the headword material in the East Slavic explanatory DLTs being compared and are therefore sufficiently representative statistically. A comparative analysis of the contents of the consolidated indexes of headwords in the three East Slavic explanatory DLTs (for the letters А, Р, Я) revealed the following: 1) Linguistic terms that are almost entirely equivalent (in their formal and semantic characteristics) account for: a) only 4.8% of the consolidated index of headwords in all three East Slavic explanatory DLTs for the letter А (аббревиатура, аббревиация, абзац, аблатив, аблаут, абсорбция, агенс, аграфия, адаптация, адвербиализация, адстрат, аканье/аканья, аккомодация, акузма, акут, акцент, акцентология, акцентуация, алалия, алексия, алфавит, альтернант, альтернация, амбивалентный, анаграмма, анаколуф, анализ, аналитизм, аналогия, анафора, англицизм, антесе-дент, антитеза, антиципация, антонимия, антономазия, антропонимика, аорист, аподозис, апостроф, арго, ареал, артикль, артикуляция, архетип, асиндетон, атрибут, афазия—48 terms in common in total); b) just 1.7% of the consolidated index of headwords for the letter Р (редукция, редупликация, реконструкция, рекурсия, релевантный, рема, референт, речение/речення, ритм, ритмика, ритмомелодика, риторика, ряд—13 terms in common in total); c) the consolidated index of headwords for the letter Я contains no linguistic terms that are equivalent in both form and meaning; 2) Near-complete equivalence (in form and meaning) among linguistic terms is much more widely represented in two of the 42 Вячеслав Щербин Толковые словари лингвистической терминологии в восточнославянских странах: сравнительный анализ three East Slavic explanatory DLTs examined (12.4% of the consolidated index of headwords in all three East Slavic explanatory DLTs for the letter А; 7.3% of the consolidated index of headwords for the letter Р; and 27.6% of the consolidated index for the letter Я). The greatest number of equivalent pairs of terms was found in the Russian and Belarusian dictionaries (Akhmanova 1969 and Bulakhov 2002), since both dictionaries primarily present Russian-language linguistic terminology: a) 7.4% of the consolidated index of headwords in the East Slavic explanatory DLTs for the letter А (абруптив, абсолютов, абсолютный, абстрактное значение, автоматическая альтернация, авторская речь, агглютинативный, агглютинация, адвербиальный, адъективация, адъективирование, адъективированный, адъективный, азбука, аккузатив, акустический, акутовый, акцентный, акцентуационный, аллатив, аллегория, аллитерация, аллитерирующий, алфавитный, альвеолярный, аморфные языки, аморфный, амфибрахий, анакруза, аналитико-синтетический, аналитический, аналогисты, аналогический, анафорический, аномалисты, аномалия, аномальный, антецедентный, антропофоника, антропофонический, анусвара, аппозитивный, аппозиционный, аппозиция, арготивческий, артикулятор, артикуляционный, архаизация, архаизирующий, архаизм, архаический, асемантический, аспирация, аспирированный, ассимиляция, ассимиляттивный, ассимиляция, ассоциация, атематический, атрибутивно-предикативный, атрибутивный, аттракция, аугмент, ауслаут, афористический, аффективный, аффикс, аффиксальный, аффиксация, аффилиация, аффриката, ахлаут, ахронистический, ахронический, ахрония—74 terms in common in total); b) 4.6% of the consolidated index of headwords for the letter Р (равносложный, равноударенный, раздвоение, раздел интонационный, разделительный, различительный, разложение, размер, разносклоняемость, разносклоняемый, разностильный, раскатистый, расподобление, расположение, распределение, распределительный, распространение, распространенный, раствор, растяжение, расчлененный, расширение, расщепление фонемы, реализация, реальное значение, регрессивный, резонатор, резонаторный, результативный, рекурсивный, релевантность, релятивный, речевой, речь, ритмический, ритмомелодический, риторический, рифма, род, родительный падеж, родовой, родословное древо, родство Terminologija | 2014 | 21 43 languages, rhotacism, rune, row – 46 common terms in total); c) 20.7% of the consolidated index of entry terms under Я (language, source language, object language, linguistics, linguistic, language-related, linguistics, base language, intermediary language, lingual, yakanye, iamb – 12 common terms in total). Significantly fewer fully equivalent (in form and meaning) linguistic terms are represented in the registers of the Russian and Ukrainian DLTs (Akhmanova 1969 and Zahnitko 2012): a) 3.2% of the consolidated index of entry terms in East Slavic explanatory DLTs under А (automatism, agent, agrammatism, adequative, additive, adlative, admirative, acronym, active, actualization, Americanism, amphiboly, anadiplosis, anastrophe, anachronism, enjambment, annomination, anticlimax, antimetabole, antinomy of grammatical structure, antipotosis, antistrophe, antiphrasis, appellative, apokoinou, apocope, argotisms, areal linguistics, archiphoneme, asemantic, aspect, dialectological atlas – 32 common terms in total); b) 0.5% of the consolidated index of entry terms under Р (reprise, refrain, rondel, rondo – 4 common terms in total); c) 3.5% of the consolidated index of entry terms under Я (nuclear structures/ядерні структури, nucleus of an utterance/ядро вис-повлення – 2 common terms in total). Finally, the smallest number of fully equivalent (in form and meaning) linguistic terms is represented in the registers of the Belarusian and Ukrainian DLTs (Bulakhov 2002-2005 and Zahnitko 2012): a) 1.3% of the consolidated index of entry terms in East Slavic explanatory DLTs under А (abracadabra, abstraction, alphabet book, active vocabulary, acoustics, akuidentsiya, amplitude, anthroponym, anthroponymy, apostrophe, articulatory phonetics, aspectology, aphorism – 13 common terms in total); b) 0.8% of the consolidated index of entry terms under Р (resonance, replica, reference, reflex, reflection, Russification – 6 common terms in total); c) 3.5% of the consolidated index of entry terms under Я (tier, yat – 2 common terms in total); 3) the most significant part of the content of the consolidated indexes of entry terms in the three East Slavic explanatory DLTs (under А, Р, Я) consists of linguistic terms represented in only one of the three explanatory-type DLTs examined. 44 Вячеслав Щербин Толковые словари лингвистической терминологии в восточнославянских странах: сравнительный анализ At the same time, the clear leader among the three compared East Slavic explanatory DLTs in the number of “distinctive” (i.e., having no full equivalents in the other dictionaries) linguistic terms is the Ukrainian dictionary (Zahnitko 2012). In particular, this dictionary contains 390 linguistic terms under А that have no full (in form and meaning) equivalents in the other East Slavic DLTs (абдукція, абіонім, абонімінація, абревійоване ім’я, абрупція, абсолютний кінець слова, абсолютний початок слова, абсолютний час, абсолютні синоніми, абстрактна лексика, абстрактне мислення, абстрактні іменники, абузія, ас-з dolby digital, аверсія, автокаталіз, автокомунікація, автологія, автоматичний (машинний) переклад, автоматичний словник, автоном, автор, автор-функція, авторизатор, авторизація and other Ukrainian linguistic terms). Taken together, these nationally specific terms account for 39.2% of the entire consolidated index of entry terms in East Slavic explanatory DLTs under А. В свою очередь, на букву Р в украинском словаре (Загнітко 2012) выявлены 372 лингвистических термина, не имеющие полных (по форме и значению) эквивалентов в других восточнославянских СЛТ (радиксоїди, рамка перформативна, рамка відмінкова, рамплісаж, ра-ритив, раса, рацея, реактивний мовленнєвий акт, реакція, реакція пер-локутивна, реалізація грамем імплікативна, реалізовані норми и др.). В совокупности эти национально специфические украинские термины составляют 48,5% содержания сводного индекса реестровых терминов восточнославянских толковых СЛТ на букву Р. Наконец, на букву Я в рассматриваемом СЛТ (Загнітко 2012) идентифицировано 14 лингвистических терминов и номенов, не имеющих полных эквивалентов в белорусском и русском СЛТ (явний контекст, ядро лінгвокультурологічного поля, язичок маленький (увула), як емфатична придієслівна, як початкова розповідна, як…, так і… градаційний розмовний, який так (який тут) емоційна, якийсь емоційний, якийсь емфатичний, якість міжмовної комунікації, якість мовлення, якості мовлення комунікативні, ясність мовлення/ясність мови, я-текст). Эти украинские термины и номены составляют 24,3% содержания сводного индекса реестровых терминов восточнославянских толковых СЛТ на букву Я. Terminologija | 2014 | 21 45 На втором месте после украинского СЛТ (Загнітко 2012) по количеству лингвистических терминов, не имеющих полных эквивалентов в составе других восточнославянских ЛСТ, идет белорусский словарь (Булахов 2002–2005). В частности, на букву А в нем представлено 237 «уникальных» терминов (абс̧еда, аблативный/аблятивный, аблаутный, абсолютная конструкция, абсорбировать, абстрагировать, абстрактная единица, абстрактное слово, абстрактно-семантический принцип, абстрактно-собирательное имя, абстрактность, авеста и др.), которые в совокупности составляют 23% всего состава сводного индекса реестровых терминов восточнославянских толковых СЛТ на букву А. Далее, на букву Р в белорусском словаре содержится 201 лингвистический термин, не имеющий полных эквивалентов в других рассматриваемых словарях (равногласный, равнозвучащий, равнозначащий/ равнозначующий, равнозначный, равносложность, разбирание, разбор, разветвление, развиваться/ развиться, развитие, разговаривать, разговор, разговорная речь, разговорно и др.), удельный вес которых в сводном индексе реестровых терминов восточнославянских толковых СЛТ на букву Р составляет 26,2%. Наконец, на букву Я в белорусском словаре выявлено 18 исторически ориентированных, «самобытных» терминов (язык-жаргон, языковед/языковеды, языкоиспытатель, языкоисследование, языкоисследователь, языкосравнение, языкотворчество, языкоучение, язык-первоисточник, язык-потомок, язык-предок, язык-примитив, язык-родоначальник, язычно-небный, яканье-иканье, якать, якающий, якутский язык), доля которых в сводном индексе реестровых терминов восточнославянских толковых СЛТ на букву Р доходит до 31%. The dictionary of O.S. Akhmanova ranks third among the compared East Slavic explanatory DLTs in the number of linguistic terms that have no full equivalents in the other dictionaries. Thus, under А it contains 197 obsolete and rarely used terms that are absent from the registers of the other East Slavic DLTs (ablaut base, abruptive, absolute, absolutely subjectless sentence, absolute question, abstractive relevance, abstract action, abstract sentence, abstract nouns, abstract forms, abstract verb, abstract sound and others), which together 46 Вячеслав Щербин Толковые словари лингвистической терминологии в восточнославянских странах: сравнительный анализ account for just under 20% of the content of the consolidated index of entry terms in East Slavic explanatory DLTs under А. Furthermore, under Р Akhmanova's dictionary lists 120 linguistic terms that have no full equivalents in the registers of the other East Slavic explanatory DLTs (dynamic equilibrium, equilibrium diphthong, homophones, synonymous words, equivalent opposition, synonymous words, homonymy, equal endings, even stress, speech intelligibility and others). These terms account for more than 15.7% of the entire consolidated index of entry terms in East Slavic explanatory DLTs under Р. Finally, under Я Akhmanova's dictionary contains 9 terms that have no full equivalents in the Belarusian and Ukrainian DLTs (obsolescent phenomena, developing phenomena, nucleus of a diphthong, syllabic nucleus, linguistic, uvular, bright vowels, bright, iambic truncation). The rarely used terms identified in Akhmanova's dictionary constitute more than 15.5% of the content of the consolidated index of entry terms in East Slavic explanatory DLTs under Я. The results of comparing the content of the consolidated indexes of entry terms in the three East Slavic explanatory DLTs (under А, Р, Я), using the method of parallel dictionary reading, allow us to draw the following conclusions: 1) The selection of entry vocabulary for the DLTs examined was influenced most strongly by the practices of term usage in the scholarly, reference, and educational texts that the authors of these dictionaries (O.S. Akhmanova, M.G. Bulakhov, and A.A. Zahnitko) used as sources of terminological material when compiling them. In particular, O.S. Akhmanova's examination of 17 different DLTs in 9 languages materially influenced the inclusion in the register of her dictionary (Akhmanova 1969) of a number of linguistic terms used in the metalanguage of foreign linguistics in the middle of the last century, and which are rarely used in contemporary East Slavic linguistics (ablaut base, abruptive, autonomists, agma, adversive, actum, amalgamating languages, anudatta, anunasika and others). Therefore, the exclusion of the listed terms and similar ones was entirely justified Terminologija | 2014 | 21 47 borrowed terms into the entries of subsequent East Slavic explanatory linguistic terminology dictionaries (Bulakhov 2002–2005 and Zahnitko 2012). Similarly, M.G. Bulakhov’s use of a substantial number of linguistic texts from the 16th–19th centuries as the textual basis for his Essay on the Historical Dictionary of Russian Linguistic Terminology contributed to the inclusion in this dictionary’s entries of a range of obsolete linguistic terms and professionalisms of primarily historical significance (abetseda, ablautny, az, akalshchik, alfavitar, analogists-grammarians, Aryan-European, audition, language-study, language-comparison, language-teaching, etc.), which are generally not used in modern instructional explanatory linguistic terminology dictionaries. Finally, A.A. Zahnitko’s particular attention, as author of Dictionary of Modern Linguistics: Concepts and Terms, to the study of metadialects (sublanguages) of the latest branches of contemporary linguistics (linguoculturology, ethnolinguistics, patholinguistics, neurolinguistics, communicative linguistics, functional grammar, etc.) led to the inclusion in his dictionary of numerous recent terms (abionym, as-3 dolby digital, agnonyms, addressee-orientedness, aiff (audio interchange file format), axial communication, axioleme, axiostemma, axon, actant-role grammar, etc.) and specialized nomenclature labels (initial what…, you vulgar/you familiar, you patronizing, this emphatic, this conversational disapproval, how emphatic preverbal, how sentence-initial narrative, both…and… gradational colloquial, which so (which here) emotional, some emotional, some emphatic, etc.) used by scholars in these fields in their work; 2) The methodological position adopted by the authors of these dictionaries also had a significant influence on the selection of entry vocabulary for East Slavic explanatory linguistic terminology dictionaries. In O.S. Akhmanova’s view, “a very important question is which parts of speech linguistic terms belong to, or should belong to: is the terminology of a given field of knowledge limited to nouns, or does it also include adjectives, verbs, and other parts of speech? In answering this question, attention should first of all be paid to the fact that in European languages the system of nouns is so highly developed, and the possibilities for forming deverbal nouns and abstract nouns derived from adjective stems are so extensive, that the core of the terminological list for these languages may consist entirely of nouns. As for verbs, they are not typical of linguistic terminology and can easily be replaced by deverbal nouns” (Akhmanova 1969: 11). 48 Вячеслав Щербин Толковые словари лингвистической терминологии в восточнославянских странах: сравнительный анализ Precisely because of O.S. Akhmanova’s methodological position on the parts-of-speech characteristics of linguistic terms, nouns and adjectives overwhelmingly predominate in the entries of the dictionary she compiled. The inclusion in her dictionary’s entries of individual prefixes (allo-, upper-, etc.) is among the rare exceptions. M.G. Bulakhov adopted a quite different methodological position on this issue, writing the following about the parts-of-speech characteristics of the entry units in his dictionary: “The main part of the dictionary corpus consists of nominal and verbal terms. In addition, in order to show the derivational and valency properties of terms, adjectives, participles, and adverbs are included in the dictionary entries if they are relevant to linguistic terminology” (Bulakhov 2002 I 5). Fully consistent with M.G. Bulakhov’s methodological views, his dictionary’s entries include not only verbs and participles but even adverbs (adverbially, acoustically, alphabetically, analogically, anaphorically, abnormally, antepositively, appositively, articulatorily, archaically, attributively, etc.); 3) An important factor that had a serious impact on the selection of entry vocabulary for the East Slavic explanatory linguistic terminology dictionaries being compared was the authors’ understanding of the macrostructure of these dictionaries. Since in all three dictionaries the main principle for organizing the textual space is alphabetical-nest arrangement, much depended on the status assigned to a particular linguistic term (the status of a principal entry unit or that of a term with narrower semantic scope, included in the entry nest under the principal unit) and on whether the dictionary used such a lexicographic parameter as a cross-reference word (cross-reference entry). However, at this point we move on to a compar- Terminologija | 2014 | 21 49 ative analysis of the micro- and macrostructure of East Slavic explanatory linguistic terminology dictionaries. In particular, a study of the microstructure, i.e. the structure of the dictionary entries in the dictionaries being compared (Akhmanova 1969; Bulakhov 2002–2005; Zahnitko 2012), showed that the authors of these explanatory linguistic terminology dictionaries defined the set of required structural elements of an entry differently, depending on the type of entry used. O.S. Akhmanova’s dictionary contains the following types of entries: 1) a term-nest entry; 2) an entry for a single term; 3) a cross-reference entry. The largest of these is the term-nest entry, which usually includes the following structural elements: a) the headword, i.e. the head (generic) term, most often a Russian one-word term (abbreviation, absolute, adaptation, akan’ye, analysis, etc.) or a terminological phrase (future tense, intrasyllabic onset, nominative case, genitive case, etc.); b) foreign-language equivalents of the head term (English, French, German, Spanish); c) a definition of the generic term; d) terms with narrower semantic scope associated with the head term (letter abbreviation, alphanumeric abbreviation, sound abbreviation, etc.); e) foreign-language equivalents of the terms with narrower semantic scope; f) definitions of the terms with narrower semantic scope; g) phrases illustrating the use of the defined term in a linguistic context (for example, the head term absolute is illustrated by the phrases Absolute verbs. Absolute case. Absolute position. Absolute location). The entry for a single term in O.S. Akhmanova’s dictionary is more limited in scope, since it includes the following structural elements: a) the headword, most often a Russian one-word term (abbreviation, paragraph, automatism, etc.) or a terminological phrase (autonomous grammatical process, acrophonic principle, amorphous sentence, etc.), less often a prefix (allo-, ante-, upper-, lower-, etc.) or a Latin term (abstractum pro concreto, activa tantum, media tantum, nomen agentis, pluralia tantum, singularia tantum, etc.); b) foreign-language equivalents of the head term (for example, for the entry- 50 Вячеслав Щербин Толковые словари лингвистической терминологии в восточнославянских странах: сравнительный анализ of the term resonator is English англ. resonator, French resonauter, German Resonator, Spanish resonador); c) the definition of the headword term (for example, the entry for resonator is defined as follows: ‘A device or natural structure that resonates at a particular frequency of oscillation, amplifying it’); d) illustrations in the form of terminological phrases (thus, the headword term resonator is illustrated by the phrase Резонатор ротовой). Finally, the most concise form of expression in O.S. Akhmanova’s dictionary is found in the cross-reference entry, which generally includes only two structural elements: a) the headword term and b) a reference to another dictionary entry in which the term is defined. Given the small size of cross-reference entries, two examples with different reference structures are provided: «abstract action see action abstract. abstract meaning see meaning» (Akhmanova 1969: 30). In turn, the set of dictionary-entry types and the lists of structural elements included in them in M.G. Bulakhov’s dictionary differ substantially (in comparison with O.S. Akhmanova’s dictionary). In particular, the Belarusian Dictionary of Linguistic Terms (DLT) comprises the following types of entries: 1) a dictionary entry as a nest of terms; 2) a dictionary entry for a single term. A dictionary entry that forms a nest of terms may be quite extensive (from one to several dozen pages of dictionary text), whereas an entry for a single term sometimes does not exceed the length of a standard line of dictionary text. These quantitative differences in the sizes of the two types of dictionary entries in M.G. Bulakhov’s dictionary are explained by the differing lists of structural elements represented in these entries. Thus, an entry forming a nest of terms in M.G. Bulakhov’s dictionary generally includes the following structural elements: a) a headword, i.e. a head (generic) term, represented by Russian-language single-word terms (аббревиатура, аблатив/аблятив, аблаутный, абстракция and others) or terminological phrases (ассимилятивно-диссимилятивное аканье (яканье), беглый гласный (согласный), бытийное предложение and others); b) the grammatical Terminologija | 2014 | 21 51 label indicating the grammatical gender of the term (f., m., n.); c) a definition of the headword term’s meaning (for example: abbreviation – ‘A conventional shortening of words’); d) illustrative quotations (the number varies from entry to entry) from the textual sources examined (monographs, textbooks, dictionaries, encyclopedias, scholarly articles, etc.), containing additional information about the conceptual content of the headword term (for instance, the content of the headword abstraction is also elucidated by the following quotation from the second edition of R.A. Bulatov’s book Introduction to the Science of Language (Moscow, 1965, p. 219): «Grammar does not operate with just any abstractions, but with abstractions of real words and real languages»); e) source information for each illustrative quotation used; f) terms of narrower semantic scope related to the headword term (for example: grammatical abstraction; lexical abstraction; phonetic abstraction and others); ё) definitions of individual terms of narrower semantic scope (thus, the term force of language in the entry-nest for the term language is defined as follows: ‘the potential capacity, condition, and possibility for language development’ (Bulakhov 2005 V 55). However, the overwhelming majority of terms of narrower semantic scope in M.G. Bulakhov’s dictionary are left undefined; ж) illustrative quotations from textual sources for individual terms of narrower semantic scope. For example, the conceptual content of the term force of language is elucidated not only by its definition but also by two illustrative quotations from I.I. Davydov’s textbook Readings on Literature (Moscow, 1837, pp. 94–95) and his Essay on the General Comparative Grammar of the Russian Language (St. Petersburg, 1852, p. 449). However, extended illustrative quotations are not provided in M.G. Bulakhov’s dictionary for the overwhelming majority of terms of narrower semantic scope; з) source information for each term of narrower semantic scope. Dictionary entries for individual terms in M.G. Bulakhov’s dictionary have a considerably shorter list of structural elements. Moreover, the content of this list varies from entry to entry. The fullest version of such a list includes the following structural elements: a) a headword, i.e. the head term, represented by Russian-language single-word terms (abbreviation, 52 Вячеслав Щербин Толковые словари лингвистической терминологии в восточнославянских странах: сравнительный анализ abetseda, paragraph, ejective and others) or terminological phrases (abstract unit, abstract meaning, abstract word and others); b) a grammatical label indicating the term’s gender; c) a definition of the headword term; d) illustrative quotations from textual sources; e) source information for the illustrative quotations. The shortest version of this list includes only two structural elements: a) the headword term and b) source information for that term in textual sources. Examples of such exceptionally concise dictionary entries in M.G. Bulakhov’s dictionary include entries for the following headwords: absolute chronology of language change, acoustic aspect in the study of speech sounds, geographical appellative, appellative vocabulary, rhythmic-intonational relations, rhythmic-melodic feature of verse, rhythmic-melodic aspect of speech, rhythmic-syntactic units, rhythmic-syntactic period, rhythmic-syntactic division, language-jargon, source language, object language, proto-language, intermediary language, descendant language, ancestral language, primitive language, parent language, Yakut language and others. Clearly, using source information for individual headwords instead of definitions is not an equivalent substitute in a DLT of the explanatory type. A.A. Zahnitko’s dictionary also has its own microstructural features. In particular, the Ukrainian DLT includes the following types of entries: 1) an entry forming a nest of terms; 2) an entry for a single term; 3) a cross-reference entry. The largest entries are those forming nests of terms, which generally include the following structural elements: a) a headword, i.e. a head (generic) term, represented by Ukrainian-language single-word terms (абзац, абревіація, антитеза, антоніми, аорист, архаїзми, асиміляція and others) or terminological phrases (бібліотека електронна, варіантність літературної норми, відмінок давальний (давив) and others); b) etymological information on the origin of the headword term: for example, абзац (German Absatz – indentation); антоніми (Greek anti – against and орута – name); c) a definition of the headword term (for example, абревіація – ‘a method of forming nouns by shortening elements of words combined into a single phrase’); d) terms of narrower se- Terminologija | 2014 | 21 53 semantic scope associated with the headword term (for example: абревіація ініціальна, абревіація поскладова, абревіація поскладово-слівна, абревіація змішана, абревіація телескопічна); d) definitions of terms with a narrower semantic scope (for example: абревіація поскладово-слівна – ‘a combination of a whole word and a shortened element: зарплата – wages, корпункт – correspondent’s office’); e) in separate dictionary entries—term nests—illustrative quotations from textual sources are also provided (for example, in the nest entry for the term антитеза, the conceptual content of the narrower-scope term антитеза складна is revealed through the following quotation from a poetic work by Lina Kostenko: «White, white faces in black water, / irreplaceable faces remain forever. / In old photographs, everyone is young, / In old photographs, the dead are laughing»). The entries for individual terms in A.A. Zahnitko’s dictionary are more concise and generally include the following set of structural elements: a) a headword, i.e. the term serving as the entry lemma, which is usually a Ukrainian-, Latin-, or English-language single-word term (абдукція, абіонім, аблаут, agnomen, агнонім, аграфія, альтер-его (alter-ego), harpy, haveo-конструкції, etc.), a terminological phrase (ас-3 dolby digital, автостереотип етнічний, адекватність семантична, азбука морзе, aiff (audio interchange file format), акомодація лінгвокультурна негативна, etc.), an individual prefix (а-, ан-, ім-, ін-, орто-, суб-, супер-, ультра-, уні-), or a suffixoid (-цид); b) etymological information about the origin of the term (for example, аблаут (German Ablaut – vowel change)); c) a definition of the headword term (for example: абіонім – ‘a proper name of a non-living entity in the natural environment or one created by humans. This category includes toponyms, stratonyms, cosmonyms, astronyms, anthroponyms, kataykonyms, hydronyms, and the like’); d) for certain headword terms, in addition to a brief definition, A.A. Zahnitko’s dictionary provides an extended encyclopedic description of their conceptual content (for example, for the terms абдукція, аглютинація, алюзія, варваризм, дискурс, дреговичі, etc.). Finally, the shortest list of structural elements in A.A. Zahnitko’s dictionary is found in cross-reference entries: a) a headword— 54 Вячеслав Щербин Толковые словари лингвистической терминологии в восточнославянских странах: сравнительный анализ —that is, the headword term, and b) a cross-reference to another dictionary entry in which the term is defined (for example: абревійоване ім’я – see: ім’я абревійоване). Thus, the microstructural characteristics of the explanatory East Slavic dictionaries of linguistic terminology (DLTs) differ considerably in: a) the range of dictionary-entry types used; b) the number and variety of structural elements included in such entries; and c) the average length of nest entries (the most compact entries are found in O.S. Akhmanova’s dictionary, and the most extensive in M.G. Bulakhov’s dictionary). However, we found that the most substantial differences among the explanatory East Slavic DLTs compared here lie not in their microstructure but in their macrostructure. We understood macrostructure (or macrocomposition) broadly, following S.V. Grinev-Grinevich: “The domain of macrocomposition, that is, the formation of a dictionary’s macrostructure, includes such questions of the composition of the dictionary as a whole as the choice of the principle for presenting (arranging) the lexicon, the determination of the contents of the dictionary’s main parts, as well as the ways of presenting multiword units (terminological phrases) and polysemous and homonymous units in the dictionary” (Grinev-Grinevich 2009: 39). Despite the excessively broad range of questions assigned to the domain of dictionary macrocomposition, the key role in determining a dictionary’s macrostructural type is usually played by the main principle governing the organization of its textual space (alphabetical, thematic, chronological, numerical, etc.). The authors of all three explanatory East Slavic DLTs identify alphabetical ordering of the headword list as the main principle for presenting the terminological lexicon under description (Akhmanova 1969: 21; Bulakhov 2002 I 5; Zahnitko 2012 I 7). It should be borne in mind, however, that “the alphabetical order of dictionary entries... may be continuous, when each headword—a lexical unit to be described in the dictionary—has its own entry, and all entries are arranged in strict alphabetical order, or nested, when a single dictionary entry may combine information about several related headwords” (Grinev-Grinevich 2009: 40). Terminologija | 2014 | 21 5 5 Since all three explanatory East Slavic DLTs alternate between continuous alphabetical ordering of headwords and their arrangement in alphabetical nests, it is appropriate to describe the principle organizing the textual space of the East Slavic DLTs under comparison as a mixed alphabetical-nesting principle. Moreover, as our study has shown, the main differences among the explanatory DLTs examined arise precisely from the authors’ differing approaches to applying this mixed alphabetical-nesting principle to the presentation of terminological units. In particular, we identified substantial differences between the East Slavic DLTs compared according to two parameters: a) the proportion of nest entries among the total number of entries examined (under the letters А, Р, Я) in the DLTs under consideration; and b) the average number of headwords (a generic term and terms related to it with narrower semantic scope) included in a single dictionary nest in each East Slavic DLT. O.S. Akhmanova’s dictionary, for example, contains 339 entries under the letter А, 75 of which (or 22.1%) are dictionary nests. The largest nest entries (defined here as nests combining 10 or more headwords) have the following headword (generic) terms: абсолютный – 28 headwords, анализ – 17, артикль – 14, артикуляция – 13, ассимиляция – 11, атрибутивный – 10, аффикс – 11. On average, a single dictionary nest under the letter А in O.S. Akhmanova’s dictionary defines 4.6 terms, including the generic term. In turn, under the letter Р, O.S. Akhmanova’s dictionary contains 175 entries, 43 of which (i.e. 24.6%) can be classified as dictionary nests. The largest dictionary nests are headed by the following generic terms under Р: речевой – 20 headwords, речь – 44, род – 12, родительный падеж – 31. On average, each dictionary nest defines 5.6 terms, including the generic term. Finally, under the letter Я, O.S. Akhmanova’s dictionary contains 21 entries, three of which (i.e. 14.3% of the total) are dictionary nests. The largest nests have two headword terms: язык – 91 headwords and языковой – 10. On average, a dictionary nest under the letter Я defines 35 terms, including the generic term. 56 Вячеслав Щербин Толковые словари лингвистической терминологии в восточнославянских странах: сравнительный анализ Since the spread of quantitative data for the two parameters analyzed in the entries of O.S. Akhmanova’s dictionary under the letters А, Р, Я is very considerable, it makes sense to use the aggregate values of these indicators, i.e. those calculated for the entire set of dictionary entries analyzed under the letters А, Р, Я. The total size of this set was 535 dictionary entries, 121 of which (i.e. 22.6% of all entries) can be classified as nested entries. Thus, the proportion of nested entries in the total number of entries analyzed from O.S. Akhmanova’s dictionary is considerably lower than the figure given for this dictionary by I.S. Kulikova and D.V. Salmina: “...about half of the entries are constructed according to the nested principle, i.e. they include compound terms derived from the headword and having a narrower semantic scope” (Kulikova, Salmina 2002: 79). On average, one dictionary nest under the letters А, Р, Я in O.S. Akhmanova’s dictionary provides definitions for 5.7 terms, including the generic term. Quite different quantitative indicators for the specified parameters (the proportion of nested dictionary entries and the average number of headwords in one dictionary nest) were found when examining the entries in M.G. Bulakhov’s dictionary under the letters А, Р, Я. Thus, under the letter А, this dictionary contains 381 dictionary entries, including 151 dictionary nests, which is 38.8% of the total number of entries examined. The largest dictionary nests under the letter А have the following headwords: адъективный – 19 headwords, азбука – 24, азбучный – 10, аканье/акание – 42, акающий – 50, акустический – 50, акцент – 47, акцентный – 22, акцентологический – 20, акцентология – 11, акцентуация – 26, алфавит – 95, алфавитный – 18, анализ – 16, аналитический – 20, аналогический – 14, аналогия – 47, аорист – 93, аппозитивный – 13, арго – 39, арготический – 12, артикулировать – 12, артикуляционный – 28, артикуляция – 178, архаизм – 43, архаический – 31, ассимиляция – 53, ассоциативный – 13, ассоциация – 88, атрибут – 37, атрибутивно-предикативный – 11, атрибутивность – 13, атрибутивный – 27, аффикс – 28, аффриката – 39. On average, one dictionary nest contains information about 11.5 different terms, including the generic term. In turn, under the letter Р, M.G. Bulakhov’s dictionary contains 263 dictionary entries, 96 of which (i.e. 36.5% of the total number Terminologija | 2014 | 21 57 of entries under the letter Р) are dictionary nests. The largest dictionary nests are headed by the following terms: разговор – 65 headwords, разговорный – 36, рефлекс – 122, рефлексация – 18, рецессия – 15, речевой – 181, речение – 188, речь – 894, ритм – 18, ритмический – 46, ритмичность – 10, риторика – 45, риторический – 37, рифма – 34, род – 86, родительный падеж – 93, родовой – 37, рукописный – 16, рукопись – 168, русизм – 20, русификация – 12, русский язык – 32. On average, one dictionary nest under the letter Р contains information about 25.7 terms, including the generic term. Finally, under the letter Я, M.G. Bulakhov’s dictionary contains 32 dictionary entries, including 14 dictionary nests (i.e. 34.4% of all entries under the letter Я). Among the largest dictionary nests are the entries for the following headwords: язык – 5211 headwords, языковед/языковеды – 18, языковедение – 25, языковой – 595, языкознание – 46, яканье – 29. On average, one dictionary nest under the letter Я lists information about 73.5 terms, including the generic term. When calculating the average number of headwords in one dictionary nest under the letter Я, the quantitative data for the dictionary nest of the concept язык were deliberately excluded. Both in terms of its physical size (80 pages of dictionary text) and the number of headwords it includes (5211 terms with a narrower semantic scope than the generic term язык), this nest is, in our view, a specialized dictionary devoted to a single concept within another dictionary. As the quantitative data cited for the two parameters analyzed in M.G. Bulakhov’s dictionary show, their variation across different letters is also very considerable: a) for the first parameter (the proportion of dictionary nests in the total number of dictionary entries), the values under the letters А, Р, Я are 38.8%, 36.5%, and 34.4%, respectively; b) for the second parameter (the average number of headwords in one dictionary nest), the variation is even greater: 11.5 headwords, 25.7, and 73.5. We therefore calculated aggregate values for the indicators analyzed across the entire set of dictionary entries under the letters А, Р, Я. The total size of this set in M.G. Bulakhov’s dictionary was 676 dictionary entries, 258 of which (i.e. 38.2% of the total number of entries in the set) are dictionary nests. On average, one dictionary nest contains information about 58 Вячеслав Щербин Толковые словари лингвистической терминологии в восточнославянских странах: сравнительный анализ 19.1 terms, including the generic term, in M.G. Bulakhov’s dictionary (based on the set of dictionary entries under the letters А, Р, Я). If these averages are extrapolated to the entire scope of M.G. Bulakhov’s dictionary, it is easy to estimate by simple calculation the approximate number of all headwords (head terms and related terms of narrower semantic scope) contained in this dictionary. Our calculations put this figure at about 60 thousand terminological units. Even more impressive quantitative figures for macrostructural parameters were found when examining the entries in A.A. Zagnitko’s dictionary under the letters А, Р, Я. Thus, under the letter А, this dictionary contains 489 entries, including 13 entries (or 2.7% of the total under this letter) that are dictionary nests. The largest among them are the dictionary entries for the following listed terms: антонимы – 11, аорист – 24, асиміляція – 17, афікс – 10, афоризм – 12. On average, one dictionary nest defines 8.1 terms, including the generic term. In turn, under the letter Р, A.A. Zagnitko’s dictionary contains 394 dictionary entries, including 26 dictionary nests, which make up 6.6% of the total number of entries under the letter Р. The largest dictionary nests have the following headwords: речення багатокомпонентне складне – 10 headwords, речення неповне – 12, речення односкладне – 13, речення складнопідрядне нерозчленованої структури – 19, речення складнопідрядне розчленованої структури – 13, речення складносурядне закритої структури – 10, рівні мови – 11. On average, one dictionary nest under the letter Р defines 6.5 terms, including the generic term. Finally, under the letter Я, A.A. Zagnitko’s dictionary contains 18 dictionary entries, none of which are dictionary nests. Given the very considerable variation across the letters А, Р, Я in the quantitative values of the indicators analyzed in A.A. Zagnitko’s dictionary (for the first parameter: 2.7%, 6.6%, and 0.0%; for the second parameter: 8.1 terms, 6.5, and 0.0), aggregate indicator values were calculated for the entire set of dictionary entries under the letters А, Р, Я in A.A. Zagnitko’s dictionary. The total size of this set was 902 dictionary entries, 39 of which (i.e. 4.3% of the entire set) are dictionary nests. On average, one dictionary nest under the letters А, Р, Я defines 7.1 terms, including the generic term. Terminologija | 2014 | 21 59 For clarity, quantitative data on the macrostructural parameters analyzed in the three East Slavic explanatory dictionaries under comparison are presented in Table 4. Table 4. Summary data on the macrostructural characteristics of East Slavic explanatory dictionaries Name of the explanatory dictionary (abbreviated) Macrostructural characteristics of East Slavic explanatory dictionaries Proportion of dictionary nests in explanatory dictionaries (in%) Average number of vocabulary entries in one dictionary nest in explanatory dictionaries Entries beginning with А Entries beginning with Р Entries beginning with Я Entries beginning with А, Р, Я Entries beginning with А Entries beginning with Р Entries beginning with Я Entries beginning with А, Р, Я Akhmanova 1969 22,1 24,6 14,3 22,6 4,6 5,6 35,0 5,7 Bulakhov 2002-2005 38,8 36,5 34,4 38,2 11,5 25,7 73,5 19,1 Zahnitko 2012 2,7 6,6 0,0 4,3 8,1 6,5 0,0 7,1 Having analyzed the contents of Table 4, we can conclude that the macrostructural characteristics of the most comprehensive explanatory East Slavic dictionaries of linguistic terminology (ELTs)—in terms of the proportion of dictionary entries organized into nests relative to the total number of entries, and the average number of lexical items in a single dictionary nest—differ considerably. These differences are further compounded by the fact that the authors of the East Slavic explanatory ELTs under comparison took different approaches to determining the status of particular terms as head (generic) terms, as well as to the type of entries assigned to them in their dictionaries. For example, O.S. Akhmanova believed that “although terms such as ‘algorithm,’ ‘calculus,’ ‘matrix,’ ‘entropy,’ and the like now occur in some styles of linguistic literature, they cannot in any way be considered part of the metalanguage of linguistics, and there are no grounds for including them in this dictionary” (Akhmanova 1969: 8). However, as I.S. Kulikova and D.V. Salimina rightly observe, “the face of linguistics has changed significantly over the last 10 years” (Kulikova, 60 Вячеслав Щербин Толковые словари лингвистической терминологии в восточнославянских странах: сравнительный анализ Салмина 2002: 74), и в более современном словаре А.А. Загнитко уже представлены следующие заголовочные термины: алгоритм, ентропія, ентропія повідомлення, матриця, матриця контекстна, матриця метропитмічна, матриця спілкування, матриця рольова. Another difference lies in the choice, by the authors of the East Slavic ELTs under comparison, of different types of dictionary entries for the same head term and its derivatives. For example, in the dictionaries of O.S. Akhmanova and M.G. Bulakhov, the head (generic) term dictionary and semantically narrower terms related to it (Bilingual Dictionary; Dialectological Dictionary; Differential Dictionary; Ideological Dictionary and others) are presented in a single dictionary nest under the term dictionary. A completely different approach is used in A.A. Zahnitko’s dictionary, whose entry list contains an entire “cluster” of entries for the head (generic) term lexicon and its derivatives: lexicon; author’s lexicon; active lexicon; analogical lexicon; anthropocentric lexicon and others. The head (generic) term grammar and its derivatives are also interpreted differently in the East Slavic ELTs under comparison. Thus, in O.S. Akhmanova’s dictionary, the term grammar is explained in a single dictionary nest both as the generic term itself and alongside semantically narrower terms related to it (Academic Grammar; Ancient Grammar; Associative Grammar; External Grammar; Internal Grammar; Universal Grammar; Descriptive Grammar and others; 25 derived terms in all). In turn, M.G. Bulakhov’s dictionary explains the head term in question and some of its derivatives in separate entries, listed alphabetically by the first word in the term: analytical grammar; universal grammar; generative grammar; grammar; historical grammar of the Russian language; contrastive grammar; logical-semantic grammar; speculative grammar; philosophical grammar. In addition, the dictionary nest for the head term grammar provides cross-references to a further 60 semantically narrower terms (Academic Grammar; Atomistic Grammar; Critical Grammar; Scientific Grammar; Normative Grammar; Descriptive Grammar and others). Terminologija | 2014 | 21 61 Finally, A.A. Zahnitko’s dictionary uses a third approach to interpreting the head term grammar and its derivatives. The dictionary nest for this head term explains only the generic term itself, while the 27 semantically narrower terms related to it (Academic Grammar; Ancient Grammar; Associative Grammar; Internal Grammar and others) are merely listed. Immediately after the dictionary nest for the term grammar, an entire “cluster” of separate entries is provided for terms derived from the generic term grammar; these are arranged alphabetically by the second word (after the headword) in the term: Actant-role Grammar; Immediate-constituent Grammar; Case Grammar; Dependency Grammar and others; 19 entries in all. Even when the approaches taken by the authors of the East Slavic ELTs under comparison coincide for a particular group of terms (for example, for the head term theory and its derivatives—in all three ELTs, each semantically narrower term related to theory is explained in a separate entry), the dictionaries still differ significantly in the number of such entries. Thus, in O.S. Akhmanova’s dictionary, the “cluster” of entries for terms related to the generic term theory comprises 20 items (theory of adaptation; wave theory; genealogical theory; theory of two-member communication and others). In turn, the corresponding “cluster” of entries in M.G. Bulakhov’s dictionary contains 46 items (theory of adverbialization; theory of alternation; Becker’s theory; wave theory (I. Schmidt); vowel theory; theory of grammar and others). In addition, the dictionary nests for the terms grammar, lexicography, dictionary, language and others include several dozen more semantically narrower terms related to the generic term theory (Lexicographic Theory; Lomonosov’s Theory of Language; Scientific Theory of Language; General Theory of Grammar; General Theory of Lexicography; Theory and Practice of Lexicography and others). Finally, in A.A. Zahnitko’s dictionary, the “cluster” of entries for terms derived from the generic term theory comprises 45 items (theories of argumentation; theories of interlingual communication; sign theories of language; verbocentric theory; interjection theory and others). The explanatory East Slavic ELTs under comparison differ from one another not only in their micro- and macrostructure, but even in their overall 6 2 Вячеслав Щербин Толковые словари лингвистической терминологии в восточнославянских странах: сравнительный анализ megastucture. Thus, the megastructure of O.S. Akhmanova’s dictionary comprises the following sections: Preface; List of Dictionaries Used; On the Construction of the Dictionary; List of Abbreviations [The main body of dictionary entries, arranged alphabetically. – В.Щ.]; Index of the Main English Translations [English-Russian Dictionary of Linguistic Terms. – В.Щ.]; Basic Terminology of Metrics and Poetics [Explanatory Dictionary of Poetic Terms, compiled by V.F. Belyaev. – В.Щ.]; List of Dictionaries Used in Compiling the Appendix. In turn, the megastructure of M.G. Bulakhov’s dictionary consists of the following sections: Vol. I. Introduction [The main body of dictionary entries, arranged alphabetically from A to Й. – В.Щ.]; Main Sources of the “Attempt at a Dictionary”; Vol. II [The main body of dictionary entries, arranged alphabetically from К to П. – В.Щ.]; Vol. III [The main body of dictionary entries, arranged alphabetically from П to С. – В.Щ.]; Vol. IV [The main body of dictionary entries, arranged alphabetically from С to Ч. – В.Щ.]; Vol. V [The main body of dictionary entries, arranged alphabetically from Ш to Я. – В.Щ.]; Supplements [New dictionary entries supplementing the main body and arranged alphabetically from А to Ф. – В.Щ.]; Essay on the History of Russian Linguistic Terminology; Subject-Term Index; Supplementary List of Sources of Linguistic Terminology; Errata and Corrections to “An Attempt at a Historical Dictionary of Russian Linguistic Terminology” (Volumes I–V). Finally, the megastructure of A.A. Zahnitko’s dictionary also has its own distinctive set of sections: Vol. 1. Introduction [Repeated in each volume of the dictionary. – В.Щ.]; Structure of the Word List [Repeated in each volume of the dictionary. – В.Щ.]; Concepts and Terms [The main body of dictionary entries, arranged alphabetically from А to Й. – В.Щ.]; Vol. 2. Introduction; Structure of the Word List [The main body of dictionary entries, arranged alphabetically from К to О. – В.Щ.]; Vol. 3. Introduction; Structure of the Word List [The main body of dictionary entries, arranged alphabetically from П to С. – В.Щ.]; Vol. 4. Introduction; Structure of the Word List [The main body of dictionary entries, arranged alphabetically from Т to Я. – В.Щ.]; Alphabetical Index; List of References and Dictionaries. Terminologija | 2014 | 21 63 Thus, a comparative analysis of the contents of the three most comprehensive East Slavic explanatory dictionaries of linguistic terminology (DLTs), using the method of parallel dictionary reading, made it possible to identify common and specific elements in their entry lists, micro-, macro-, and megastructures. Each of the DLTs analyzed has its own distinctive strengths. In particular, the strengths of O.S. Akhmanova’s dictionary to this day include concise, logically precise definitions of terms, as well as foreign-language (English, French, German, and Spanish) equivalents for the headwords. In turn, the undisputed merits of M.G. Bulakhov’s dictionary are: (a) its extensive metalinguistic basis; (b) its exceptionally broad coverage of derivatives of headwords; (c) its wealth of illustrative quotations and “segments of metalanguage” from textual sources; and (d) exhaustive usage information for each linguistic term (headword or related term) used in the dictionary. Finally, the strengths of A.A. Zahnitko’s dictionary include its contemporary character, its broad coverage of terminology from the latest fields of world linguistics, and its systematic presentation of entire “clusters” of dictionary entries, grouped around individual core concepts, such as акт; аналіз; відмінок; граматика; закон; значення; категорія; комунікація; лексика; лінгвістика; метод, among others. In our view, the prospects for the further development of East Slavic explanatory lexicography of linguistic terminology are tied precisely to drawing on the strengths of the East Slavic DLTs under comparison. These prospects could be realized in the very near future if it proves possible to form a joint team of lexicographers and terminographers from Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus, whose work would build on the strengths of the dictionaries by O.S. Akhmanova, M.G. Bulakhov, and A.A. Zahnitko listed above. The ultimate outcome of the work of such a joint (Russian-Ukrainian-Belarusian) team of lexicographers and terminographers should be a consolidated explanatory dictionary of East Slavic linguistic terminology, with an entry list of 15,000–20,000 headwords, for which equivalents in Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian would be provided. The creation of such a consolidated explanatory dictionary of East Slavic linguistic 64 Вячеслав Щербин Толковые словари лингвистической терминологии в восточнославянских странах: сравнительный анализ terminology would make it possible to raise the study of the metalanguage of Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian linguistics to a qualitatively higher informational level. The following concrete steps in this direction attest to the potential feasibility of such a joint (Russian-Ukrainian-Belarusian) terminographic project: 1) a Russian-Ukrainian-Belarusian “Dictionary of Grammatical Terms” (pp. 377–387) had already been published as part of Очёрков по сравнительной грамматике восточнославянских языков (Odessa, 1958); 2) Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian equivalents for the most widely used terms in Slavic linguistics are also included in the two-volume Словаре славянской лингвистической терминологии (Praha, 1977–1979); 3) a sound methodological foundation for creating joint (Russian-Ukrainian-Belarusian) terminological dictionaries was developed through the joint efforts of Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian folklorists in preparing the first consolidated book in Slavic scholarship, Восточнославянский фольклор: Словарь научной и народной терминологии (Minsk, 1993); 4) the entry-list, definitional, illustrative, and other materials in the dictionaries of O.S. Akhmanova, M.G. Bulakhov, and A.A. Zahnitko can serve as a reliable factual basis for a future joint explanatory dictionary of East Slavic linguistic terminology. Given that the first two authors are no longer alive, the joint team of lexicographers and terminographers from Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus preparing a consolidated explanatory dictionary of East Slavic linguistic terminology could be headed by the well-known Ukrainian linguist and terminographer, Corresponding Member of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Professor A.A. Zahnitko, who has experience directing major international projects. In particular, he leads the group of Ukrainian participants in the open multinational project “The Grammar of the Slavic Preposition in Synchrony and Diachrony: Morphology and Syntax” (the project’s co-directors are Professor M.V. Vsevolodova for Russia, Professor M.I. Konoshevich for Belarus, Professor C. Lyakhur for Poland, and G.N. Gochev for Bulgaria (Konoshevich 2013: 90). The success of the international team of grammarians’ joint work on implementing this project can be assessed from the initial results obtained in its course (Vsevolodova 2004; Zahnitko 2003; Konoshevich 2013). Terminologija | 2014 | 21 65 In turn, the Terminology Commission of the International Committee of Slavists (ICS), chaired by V.L. Ivashchenko, Head of the Terminology Department at the Institute of the Ukrainian Language of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine and Doctor of Philology, could provide effective scholarly-organizational and methodological assistance to such a joint (Russian-Ukrainian-Belarusian) team of lexicographers and terminographers in its work on the terminographic project in question. At present, members of the Terminology Commission of the ICS are preparing a collective international monograph Slavic Terminology Studies at the End of the 20th and Beginning of the 21st Centuries. The bibliographic, terminological, and other informational materials accumulated in the course of this work could be useful to those creating a comprehensive explanatory dictionary of East Slavic linguistic terminology. In any case, our study of the history of the development of such a recent lexicographic field as conceptography shows that “the most significant achievements in Slavic conceptography have resulted from the joint work of representatives of different Slavic countries. The following Slavic conceptuaries may be counted among the reference works prepared jointly: a) Comparative Index of Plot Motifs: The East Slavic Folktale (Leningrad, 1979); b) Polesie Ethnolinguistic Collection: Materials and Studies ed. by N.I. Tolstoy (Moscow, 1983); c) The Russian Mentality. Lexicon ed. by A. de Lazari (Katowice; Łódź, 1995); d) Concise Dictionary of Cognitive Terms ed. overall by E.S. Kubryakova (Moscow, 1997); e) Idee w Rosji. Ideas in Russia. Ideas in Russia: Leksykon rosyjsko-polsko-angielski (Warsaw; Łódź, 1999–2003)” (Shcherbin 2014: 129). Compared with Slavic conceptography, East Slavic terminography has more substantial factual and methodological groundwork for carrying out joint terminographic projects. What is lacking is only bold organizational initiative and an understanding that “the road is mastered by the one who walks it.” CONCLUSIONS The comparative analysis we conducted of the content-related and formal characteristics of the three most comprehensive East Slavic explanatory SLTs (the dictionaries by O.S. Akhmanova, M.G. Bulakhov, and A.A. Zahnitko) allows us to draw the following conclusions: 66 Вячеслав Щербин Толковые словари лингвистической терминологии в восточнославянских странах: сравнительный анализ 1. In terms of their formal and content-related characteristics, the entries in these dictionaries have a rather low level of equivalence: only 3.3% of the combined index of headwords in the dictionaries by O.S. Akhmanova, M.G. Bulakhov, and A.A. Zahnitko, for the letters А, Р, Я, are fully equivalent. The most substantial part of the content of this combined index consists of linguistic terms represented in only one of the three SLTs examined (in particular, in the combined index of the three examined SLTs for the letters А, Р, Я, nationally specific entries in A.A. Zahnitko’s dictionary make up 39.2% of all the entry material examined; corresponding entries in M.G. Bulakhov’s dictionary account for 23% of the entry material, and such entries in O.S. Akhmanova’s dictionary account for about 20% of the index). 2. The dictionaries by O.S. Akhmanova, M.G. Bulakhov, and A.A. Zahnitko also differ in the microstructure of their entries: the first and third dictionaries contain three types of dictionary article (a nested headword article; an article for a single term; and a cross-reference article), whereas the second dictionary uses only nested headword articles and articles for single terms. Moreover, the types of dictionary article used differ considerably in scope in each of the dictionaries compared (the most compact articles are found in O.S. Akhmanova’s dictionary, and the most extensive in M.G. Bulakhov’s) and in their sets of structural elements (lexicographic parameters). 3. The macrostructure of the SLTs examined is also characterized by significant differences: nested headwords constitute 22.6% of all dictionary articles for the letters А, Р, Я in O.S. Akhmanova’s dictionary, 38.2% in M.G. Bulakhov’s, and 4.3% in A.A. Zahnitko’s; the average number of headwords in a single nested entry in the compared SLTs for the letters А, Р, Я is 5.7 in O.S. Akhmanova’s dictionary, 19.1 in M.G. Bulakhov’s, and 7.1 in A.A. Zahnitko’s. 4. There are also differences in the overall megastructure of the compared SLTs. O.S. Akhmanova’s dictionary, for example, is distinguished by the presence of two additional sections (“Index of the Main English Translations” and “Basic Terminology of Metrics and Poetics”). The following sections make up the specific megastructure of M.G. Bulakhov’s dictionary: Terminologija | 2014 | 21 67 an exhaustive list of textual sources from which linguistic terms were selected; “An Outline of the History of Russian Linguistic Terminology” and “Subject and Terminological Index.” Finally, a distinctive feature of the megastructure of A.A. Zagnitko’s dictionary is the duplication of the sections “Introduction” and “Structure of the Dictionary” in each volume, as well as the presence of the section “Alphabetical Index.” 5. In our view, prospects for the further development of East Slavic explanatory lexicography of linguistic terminology are connected with the joint efforts of Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian lexicographers and terminographers to create a consolidated explanatory Dictionary of Linguistic Terminology (DLT), with a headword list of 15–20 thousand terms, in which equivalents of the listed entries in Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian will be presented. Only the creation of such a consolidated explanatory DLT will make it possible to raise the study of the metalanguage of East Slavic linguistics to a qualitatively higher level of information. ЛИТЕРАТУРА АРСЛС 1996: Англо-русский словарь по лингвистике и семиотике. Около 8000 терминов. В 2-х т. Под ред. А.Н. Баранова, Д.О. Добровольского, Москва. АУРСТНК – Жаботинська С.А., Бровченко І.В., Ваховська О.В. Англо-україно-російський словник-тезаурус наукових кліше (в печати. См.: Бюлетень Української асоціації когнітивної лінгвістики і поетики 6, 2014, 5). Ахманова О.С. 1966: Словарь лингвистических терминов, Москва. Ахманова О.С. 1969: Словарь лингвистических терминов, 2-е изд., Москва. Ахманова О.С. 2007: Словарь лингвистических терминов. 4-е изд., Москва. Ахманова О.С., Полторацкий А.И. 1962: Словари лингвистической терминологии (обзор). – Лексикографический сборник 5, 188–191. БМЭ 1994: Беларуская мова. Энцыклапедыя. Пад рэд. А.Я.Міхневіча, Мінск. Булахов М.Г. 2002 I – Введение. – Опыт исторического словаря русской лингвистической терминологии. В 5 т., Минск, 3–6. Булахов М.Г. 2002–2005 I–V – Опыт исторического словаря русской лингвистической терминологии. В 5 т., Минск. Васильева Н.В. 1990: Словари лингвистических терминов. – Лингвистический энциклопедический словарь. Гл. ред. В.Н. Ярцева, Москва, 461–462. Всеволодова М.В. 2004: Предлоги в синхронии и диахронии: морфология и синтаксис. Первые результаты межнационального проекта. – Функционально-коммуникативные аспекты грамматики и текста: Збірник наукових праць: до ювілею А.П. Загнітка, Донецьк, 173–179. Гак В.Г. 1978: Об относительности лексикологических категорий в лексикографии. – Проблемы учебной лексикографии и обучения лексике. Сборник статей. Под ред. П.Н. Денисова и В.В. Морковкина, Москва, 13–24. Гринев-Гриневич С.В. 2009: Введение в терминографию: Как просто и легко составить словарь. Учебное пособие. 3-е изд., Москва. Доган М., Пеласси Д. 1994: Сравнительная политическая социология. Пер. с франц., Москва. 68 Вячеслав Щербин | Толковые словари лингвистической терминологии в восточнославянских странах: сравнительный анализ Дубичинский В.В. 2013: Лексикография украинского языка: прошлое и настоящее. Краткий библиографический указатель словарей украинского языка (1990-2010). – Славянская лексикография. Международная коллективная монография. Отв. ред. М.И. Чернышева, Москва, 294-309. Загнитко А.А. 2003: Предлог в морфологическом пространстве украинского языка: (Синхронно-контрастивные наблюдения). – Вестник Московского университета. Сер. 9. Филология 3, 92-106. Загнитко А.П. 2012 І–ІV – Словник сучасної лінгвістики: поняття і терміни. У 4 т., Донецък. Ицкович В.П. 1964: О словаре новой лингвистической терминологии. – Лингвистическая терминология и прикладная тономастика. Москва, 31-36. Кіпель В., Саўка З. 2002: Беларуская слоўнікі й энцыкляпэдыі. Бібліяграфія, Нью Ёрк; Мінск. Комова М.В. 2003: Українська термінографія (1948-2002). Бібліографічний покажчик, Львів. Конюшкевич М.И. 2013: Из опыта атрибуции славянского предлога. – Мовазнаўства. Літаратуразнаўства. Фалькларыстыка: XV Міжнародны з’езд славістаў (Мінск, 20-27 жніўня 2013): даклады беларускай дэлегацыі, Мінск, 85-98. Куликова И.С., Салимина Д.В. 2002: Введение в металингвистику (системный, лексикографический и коммуникативно-прагматический аспекты лингвистической терминологии), Санкт-Петербург. Лейчик В.М. 1988: Опыт построения классификации терминологических словарей. – Теория и практика научно-технической лексикографии. Сборник статей, Москва, 40-47. ЛЭС 1990: Лингвистический энциклопедический словарь. Гл. ред. В.Н. Ярцева, Москва. Марчук Ю.Н. 1992: Основы терминографии. Методическое пособие, Москва. НТС 1988: Научно-технические словари 1931-1987. – Теория и практика научно-технической лексикографии. Сборник статей, Москва, 278-301. Перерва В.М. 1976: О принципах и проблемах отбора терминов и составления словника терминологических словарей. – Проблематика определений терминов в словарях разных типов, Ленинград, 190-204. РБСЛТ 1988: Русско-белорусский словарь лингвистических терминов. Ред. Н.В. Бирилло, П.В. Стэцко, Минск. РЯЭ 1998: Русский язык. Энциклопедия. 2-е изд. Гл. ред. Ю.Н. Караулов, Москва. Сандерс Д. 1995: Некоторые методологические соображения о сравнительных межгосударственных исследованиях. – Международный журнал социальных наук 9, 27-35. Слюсарева Н.А., Макарова Г.Н. 1977: Обзор современных зарубежных словарей лингвистических терминов (1960-1975 гг.). – Актуальные проблемы учебной лексикографии, Москва, 272-286. ССНЛ 1986: Современное состояние научно-технической лексикографии. Обзор, Москва. УМЕ 2000: Українська мова. Енциклопедія, Київ. Чарняўская Л., Цыхун Г. 2000: Тэрміналагічныя слоўнікі (асабныя выданні) 1918-1998 гг. Бібліяграфічны даведнік, Мінск. Шчэрбін В.К. 1981: Супастаўляльна-тыпалагічны аналіз тэмпаральнай лексікі рускай і беларускай моў. – Беларуская лінгвістыка 20, 40-45. Шчэрбін В.К. 2002: Сучасныя класіфікацыі і тыпалогіі слоўнікаў. – Весці Нацыянальнай акадэміі навук Беларусі. Серыя гуманітарных навук 2, 108-113. Щерба Л.В. 1974: Опыт общей теории лексикографии. – Языковая система и речевая деятельность, Москва, 265-304. Щербин В.К. 2005: Белорусская и украинская терминография: сравнительный анализ. – Українська термінологія і сучасність. Збірник наукових праць 6, 26-31. Щербин В.К. 2007: Вклад О.Н. Трубачева в развитие научной критики словарей. – Вопросы языкознания 5, 3-21. Щербин В.К. 2008: Белорусская и литовская терминографии: сравнительный анализ. – Terminologija 15, 43-55. Щербин В.К. 2009: Генетическая, параметрическая и дисциплинарная классификация белорусских терминологических словарей. – Українська термінологія і сучасність. Збірник наукових праць 8, 15-20. Щербин В.К. 2014: Глава 1.7. Структура современной славянской концептографии. – Современная лингвистика и исследования ментальности в XXI веке. Коллективная монография: к 80-летнему юбилею профессора В.В. Колесова. Отв. соред. М.В. Пименова, В.И. Теруклов, Киев, 110-135. Terminologija | 2014 | 21 69 RYTŲ SLAVŲ ŠALIŲ AIŠKINAMIEJI KALBOTYROS TERMINŲ ŽODYNAl: LYGINAMOJI ANALIZĖ Straipsnyje nagrinėjami rusiški, ukrainietiški ir baltarusiški kalbotyros terminų žodynai. Išskiriami bendri ir specifiniai didžiausių aiškinamųjų rytų slavų kalbotyros terminų žodynų registrų, mikro-, makro- ir megastruktūros ypatybių elementai. Nustatomos rytų slavų kalbotyros terminų aiškinamosios leksikografijos raidos perspektyvos. Pagrindžiama išvada, kad kokybiškai aukštesnis informacinis rusų, ukrainiečių ir baltarusių kalbotyros metakalbos tyrimo lygmuo gali būti pasiektas tik bendromis Rusijos, Ukrainos ir Baltarusijos žodynininkų ir terminografų pastangomis sudarius suvestinį aiškinamąjį rytų slavų kalbotyros terminų žodyną. EXPLANATORY DICTIONARIES OF LINGUISTIC TERMINOLOGY IN EASTERN SLAVIC COUNTRIES: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian dictionaries of linguistic terms (DLT) are considered in the article. General and specific elements in register, micro-, macro-, and megastructural characteristics of the most significant explanatory DLT of Eastern Slavic languages are singled out. The perspectives of further development of Eastern Slavic explanatory lexicography of linguistic terminology are defined. It is concluded that a much higher informational level of analysis of the metalanguage of Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian linguistics can only be reached if a combined explanatory dictionary of Eastern Slavic linguistic terminology is created by mutual efforts of lexicographers and terminologists of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus. Gauta 2014-08-15 Вячеслав Константинович Щербин Центр системного анализа и стратегических исследований Национальной академии наук Беларуси ул. Академическая, 1, 220072, г. Минск, Республика Беларусь Эл. почта: [email protected] 70 Вячеслав Щербин Толковые словари лингвистической терминологии в восточнославянских странах: сравнительный анализ