2 4 Se giusz G iniewicz | Te minological Ac i i ies: P inciples and Pe spec i es
Te minological Ac i i ies:
P inciples and Pe spec i es
SERGIUSZ GRINIEWICZ
TC 55 Te minology RF,
Uni e si y o Bialys ok
KEYWORDS: di ec ions o e minology esea ch, ypes o e minology wo k, means o e m-
o ma ion, e minology planning
In e minological ac i i ies we may disce n wo aspec s: heo e ical
ac i i ies, o e minology science and p ac ical ac i i ies, o e minology
wo k. In he ISO WD 1087:94 e minology science is de ined as he
scien i ic s udy o he concep s and he e ms ound in special languages.
(The las pa in ou opinion is supe icial and unnecessa y, because
concep s and e ms belong o special languages and ha dly may be expec ed
elsewhe e.) Acco ding o he same documen e minology wo k is any
ac i i y conce ned wi h he sys ema isa ion and ep esen a ion o concep s,
o wi h he p esen a ion o e minologies on he basis o es ablished
p inciples and me hods. La e o icial e sion o his documen (ISO
1087-1:2000) o e s a simila de ini ion: “Wo k conce ned wi h he
sys ema ic collec ion, desc ip ion, p ocessing and p esen a ion o concep s
and hei designa ions”, hough e minology science is de ined di e en ly
as “science s udying he s uc u e, o ma ion, de elopmen , usage and
managemen o e minologies in a ious subjec ields”, hus excluding
concep s om i s scope.
Analysis o e minological publica ions shows his o ic a ia ions in
ela ion be ween heo e ical and p ac ical ac i i ies. A he beginning, in
he i s hal o he 20 h cen u y heo e ical in es iga ions we e subo dina ed
o he p ac ical asks and p oblems — ini ially o de ing e minologies. The
i s e minological g oups, which appea ed a he beginning o he
wen ie h cen u y in Li huania and La ia as well as he pionee s o
e minology science — Eugen Wüs e , Dmi ij Lo e, E nes D ezen,
G igo ij Vinoku and Aleksand Re o ma skij had o deal wi h de ining
2 5Te minologija | 2013 | 20
he main p ope ies o special lexemes and inding he ways o deal wi h
hei d awbacks. Acco ding o p o . He ibe Pich , up ill he end o he
1950s Wüs e was mos ly in e es ed in p ac ical aspec s o e minology
wo k (Pich 2011: 10–11).
La e , s a ing in he i ies o he p e ious cen u y, in linguis ics appea ed
a conside able in e es in e minological p oblems and his esul ed in a
mul i ude o pu ely linguis ic in es iga ions and desc ip ions o a ious
e minologies which we e no immedia ely connec ed wi h he p ac ical
e minological wo k and hus lead o di e gence in heo y and p ac ice.
Indi ec esul o he absence o heo e ical suppo o p ac ical decisions
was a la ge numbe (mo e han 500) o e minological s anda ds o poo
quali y p epa ed in he 1960s–1970s in he USSR.
Howe e , somewha la e , in he 1960s and he 1970s a numbe o
di ec ions o e minological esea ch o applied na u e s a ed o o m.
This was cha ac e ised by egional speci ic in e es s, o example Sain
Pe e sbu g scien is s in es iga ing his o y o a ious e minologies (Ку
ти на 1966, 1970; Сорокалетов 1970; Герд 1968, 1971), Go ky linguis s
concen a ing hei a en ion on unc ioning o e ms and e minologies
in speech (Головин 1981; Кобрин, Пекарская 1977), Vo onezh e mi
nologis s specialising in applying s a is ical me hods o e minology
esea ch and p oblems o elabo a ion and assessmen o ansla ing
dic iona ies (Иванов 1967; Анюшкин 1978), Omsk e minologis s a ac ed
by p oblems o his o y o e ms and also in sociolinguis ic aspec s o
e minology (Ткачева 1987а, б and he disciples), while Moscow scien is s
inclined owa ds summing up e minological expe ience (Akhmano a,
Agapo a 1974; Akhmano a 1977; Гринев 1993; Даниленко 1971, 1977;
Канделаки 1977; Лейчик 1989; Суперанская, Подольская, Василье ва
1989, 1993).
In 1980s–1990s as he esul o wide scope o e minological esea ch
esul ing in mo e han 100 annually de ended disse a ions (G ine 1993),
a numbe o e minological disciplines eme ged, including compa a i e
e minology science, conce ned wi h ansla ion and ha monisa ion o
e minology (Лейчик 1988; Циткина 1987, 1988); e minog aphy,
conce ned wi h op imiza ion o design and elabo a ion o e minological
dic iona ies and e m banks (Герд 1986; Гринев 1986, 1995; Марчук
1992), his o ical e minology science, conce ned wi h disco e ing ends
in de elopmen o concep s and e minological o ms (Ткачева 1987б;
2 6 Se giusz G iniewicz | Te minological Ac i i ies: P inciples and Pe spec i es
Диа нова 1995, 2000; Хижняк 1997а, б; Борнхвальд 2000; Фельде (Борнх
вальд) 2001) and ypological e minological science conce ned wi h
es ablishing gene al and speci ic ea u es o e minologies (Казарина 1998;
Володина 1997; Авербух 2004; Сложеникина 2005).
In he Russian s anda ds o he 1960s and pa ially 1970s due o he
huge amoun o wo k o be done in a sho ime, he abo e men ioned
di e gence in heo y and p ac ice and he absence o ained e minologis s
and me hodical ma e ials ( he i s ins uc ion on s anda dising e minology
appea ed only in 1977) one may ind all o he classical mis akes in
de ining concep s and choosing op imal e minological o ms. The absence
o p elimina y sys ema isa ion and coo dina ion esul ed in o e lapping
s anda ds con aining he same e ms wi h di e en de ini ions wi h he
concu en absence o s anda ds o a numbe o subjec ields. A he
same ime in he 1970s–1980s he e was accumula ed a conside able
expe ience o coo dina ion in p epa ing in o ma ion e ie al hesau i ha
may be used in o ganising sys emic o de ing o special ocabula y. Wi h
an es ablished in e es o linguis s in e minological p oblems, s anda d
guides and ins uc ions on o ganising e minological wo k h oughou he
coun y we e wo ked ou , o :
- o ganising leading b anch o ganisa ions esponsible o s anda dising
e minology;
 o ganising and managing b anch bases o s anda dised e minology;
- co-o dina ing o s anda dising e minology wi h de eloping
linguis ic means o in o ma ion e ie al sys ems;
- co-o dina ion o sepa a e e minologies wi hin he gene al sys em
o e ms;
 s anda dising e minology;
- s anda dising abb e ia ions o wo ds and wo d-combina ions o he
Russian language;
- ha monising e minology, e c.
A numbe o di ec ions o e minology wo k had aken shape in Russia
a he end o 1980s. One o hem is e minological in en o y — collec ion
and p elimina y desc ip ion o special lexemes o he chosen subjec ield —
which may ake o m o an independen wo k esul ing in desc ip i e
e minological dic iona y, hough usually i se es as a p elimina y condi ion
2 7Te minologija | 2013 | 20
and s age o e minology o de ing — he cen al and mos impo an
e minological wo k aimed a ans o ming e minologies — na u ally
o med collec ions o e ms o pa icula subjec ields in o e m sys ems —
o de ed se s o e ms wi h he es ablished ela ions be ween hem e lec ing
he espec i e ela ions be ween concep s. Expe ience showed he complex
na u e o e minology o de ing which consis s o a numbe o s ages,
desc ibed by p o . Pich (Pich 2009: 15–16) and in he ISO 704 Te minology
wo k: P inciples and me hods.
O he di ec ions o e minological wo k included:
co-o dina ion o na ional e minological ac i i ies (a complex o ac ions
owa ds es ablishing sys em o ins i u ions and p ojec s commi ed o
egula ing and ad ancemen o na ional e minologies);
co-o dina ion o sepa a e e minologies wi hin he gene al sys em o
e ms;
design and cons uc ion o e m-sys ems o new ields o knowledge;
he e, besides c ea ing a new e m-sys em based on ce ain pa e ns,
a se o ules o o ming new e ms is elabo a ed and sugges ed;
e minog aphic wo k — compiling a ious e minological
dic iona ies and da a bases;
e minological edi ing;
e minological expe ise;
e minological ansla ion;
e minological documen a ion and in o ma ion se ices;
no malised e minology implemen ing;
e minological aining o specialis s;
e minological aining o non-specialis s;
e minological managemen ;
e minology planning.
Di ec ions o e minological esea ch we e shaped by he p oblems which
had o be sol ed in e minological wo k. As he esul o such esea ch
some heo e ical p inciples conce ning a ious s ages and ypes o
e minological wo k we e o mula ed. These p inciples do no belong
exclusi ely o he Russian scien i ic school, because hey we e wo ked ou
collec i ely wi h pa icipa ion o e minologis s om p ac ically e e y
o me So ie Republic.
2 8 Se giusz G iniewicz | Te minological Ac i i ies: P inciples and Pe spec i es
I is assumed ha e minology science deals wi h he p inciples o :
 elabo a ing gene al me hods o s udy o e minologies;
- in es iga ing he main ypes o concep s, hei de ini ions and
ela ions be ween hem;
- iden i ying and desc ibing he main ypes o special lexical uni s,
analysis o hei peculia i ies;
 seman ic (semasiological) analysis o e minologies;
- s uc u al (onomasiological) analysis o e minologies and main
means o o ming new e ms in a ious languages and a ious ields
o knowledge;
- analyzing peculia i ies o o ma ion and de elopmen o
e minologies in a ious languages and a ious ields o knowledge;
- es ablishing he op imal p inciples o designing, elabo a ing and
pe ec ing a ious ypes o dic iona ies;
- compa a i e analysis o a ious modes o implemen ing no malised
e minology;
- elabo a ing e ec i e means o e minological edi ing and
e minological expe ise;
 elabo a ing e ec i e means o e minological ansla ion;
 es ablishing e ec i e me hods o e minology aining;
- la ely, hanks o p o . Pich ’s cons an eminde s, in es iga ing o he
han e bal, semio ic deno a ions o concep s;
- in es iga ing he ole o e minologies in cogni ion and acqui ing
knowledge, as well as in special educa ion and communica ion;
- elabo a ing main p inciples o o ganisa ion o na ional e minological
ac i i ies and e minology planning.
The e we e many Russian publica ions conce ned wi h he me hods
o s udy o e minologies. Some o he gene al me hods we e al eady
sho ly desc ibed in G ine -G iniewicz (2011).
In in es iga ing he main ypes o concep s i seems necessa y o
pay a en ion o di e en ia ing na u al o lexible concep s which a e
concep s, ha ing a ini e numbe o essen ial ea u es which o m he
nucleus o he concep and a lexible pe iphe y, whe e he e is no se led
and uni e sally accep ed opinion and ma ix concep s — p ecisely de ined
and uni e sally app o ed — he o me no men ioned in he exis ing
guides on o de ing e minology. In es iga ing he main ypes o concep s
and ela ions be ween hem is adi ionally conside ed he domain o

2 9Te minologija | 2013 | 20
logicians. Howe e , when i comes o de ini ions e minologis s succeeded
in adding some equi emen s o linguis ic cha ac e , such as uni o mi y
o syn ax and lexical ea u es in de ini ions o simila concep s, b e i y
o de ini ion wi h exclusion o edundan in o ma ion and idle exp essions,
a oiding unnecessa y de ini ions when he speci ic ea u es a e ep esen ed
in he o m o e m (Гринев 1993: 89–90; ГриневГриневич 2008: 85–87).
Iden i ying and desc ibing he main ypes o special lexemes
s a ed wi h he p oblem o es ablishing speci ic ea u es o a e m in
con as o a common wo d. A he end o he 1970s he dispu e conce ning
he di e ence be ween a e m and an o dina y wo d inally was se led
on he basis ha e m deno es a concep — a uni o knowledge c ea ed
by a unique combina ion o cha ac e is ics, and he o dina y wo d deno es
a no ion which is a senso y-di ec , gene alised image o objec s and
phenomena o eali y ha is p ese ed and ep oduced in memo y wi hou
he di ec in luence o hose objec s and phenomena on he senso y o gans.
On he scale o consciousness no ions a e a s ep lowe han concep s and
belong o he le el o memo y. Disco e ing a he same ime ha special
ocabula y is no limi ed o e ms only, caused some cons e na ion and
he need o iden i y and desc ibe he main ypes o special lexical uni s.
Al eady in he 1980s such main ypes as e minoids, p e- e ms, quasi-
e ms, p o o- e ms, p o essionalisms and nomens we e gene ally desc ibed
(G ine 1996; Гринев 1993: 41–52; Шелов 1985), hough no in es iga ed
as ho oughly as e ms, he numbe o a ious e ealed ea u es o e ms
eaching mo e han wo hund ed — 265 (Гринев 1998: 61–76). I seems
expedien o s udy all o he special lexemes u he wi h he special
a en ion owa ds nomens — names o unique concep s, and ha o wo
easons. Fi s ly, hey la ely p e ail in special lexicons, making up, pe haps
99% o he o e all numbe o special lexemes; and secondly, a la ge pa
o hem may be easily egula ed and o med acco ding o ce ain ules.
O de ing e ms has wo aspec s — uni ica ion aimed a elimina ing
disc epancies be ween lexical meaning o a e m and e minological
meaning ( he con en o espec i e concep ) and op imisa ion, conce ned
wi h he choice o he op imal o ms and means o o ming e ms. The
co esponding di ec ions o esea ch became adi ional in e minological
s udies and nowadays ook he shape o espec i e e minological sub-
disciplines — semasiological e minology science and onomasiological
e minology science.
3 0 Se giusz G iniewicz | Te minological Ac i i ies: P inciples and Pe spec i es
O de ing e ms should p esuppose a mul i-aspec analysis o e minology,
which is ca ied ou wi h he aim o es ablishing no only he exis ing
d awbacks bu also endencies o i s de elopmen . Such in es iga ion
should consis i s o seman ic analysis, wi h he aim o ind ou a ious
de ia ions om he one- o-one co espondence be ween he lexical and
e minological meanings o e ms. The e also should be ca ied ou o mal-
s uc u al and e ymological analyses — o es ablish he mos e ec i e
means and pa e ns o p oducing e ms in he chosen subjec ield, as
well as he exis ing unsui able o ms and means o hei imp o emen o
subs i u ion; hen unc ional analysis o ind peculia i ies o usage o e ms
(Гак, Лейчик 1981) and inally diach onic analysis o disco e endencies
o de elopmen o he chosen e minology (Алексеева 1994; Алесенко
2000; Клепальченко 1999; Миронова 2002; Филиппова 1996; Герд 1971;
Кутина 1964, 1966), and pa ame ic app oach (G ine 1992; G ine 
G iniewicz 2011: 30). Such app oach may ensu e igh decisions in o ming
a e m sys em.
In seman ic analysis o e minologies he e is s ill much o be done.
In synonymy i seems expedien o es ablish a gene ally accep ed
classi ica ion o synonyms and also o de ine mo e p ecisely a io o a ious
ypes o ull synonyms which may be used as lexical esou ces o c ea ing
names o species in he p ocess o cogni ion. Apa om synonymy and
polysemy he e we e ound o he ypes o disc epancy o lexical and
e minological meanings. Some imes meaning o he lexical o m may
con ain supe luous cha ac e is ics — in au ological e ms, such as li ing
la s, li ing houses, auma ic inju y, plans o he u u e, o , on he con a y,
i may lack he essen ial cha ac e is ics o he concep . These a e cases o
using a lexical o m wi h a b oad meaning o a na ow concep — he
B i ish s anda d BS 4118:1967 Glossa y o Sani a ion Te ms sugges s he
e m capaci y o naming a e y specialised concep “s o age cis e n
capaci y”, e m angle in he meaning “a i ing used on a ainwa e gu e
o change he di ec ion o he gu e ” and e m chai in he meaning “a
me al ame o building in o a hin pa i ion wall and he loo so as o
p o ide means o suppo ing a wash basin, W.C. pan o o he sani a y
appliance clea o he loo ”. In he B i ish S anda d BS 2780:1972 Glossa y
o lea he e ms he b oad e m bend is p esen ed in he na ow meaning —
“hal o a ca le hide bu , ob ained by di iding i along he line o he
backbone”, e c. I also becomes necessa y o in es iga e a new phenomenon
3 1Te minologija | 2013 | 20
which is pa onymy playing he ole o limi in using e m a ia ion in
c ea ing new ela ed e ms ( o example e ms onomasiology and onomas ics
a e o en con used by he philology s uden s).
Analysis o he main means o o ming new e ms is necessa y o
choosing he mos e ec i e ones. Thei classi ica ion is p esen ed in G ine -
G iniewicz 2011: 36; he e we may s a e hei main me i s and aul s.
Seman ic e m- o ma ion. One o he oldes , adi ional ways o o ming
new e ms is me apho ic ans e o he meaning o a common wo d (la e
o a e m) on he basis o compa ison. I is based on wo main ypes o
simila i y — ex e io simila i y o shape, e.g. neck and body (o a column),
ee h (o a saw), hood (o en ila o ) o posi ion, e.g. oo (o a page, o a
moun ain), head (o a bol ); and simila i y o unc ion, e.g. ho n (ala m
signalling de ice); leade (di ec ing gu e o oo d ain).
Te ms may be also o med by me onymy — a ans e o he meaning
on he basis o con igui y. The e a e a ious ypes o me onymy:
- he ma e ial o an objec may become he name o he objec , e.g. a
glass, boa ds, i on e c.;
- name o he place may become he name o an objec ound o
p oduced he e, e.g. cana y (bi d), u key, china (po celain), cashme e
(woollen ab ic);
- names o in en o s o en become e ms deno ing hings hey
in en ed, e.g. wa , ohm, oen gen, e c.;
- name o a p ocess o en acqui es a seconda y meaning o : a) esul o
he p ocess: classi ica ion (p ocess) – classi ica ion ( esul ), de ini ion
(p ocess) – de ini ion ( esul ), bo owing (p ocess) – bo owing ( esul );
b) means o ca ying ou an ac ion: ca ch (ac ion) – ca ch (window o
doo de ice); sp ay (ac ion) – sp ay (de ice); c) place o ac ion o
espec i e cons uc ion: ma ke ( ade) – ma ke (cons uc ion). Some
names o ope a ions, such as cladding, coa ing, loo ing, insula ion and
wadding a e also used o name bo h sou ce ma e ial and esul .
Ch onologically nex is specializing he meaning o an e e yday wo d
o a b oade e m, e.g. case wi h a gene al meaning “ci cums ances in which
a pe son o a hing is” is specialised becoming a e m in law (a law sui ),
in g amma (a o m in he pa adigm o a noun), o in medicine (an illness).
Ele a ion in linguis ics becomes ele a ion (o meaning); in building we
ha e lime (cemen ) o med om a wo d meaning “any gluing subs ance”.
3 2 Se giusz G iniewicz | Te minological Ac i i ies: P inciples and Pe spec i es
Ch onologically la e appea s bo owing om o he e minologies: in
building e ms ancho , awning came om na al e minology, an ennas —
om biology, landscape — om pain ing e minology, ench — om
mili a y e minology, e c.
Seman ic e m o ma ion is esponsible o app oxima ely 3% o he
special ocabula y, hough in he young e minologies he amoun o
such e ms is g ea e , bu hey usually o m he nucleus o e minology
and a e used as base o de i a ion, composi ion and wo d-combina ion
(Гринев 1993: 134). They a e sho , mo i a ed and a e equen ly used,
o en a e hype onyms, many o hem a e names o e minologies. A he
same ime usage o seman ic e m- o ma ion leads o polysemy and
homonymy. When such homonymic o ms a e used in di e en subjec
ields i does no cause any p oblems ( e minological o m mo phology
is used qui e con enien ly in biology, geology and linguis ics), bu when
as he esul o seman ic ans e wo o ms a e used in he same science,
as, o example double (e ymological) and double (absolu e synonym)
in lexicology, o as names o p ocesses, hei means and esul s, i becomes
e y incon enien .
Mo phologic e m- o ma ion accoun s o abou 5% o he whole special
ocabula y (Гринев 1993: 134). The mos p oduc i e means o mo phologic
e m- o ma ion is su ixa ion. Analysis o he usage o su ixes in coining
new e ms e eals some in e es ing phenomena. Fi s ly, he e is a endency
o exp ess ca ego ies by ce ain su ixes:
- p ocesses by he su ixes -ing/1/ and -a ion/1/ – ex ac ing,
polishing, exca a ion, discolou a ion;
- agen s by he su ixes -e /1/, -o /1/, -an – welde , expedi o , elec ician;
- equipmen by he su ixes -e /2/ (-o /2/) – sc ape , loade , en ila o ;
- esul s by he su ixes -ing/2/, -a ion/2/ – loo ing, insula ion;
He e we also ind specialised su ixes o mine als: -i e – bio i e, dia omi e,
ch omi e; and chemical subs ances: a e, -ine, -ide, -oid, -um – chlo a e,
chlo ine, chlo ide, celluloid, calcium.
Secondly, we may no ice bo h synonymy and polysemy o su ixes: su ix
-e /o may be used o o m e ms wi h he ollowing meanings: agen ,
doe o he ac ion exp essed by he s em (speake ), p o ession ( eache ),
a ool ( ansmi e ), a chemical agen ( e a de , ha dene , plas icize ), la ely
a compu e p og am (d i e , supe iso ).
3 9Te minologija | 2013 | 20
When long wo d-combina ions appea ing as he esul o applying syn ax
means o nomina ion a e equen ly used hey a e o en sho ened, e.g.
ai cooling equipmen – ai coole , cable ca ailway – cable ailway, cable
pulling ools – cable ools.
Analyzing peculia i ies o o ma ion and de elopmen o
e minologies acili a es he choice o ways o p oducing new e ms. In
medicine, as he esul o ypological esea ch i was ound ha he e a e
h ee ypes o e minologies. The i s one is used in a ious b anches o
su ge y (gene al, abdominal, neu osu ge y, ca dio ascula , auma ology,
e c.) and is cha ac e ised by using p ecise, La inised, usually compound
in e na ional o ms. Te minology used in hygiene (gene al, communal,
pe sonal, p o essional) is close o common ocabula y, imp ecise and has
na ional cha ac e . Te minology o b anches o clinical medicine uses bo h
ypes o e ms wi h a sligh p edominance o he i s ype.
Es ablishing he op imal p inciples o designing, elabo a ing and
pe ec ing a ious ypes o dic iona ies is ho oughly discussed in
(ГриневГриневич 2007). Su ice i o say ha on he basis o expe ience
in compiling a he same ime se e al ypes o dic iona ies and compa ison
o mo e han 300 de ining and ansla ing e minological dic iona ies an
op imal p ocedu e was elabo a ed o compiling a dic iona y o a good
quali y on he basis o he p elimina y chosen scope (gene al, b anch,
specialized), pu pose (de ining, ansla ing, no malizing, educa ional) and
numbe o languages o be co e ed (monolingual, bilingual, poly-lingual).
Regis a ion o he no malised e m sys em used in implemen ing
no malised e minology may ake a ious o ms:
 s anda dising ( he s ic es o m used o echnical e minologies);
- ecommending ( he less demanding o m used by he Commi ee
o Scien i ic and echnical e minology o he USSR Academy o
Sciences o scien i ic e ms);
- indi ec ways o no malising e minology usage in in o ma ion
sys ems.
Expe ience gained in he las yea s added a new o m which was ound
o be he mos e ec i e — p epa ing new manuals based on he no malised/
elabo a ed e minological sys ems. I was ound ha usage o his o m
o in oducing e m sys ems, hough no explici ly es ic i e, has e en
mo e compulsi e cha ac e han s anda ds, because such manuals lea e

4 0 Se giusz G iniewicz | Te minological Ac i i ies: P inciples and Pe spec i es
no place o o he names o concep s — he u u e specialis s abso b he
o de ed sys em o e ms oge he wi h he o de ed sys em o concep s.
The e a e easons o belie e ha he same app oach should be used in
p epa ing new o icial dec ees and no ma i e documen s as well.
The wo k on elabo a ing e ec i e means o e minological edi ing
was s a ed by a g oup o au ho s (Квитко, Лейчик, Кабанцев 1986). A
he same ime a guide was p epa ed by VNIIKI o o ganizing and ca ying
ou e minological expe ise. In ou opinion he majo i y o he s a e
documen s, beginning wi h he cons i u ion and legal codes (which
essen ially a e collec ions o concep s and hei de ini ions) should pass
such expe ise.
Es ablishing e ec i e me hods o e minology aining should
p esuppose a ious ypes o such ac i i ies. We may di e en ia e a leas
h ee ypes o such aining:
- p epa ing specialis s in e minology heo y and me hods, which s a s
wi h special cou ses o linguis s and all in e es ed in pa icipa ing in
e minological wo k and is ollowed by p epa ing PhD and D .Sc.
disse a ions;
- cou ses o in oduc ion in speciali y based on p esen ing subjec as
a sys em o concep s and e ms. The e is al eady some expe ience
and manuals o his ype in Russia (see Помпеев 1976);
- amilia ising cou ses o linguis s ( i s o all ansla o s) as pa o
LSP. Such cou ses we e o ganised in he USSR in he 1970s by he
Ins i u e o Ad anced T aining o In o ma ion Specialis s (ИПКИР);
- basic cou ses o e minological echniques o specialis s engaged in
e minological wo k (in many cases inc eases in e ms o wo k and
low-quali y p ojec s a e he esul s o absence o e minological
compe ence o execu o s).
In es iga ing a ious semio ic deno a ions o concep s p esupposes
esea ch in gene al and applied semio ics (Гринев 2000; ГриневГриневич,
Сорокина 2012) as well as analysis in he a ea o in e sec ion o semio ics
and e minology science (G ine 1997; Pich 2009, 2011).
In es iga ing he ole o e minologies in cogni ion should be
ounded on aking accoun o he ac ha cogni ion is he men al p ocess
o acqui ing knowledge and unde s anding h ough hough , expe ience,
and he senses ha s a s wi h eme gence o human species and is peculia
4 1Te minologija | 2013 | 20
o human beings. De ining cogni ion as a p ocess de e mines he need
o diach onic app oach in i s analysis. Te minological diach onic s udies
ha esul ed in o ming, i s (in 2000) o his o ical e minology science
and hen in 2004 — o an h opolinguis ics e ealed ha , alongside wi h
he s age de elopmen o easoning he e is he s age de elopmen o
language pe cep ion and a i udes owa ds language, beginning wi h
igno ance o he exis ence o language in ea ly c oMagnon man, hen
asc ip ion o language magical powe s in p imi i e easoning o p e-
scien i ic epoch and p imi i e cul u es, hen desc ip i e app oach o cope
wi h he d as ic g ow h o ocabula y in p o o-scien i ic pe iod and
a emp s a language pe ec ion and elimina ion o he mos e iden
d awbacks in special ocabula ies. The nex , in e ening pe iod a o ds
an oppo uni y o u n o he conscious, me iculous, planned egula ion
o he imp o able pa o language — namely special ocabula y. This
should be based on a numbe o p inciples.
Elabo a ing main p inciples o o ganisa ion o na ional e mino-
logical ac i i ies and e minology planning becomes a mus o
mino languages in he e a o globalisa ion. The Russian e o s in his
di ec ion in 1970s–1990s esul ed in a numbe o ac i i ies:
- es ima ion o he main di ec ions and co e age o heo e ical
esea ch, which was conduc ed in he 1980s–1990s and esul ed in
su ey o disse a ions (G ine 1993), bibliog aphy o e minological
publica ions (Татаринов 1998) and bibliog aphy o success ully
de ended disse a ions o e minological cha ac e (ГриневГрине
вич e al. 2006);
- bibliog aphies o he ac ing e minological s anda ds, p epa ed in he
1980s–1990s a VNIIKI;
 bank o s anda dised e minology (ROSTERM) a VNIIKI con aining
now mo e ha 140,000 e minological en ies;
- glossa ies o he Russian e minology o e minology science
(Гринев 1998; Татаринов 2006);
 in oduc o y manuals in e minology science (Гринев 1993; Гринев
Гриневич 2008) and e minog aphy (Гринев 1995; ГриневГриневич
2009) based on p elimina y sys ema ised concep s and e minology.
The e a e easons o belie e ha he simila di ec ions o ac i i ies
(on a smalle scale), supplemen ed by conscious planning o na ional
4 2 Se giusz G iniewicz | Te minological Ac i i ies: P inciples and Pe spec i es
e minology o de ing, managemen and ad ancemen men ioned in
(G iniewicz 2010) should be use ul o mino languages. I we ake o
example Li huania, e minology policy should be de e mined on he basis
o es ima ing he s a e o he p esen e minology, namely:
 o ganising a base o he exis ing e minological dic iona ies;
- wha has al eady been done in e minological esea ch — collec ing
e minological publica ions and assessing he exis ing p oblems;
- collec ing s anda dised na ional e ms in he o m o e minological
da a bank;
- analysis o endencies in o ming o na ional e minologies based
on his o ical s udies and ecen de elopmen ;
- analysing his o ical endencies in bo owing. In his imp essi e su ey
o he pas o li huanian language Jonas Klima ičius commen ed
on he bad in luence o o ced bilingualism (wi h Polish, Russian
and English) in he his o y o li huania (Klima ičius 2008). Now
Li huania as an independen coun y may compa e expe iences o
in e ac ion wi h a ious languages and ind ou wha na ional o ms
pe sis ed and su i ed in compe i ion wi h o eign lexical uni s,
paying a en ion no only o nega i e bu also o posi i e aspec s o
such in e ac ion;
- es ima ing needs in o de ing/de eloping e minology in a ious
b anches o knowledge.
In o ma ion collec ed may se e as basis o language policy ac ions,
some o which a e men ioned in Guidelines o Te minology Policies p epa ed
by In o e m (GTP), and which should include:
- p epa ing o choosing a sui able manual on e minology and
e minog aphy, o ganising cou ses on e minology science and LSP
in highe educa ion ins i u ions;
- p epa ing ins uc ions o specialis s pa icipa ing in e minological
wo k;
- o ganising cou ses o specialis s pa icipa ing in e minological
wo k;
- sys ema isa ion o Li huanian ocabula y and p epa ing sys ema ic
dic iona y, se ing as he nucleus o na ional e minology;
- compa ing a ious ypes o e m- o ming and designing pa e ns o
special nomina ion o a ious b anches o knowledge;
4 3Te minologija | 2013 | 20
- assessing possibili ies o using he exis ing admi able in o ma ion
on dialec al lexical ma e ial in naming new concep s;
- de ining bo owing policy — es ablishing p e e able ypes o
bo owing (ma e ial bo owings, loan ansla ions, mixed
bo owings) o a ious b anches o knowledge;
 wo king ou p inciples o cons uc ing echnical nomens;
- in es iga ing possibili ies o con olling o ms o p agmonyms.
These ac i i ies may be iewed as pa o a complex p og amme o
ci ilised language expansion, based on such an ou s anding ea u e o
Li huanian language as i s being one o he oldes li ing Indo-Eu opean
languages e aining many a chaic linguis ic ea u es also cha ac e is ic o
La in and Sansk i . Pe haps appeal o unds o o gans o he Eu opean
Union esponsible o cul u al he i age would be p ope . O he measu es
o p omo ion o Li huanian may be:
- add essing all Eu opean uni e si ies whe e he e a e cou ses o
gene al and compa a i e-his o ical linguis ics wi h sugges ions o
o ganising cou ses in li huanian;
- p e e en ial e ms o employmen in he coun y o na i e speake s
o o he languages who s udy and know li huanian;
 cou ses o li huanian ee o cha ge;
- p epa ing eache s o Li huanian o a ious coun ies.
CONCLUSION
Su ey o bo h heo e ical and p ac ical e minological ac i i ies in he
o me USSR and Russia o he las 50 yea s shows ha in ensi e
de elopmen o e minology heo y in he 1980s–1990s esul ed in
o mula ing p inciples o a ious di ec ions o e minology wo k ha ook
shape a ha ime. Some o hese p inciples may be success ully applied
in e minology policy and planning o mino languages.
SOURCES
BS 2780:1972 Glossa y o lea he e ms, London: B i ish S anda ds Ins i u ion.
BS 4118:1967 Glossa y o sani a ion e ms, London: B i ish S anda ds Ins i u ion.
GTP – Guidelines o Te minology Policies. Fo mula ing and implemen ing e minology policy in language
communi ies (CI-2005/WS/4). P epa ed by In o e m, Pa is: UNESCO, 2005.
ISO 1087-1:2000 Te minology wo k – Vocabula y. Pa 1. Theo y and applica ion.
ISO 704 Te minology wo k: P inciples and me hods
ISO WD 1087-1.5:94 Te minology wo k – Vocabula y. Pa 1.
4 4 Se giusz G iniewicz | Te minological Ac i i ies: P inciples and Pe spec i es
REFERENCES
Akhmano a O., Agapo a G. (eds.) 1974: Te minology: Theo y and Me hod, Moscow.
Akhmano a O. 1977: Linguis ic Te minology, Moscow.
G ine S V. 1992: Desc ip ion o Te minology: a Pa ame ical App oach. – IITF Jou nal 3(1), 41–46.
G ine S. V. 1993: Te minological Resea ch in he o me uSSR. – Knowledge O ganiza ion 20(3), 150–159.
G ine S. V. 1996: Te minology and Nomencla u e in Russian Te minology Science. – Te minologie und
Nomencla u e, Lang, 25–42.
G ine S. V. 1997: Some Semio ic Aspec s o Te minology Science. – P oceedings o he 11 h Eu opean
Symposium on LSP, copenhagen, Augus 1997, 300–307.
G ine -G iniewicz S. 2011: Te minological me hods in he his o y o e minology science. – Te minologija 18,
27–42.
G iniewicz S. 2010: Te minology and language policy ( owa ds es ablishing udimen s o linguopoli ology). –
Te minologija 17, 16–20.
Klima ičius J. 2008: lie u ių kalba i isuomenė: bend asis i e minologinis aspek ai (The li huanian
Language and Socie y: Gene al and Te minological Aspec s). – Te minologija 15, 56–104.
Pich H. 2009: The Se en Pilla s o Te minology. – Te minologija 16, 8–22.
Pich H. 2011: The Science o Te minology: His o y and E olu ion. – Te minologija 18, 6–26.
Авербух К. Я. 2004: Общая теория термина, Иваново.
Алексеева О. Б. 1994: Когнитивные аспекты диахронического исследования терминологии строитель-
ных материалов. Дисс. … канд. филол. наук, Москва.
Алесенко Т. А. 2000: Особенности формирования современных межотраслевых терминологий (на мате-
риале сопоставительного анализа терминологии воды в английском и русском языках), Москва.
Анюшкин Е. С. 1978: Преимущества и недостатки двуязычных переводных научнотехнических сло-
варей. – Проблемы общей и терминологической лексикографии, Баку, 7–9.
Анюшкин Е. С., Анюшкина Г. К. 1980: О некоторых типичных недостатках в содержании и оформ-
лении переводных научнотехнических словарей. – Лингвистические аспекты терминологии, Воро-
неж, 90–98.
Борнхвальд О. В. 2000: Историческое терминоведение русского языка, Красноярск.
Володина М. Н. 1997: Теория терминологической номинации, Москва.
Гак В. Г., Лейчик В. М. 1981: Субституция терминов в синтагматическом аспекте. – Терминология и
культура речи, Москва, 47–57.
Герд А. С. 1968: Проблемы формирования научной терминологии. Автореф. дис. ... докт. фил. наук,
Ленинград.
Герд А. С. 1971: Проблемы становления и унификации научной терминологии. – Вопросы языкозна-
ния 1, 14–22.
Герд А. С. 1986: Основы научно-технической лексикографии, Ленинград.
Головин Б. Н. 1968: Термин и слово. – Термин и слово, Горький, 3–12.
Головин Б. Н. 1981: Типы терминосистем и основания их различения. – Термин и слово, Горький, 3–10.
Головин Б. Н., Кобрин Р. Ю. 1987: Лингвистические основы учения о терминах, Горький.
Гринев С. В. 1968: Введение в терминологическую лексикографию. Учебное пособие, Москва.
Гринев С. В. 1993: Введение в терминоведение, Москва.
Гринев С. В. 1995: Введение в терминографию, Москва.
Гринев С. В. 1998: Исторический систематизированный словарь терминов терминоведения. Учебное
пособие, Москва.
Гринев С. В. 2000: Основы семиотики, Москва.
ГриневГриневич 2007: О принципах создания терминологических словарей. – Te minologija 14, 20–36.
ГриневГриневич С. В. 2008: Терминоведение. Учеб. пособие для студ. высш. учеб. заведений, Москва.
ГриневГриневич С. В. 2009: Введение в терминографию: Как просто и легко составить словарь. Учеб-
ное пособие. Изд. 3е, доп., Москва.
ГриневГриневич С. В., Гринева В. П., Минкова Л. П., Скопюк Т. Г. 2006: Указатель терминологиче-
ских диссертаций. Справочное пособие, Белосток–Москва.
ГриневГриневич С. В., Сорокина Э. А. 2012: Основы семиотики. Учебное пособие, Москва.
Даниленко В. П. 1971: Лексикосемантические и грамматические особенности словтерминов. – Ис-
следования по русской терминологии, Москва, 5–67.

4 5Te minologija | 2013 | 20
Даниленко В. П. 1977: Русская терминология. Опыт лингвистического описания, Москва.
Даниленко В. П., Скворцов Л. И. 1982: Нормативные основы унификации терминологии. – Культура
речи в технической документации, Москва, 5–35.
Дианова Г. А. 1995: Язык алхимии: становление языка английской химической литературы 15–18 вв.,
Москва.
Дианова Г. А. 2000: Термин и понятие: проблемы эволюции (к основам исторического терминоведения),
Москва.
Иванов С. З. 1967: Терминология сахарного производства, Москва.
Казарина С. Г. 1998: Типологические характеристики отраслевых терминологий, Краснодар.
Канделаки Т. Л. 1977: Семантика и мотивированность терминов, Москва.
Квитко И. С., Лейчик В. М., Кабанцев Г. Г. 1986: Терминоведческие проблемы редактирования, Львов.
Клепальченко И. А. 1999: Сопоставительный анализ лексики семантической группы «Лестницы и эле-
менты лестничных конструкций» (на материале английского и русского языков). Автореф. дис. …
канд. филол. наук, Москва.
Кобрин Р. Ю. 1979: О принципах терминологической работы при создании тезаурусов для
информационнопоисковых систем. – Научно-техническая информация 2(6), 1–9.
Кобрин Р. Ю., Пекарская Л. А. 1977: Лингвостатистический анализ употребления терминов норма-
тивных словарей и ГОСТов в реальных научнотехнических текстах. – Языковая норма и стати-
стика, Москва, 265–279.
Кутина Л. Л. 1964: Формирование языка русской науки: терминология математики, астрономии, гео-
графии в первой трети XVIII века, Москва–Ленинград.
Кутина Л. Л. 1966: Формирование терминологии физики в России, Москва–Ленинград.
Кутина Л. Л. 1970: Языковые процессы, возникающие при становлении научных терминологических
систем. – Лингвистические проблемы научно-технической терминологии, Москва, 82–94.
Лейчик В. М. 1988: Основные положения сопоставительного терминоведения. – Отраслевая термино-
логия и ее структурно-типологическое описание, Воронеж, 3–10.
Лейчик В. М. 1989: Предмет, методы и структура терминоведения. Автореф. дис. ... докт. филол.
наук, Москва.
Марчук Ю. Н. 1992: Основы терминографии, Москва.
Миронова Е. Е. 2002: Проблемы эволюции архитектурной терминологии (на примере английской лекси-
ки поля «Окна и двери»). Дис. … канд. филол. наук, Москва.
Помпеев Ю. А. 1976: Основы строительной специальности, Ленинград.
Сложеникина Ю. В. 2005: Термин: семантическое, формальное, функциональное варьирование, Самара.
Сорокалетов Ф. П. 1970: История военной лексики в русском языке 11–17 в., Ленинград.
Суперанская А. В., Подольская Н. В., Васильева Н. В. 1989: Общая терминология: Вопросы теории,
Москва.
Суперанская А. В., Подольская Н. В., Васильева Н. В. 1993: Общая терминология: Терминологическая
деятельность, Москва.
Татаринов В. А. 1996–2004: Теория терминоведения. В 3 т., Москва.
Татаринов В. А. 1998: Терминоведение. Указатель работ, опубликованных отечественными терминоло-
гами в 20 веке, Москва.
Татаринов В. А. 2006: Общее терминоведение. Энциклопедический словарь, Москва.
Ткачева Л. Б. 1987а: Актуальные вопросы терминологии в социолингвистическом освещении. Автореф.
дис. ... доктора фил. наук, Ленинград.
Ткачева Л. Б. 1987б: Основные закономерности английской терминологии, Томск.
Фельде О. В. (Борнхвальд) 2001: Историческое терминоведение в теории и практике, Красноярск.
Филиппова Е. В. 1996: Эволюция английской онкологической терминологии. Автореф. дисс. … канд.
филол. наук, Москва.
Хижняк С. П. 1997а: Англо-американская и русская терминология права: Социолингвистический аспект
возникновения и развития, Саратов.
Хижняк С. П. 1997б: Юридическая терминология: формирование и состав, Саратов.
Циткина Ф. А. 1987: Сопоставительное терминоведение: теоретические вопросы и приложения. – Во-
просы языкознания 4, 114–124.
Циткина Ф. А. 1988: Терминология и перевод (к основам сопоставительного терминоведения), Львов.
Шелов С. Д. 1985: Об одном классе научнотехнической лексики (три подхода к выделению номен-
клатурных наименований). – Научно-техническая терминология 2(3), 1–7.
4 6 Se giusz G iniewicz | Te minological Ac i i ies: P inciples and Pe spec i es
TERMINOLOGIJOS VEIKLA: PRINCIPAI IR PERSPEKTYVOS
S aipsnyje umpai ap ašomos pag indinės p ak inės e minologijos eiklos k yp ys
i p incipai SSRS i Rusijoje pe pas a uosius penkiasdešim me ų. A k eipiamas dė-
mesys į e minologijos i sa a ankiškų jos disciplinų yšį. G ildenamos pag indinių są-
okų ipų y inėjimo, pag indinių specialiųjų leksemų ipų nus a ymo i ap ašymo,
a komos e minijos kompleksinės analizės, e minijos seman inio nag inėjimo p o-
blemos, apž elgiami s a biausių e minų da ybos būdų i ipų, suno min os e minijos
diegimo būdų, e minologų engimo p i alumai i ūkumai, e minologijos eiklos
o ganiza imo nacionaliniu lygmeniu p incipai i me odai. Remian is lie u ių kalbos
pa yzdžiu apž elgiami galimi bend ieji nacionalinės e minijos plė os ska inimo i
plana imo me odai.
ТЕРМИНОЛОГИЧЕСКАЯ ДЕЯТЕЛЬНОСТЬ: ПРИНЦИПЫ И ПЕРСПЕКТИВЫ
Дается краткое описание основных направлений практической терминологиче-
ской деятельности и ее теоретических принципов в СССР и России за последние
50 лет. Отмечается филиация терминоведения с появлением самостоятельных
терминоведческих дисциплин. Рассматриваются проблемы исследования основ-
ных типов понятий, выявления и описания основных типов специальных лексем,
комплексного анализа упорядочиваемых терминологий, семантического анализа
терминологий, разбираются достоинства и недостатки основных способов обра-
зования терминов, моделей образования терминов, способов введения упорядо-
ченных терминологий, подготовки терминоведов и терминологов, развитие вос-
приятия языка человеком в процессе его эволюции, принципы и методы органи-
зации национальной терминологической деятельности. На примере литовского
языка рассматриваются общие методы организации и планирования развития на-
циональной терминологии.
Gau a 20131104
Se giusz G iniewicz
TC 55 Te minology RF,
Uni e si y o Bialys ok
Waska 4, m. 20, Bialys ok, 15-481, Poland
E-mail g iniewicz@w. kb.pl