Statybos liaudies ir mokslo terminijos bendrybės ir skirtybės

4 2 R. Stunžinas | Commonalities and Differences in the Terminology of Folklore and Science in Construction Mykolas Romeris University This article discusses the main construction folk and science construction folk terminology research cycle. Before we begin, the similarities and differences of lytermia. This work continues the and its terminology is an important source of scientific terminology. The author's defense of these two terminology, it is said that the living language founder of Lithuanian terminology theory, philosopher St. Šalkauskis, in his work “Theory of terminology and Lithuanian terminology of philosophy” published in the journal Logos wrote that the words of ordinary people’s language are the main source of scientific terminology: “it is neither necessary to produce a new term nor to borrow a foreign one, if it is possible to adapt a word of ordinary people’s language to the experienced need of science in a satisfactory way” (Šalkauskis 1991: 55). The philosopher emphasized that plain language is not only the richest, but also the most understandable source of scientific terminology. This has also been discussed by prominent Lithuanian linguists K. Būga (1961: 784), J. Balčikonis (1978: 164), Pr. Skardžius (1997: 300). The importance of special words of the living language in the creation of terms for individual fields is also emphasized by terminologists. According to St. Keinis, the basis of terminology creation is constituted by the means of the own language, and in individual areas it is possible to rely extensively on the dialect vocabulary, especially on folk terms (2005: 232). The authors of the dictionary of construction terms – A. Kudzys, A. Rosinas and B. Kudzienė – write in the preface of the dictionary that the important terms in construction terminology are the regular terms of the living language used since ancient times (STŽ 2002: 6). However, despite this, the terminology of folk and science are different areas – “this is determined by the differences and contradictions of science, civilization and ethnicity in general, and the life of the people” (Klimavičius 2005: 133). As for the commonality of popular and scientific terms, both popular and scientific terms belong to the special lexical layer. Scientific terms are words or constant attributive words Terminology | 2010 | 17 4 3 terms that have a very definite meaning in the language of a particular field and that designate concepts as members of a certain system (Keinys 2005: 229). Popular terms are nomenclatural reflections of concentrated information. Like scientific terms, folk terms denote special concepts (Никитина 2009: 80). However, both scientific and folk terms are not merely types of words – they do not fit within the boundaries of the word alone and can be both single words and compounds (see Gaivenis 2000: 14, Jakaitienė 2010: 182). As already mentioned, the terminology of folk and science are different and separately functioning fields. J. Klimavičius claims that folk terminology is the source of scientific terminology – from it, scientific terminology takes terms for the purposes of naming the system of scientific concepts. However, the linguist points out that the borrowing is uneven: “By the way, not all branches of scientific terminology have the same depth of sources, sometimes there are no sources at all” (Klimavičius 2005: 133). This can be seen in the early terminology of construction science. The main source of terminology of construction science, which began to appear in periodicals in the middle and late 19th century, were popular terms. For example, in L. Ivinskio calendar (1846–1863) articles of farming advice, in the articles of the dawn medega statant trovas (1883–1886), in the monthly magazine for farmers published by the Lithuanian Society (1890–1905) Ukinįkas (Farmer) it is possible to detect construction concepts borrowed from the living language, e.g.: durelēs uk 1891 IV 175, durės uk 1890 II 22, gelźis M 1884 I–II 56, gomurys uk 1891 IV 174, grįczia uk 1891 IV 173, grindys uk 1891 IV 171, juszka uk 1891 IV 175, kakalis uk 1891 IV 173, kalkiai M 1884 I–II 56, kaminas uk 1891 IV 173, kliausmas uk 1891 IV 174, langas uk 1890 II 22, lenta uk 1891 IV 171, lubos uk 1891 IV 172, molis K 1849 31, namas K 1849 30, palubē uk 1891 IV 175, pamatas uk 1890 II 22, peczius uk 1891 IV 173, plyta uk 1891 IV 171, moss uk 1891 III 134, siena K 1849 31, walls uk 1891 III 132, barn uk 1891 IV 172, sand uk 1891 III 134, glass M 1884 I–II 56, roof tiles M 1884 I–II 56, plaster K 1849 31, plaster uk 1891 III 134, triob uk 1891 III 134, wreath uk 1891 III 132, winter K 1862 45. However, not all popular terms have entered the terminology of science in their literal meanings. St. Šalkauskis has drawn attention to the fact that common language words taken for the purpose of terminology are processed and their meanings are clarified, expanded, narrowed or moved according to analogy 4 4 R. Stunžinas | Common features and differences in the terminology of construction folk and science (Šalkauskis 1991: 24–31). Terminologists have also written about this (Keinys 2005: 231; Klimavičius 2005: 135; Gaivenis 2000: 52–53). According to J. Klimavičius, “the use of folk therapy is not the transfer of blood from one vessel to another, but the transfusion of blood according to the appropriate group, not the transfer from one place to another, but the transplantation or grafting” (2005: 135). It is universally accepted that scientific terms differ from ordinary words (including popular terms) in terms of specialization of meaning and a clear semantic boundary (LE XXXI 1964: 81; Гринев 1993: 29). After reviewing the terminology of construction science publications from the beginning of the 20th century (1910–1937), it is clear that construction concepts are often based on popular terms. Folk terms in the early construction science terminology refer to the basic construction concepts, and a large number of scientific terms almost correspond in meaning to folk terms, e.g.: stone Jod 2, oil Kind 32, coal Iv 48, oak Kind 7, beech Jan 16, spruce Jan 18, beam Kind 14, room Jan 14, barn Van 10, board Braž 2, ceiling Jan 15, clay Reis 1, house Zub 9, shoulder Braž 1, pine Jan 18, log Reis 24, wall Reis 1, sand Jan 9, shale Braž 10, frogs Van 28, gravel Reis 13. However, in many cases, the meanings of folk terms are specialized, narrowed or expanded, so that scientific terms can acquire new meanings, for example: salts Iod 1, floors Kind 13, furnaces Shim 4, ceilings (ceilings and ceilings) Shim 4. There are 125–134 classes of objects here, marked with the plural forms (see Stunžinas 2007: 125–134). Linguists have drawn attention to the fact that not all popular terms can be used in scientific terminology. Salys has written that “folk terms become generic only if they do not oppose logic and are otherwise easy to use” (Salys 1985: 102–103). K. Gaivenis stated that there are a number of obstacles to terminology of folk language words – a significant part of the special lexicon are words used in a narrow area and little known, a number of folk terms are words of unclear motivation and stylistically connoted (Gaivenis 2002: 52). Therefore, it can be said that popular terms may have characteristics not characteristic of scientific terms. However, scientific terms are subject to strict requirements. The main characteristics of scientific terms are accuracy (Keinys 1980: 31, Гринев 1993: 29, Skujiņa 1993: 51, Gaivenis 2002: 38), unambiguity (Гринев 1993: 32, Skujiņa 1993: 51), definition of meaning (Keinys 1980: 28, Гринев 1993: 30), regularity (Keinys 1980: 31, Grinev 1993: 30, Skujiņa 1993: 51, Gaivenis 2002: 38). Terminology | 2010 | 17 4 5 1980: 52, Gaivenis 2002: 36), emotional neutrality (Keinys 1980: 35, Гринев 1993: 32, Gaivenis 2002: 44), convenience (Keinys 1980: 42), systemicity (Keinys 1980: 37, Skujiņa 1993: 51, Gaivenis 2002: 40), convenience of use (Keinys 1980: 45, Gaivenis 2002: 47), nominativity (Гринев 1993: 33), contextual independence (Гринев 1993: 32, Skujiņa 1993: 51), mononymy, non-ambivalence (Skujiņa 1993: 51) and others. Accuracy is emphasized in many cases as an essential distinguishing feature of scientific terms (Keinys 1980: 31; Гринев 1993: 29; Skujiņa 1993: 50). Below the article discusses some of these signs. CORRECTION Scientific terms must comply with the requirements of common language, they are directly related to the common lexical system of common language and in no way can be isolated from the latter (Keinys 1980: 53). There are a number of foreign-origin words in folk terminology, which are considered foreign in relation to the common language, for example: įkkatukas (Brus. кoтyx, L. kotuch) "chicken" in LKŽe, ėpavietis (Brus. павец) "pašiūrė" in LKŽe, ėsienis (L. sieė) "doorway" in LKŽe, ėšopas (Brus. szopa < German Schuppen) "garden" in LKŽe, etc. It should also be added that the oral and written forms are one of the most important distinctive features of folk and scientific terms (Никитина 2009: 82). S. Nikitina argues that scientific terminology is a means of conveying conceptual knowledge about the subject of research and it functions primarily in written form. In the terminology of science, everything must be explained, and the written text is the main form of realization of such knowledge. Folk terminology is characterized by the oral form of communication and some of the knowledge is transmitted by nonverbal means of communication (Никитина 2009: 82). The inequalities of the form of the terms should probably be linked to the oral functioning of folk terms. Construction folk terminology is characterized by instability of expression – here there are many cases of sound and grammatical variation, e.g.: daržin (3b) LKA I 53, LKŽe – dažinė (1) LKA I 53, kltis (1) LKA I 47, LKŽe – klėtųs (3) LKA I 47, LKŽe, mėlkinė (1) LKŽe – milkin (3a) LKŽe; peludnica LKA I 54 – peludnyca LKA I 54, pūnė LKA I 49, LKŽe – punė LKA I 49, sušnia LKA I 65 – sūsnia LKA I 65; abarė LKA I 50, LKŽe – abai LKA I 50, anklėtis LKA I 49, LKŽe – anklėtė LKA I 49, arklynkas LKA I 50 – arklynkė LKA I 50, aruodas LKA I 47, LKŽe – aruoda LKA I 47. 4 6 R. Stunžinas | Commonalities and Differences in Construction Folk and Scientific Terminology EMOTION NEUTRAL Scientific terms are characterized by emotional neutrality, the ideal term should be a senseless creation of the logical mind (Keinys 1980: 35). However, folk terms, unlike scientific terms, can have an emotional undertone. K. Gaivenis has drawn attention to this, writing that a considerable part of folk terms are stylistically coloured words (Gaivenis 2002: 52). For example, some folk terms have evaluative characteristics. A small and poor dwelling house in folk terminology is called by stylistically connoted terms or has an evaluative set, e.g.: lūšna KazRŽ I 468, numpalaikiai DūnŽ 224, laužas LKŽe, laužynas LazŽ 141, trobukas LKŽe, ZanavŽ3 481, trobapalaikė DūnŽ 406, trobesikė ZanavŽ3 481. In a perfectly organized terminology of science, there should be a separate term for each concept, and each term should denote only one concept (Keinys 1980: 30). A. Kaulakienė has written that an ideal nomination is possible only when the terminology is established and there is a clear interface and motivation of the categories of terms corresponding to the categories of concepts. The ideal nomination is when the term names one concept and the concept corresponds to one term (Kaulakienė 2009: 82). However, in areas of terminology that are not fully organized, a single term often refers to several concepts or a single concept is represented by several terms. The ambiguity and synonymy of terms are regarded as terminology defects (Danilenko 1977: 65). These terminological phenomena make it difficult to communicate information and cause confusion of the entire terminological system – this is one of the reasons for the non-isomorphism of the conceptual system and the terms. Nevertheless, in folk terminology, ambiguity is a fairly common phenomenon. For example, often the same term denotes different buildings, building and room, e.g.: apartment „any building, hut“ in LKŽ – „residential house, troba, buy“ LKA I 34, LKŽ, garden „hay-stored hut“ KaltŽ 40, LKA I 56 – „hut, in which grain is only stacked“ LKA I 53, LKŽ, laying „hay-stored hut“ LKA I 57 – „hut, in which grain is stacked and dried“ LKA I 53; house „residential house“ LKA I 34, LKŽ – „separately built small hut with a stove for the summer“ LKŽ – „yard, located under the same roof as the residential house“ LKA I 49, LKŽ; buta „trobesys, namas“ LKŽe – „kambarys“ LKŽe, gryčia „gyvenamasis namas“ KupŽ 733, LKA I 34, LKŽe – „vienas gyvenamojo namo galas“ LKA I 34, LKŽe, jauja „atskira trobos, kurioje linus džiovina Terminology | 2010 | 17 4 7 and mine" LKŽe, ZanavŽ1 563 – "grain drying room" LKA I 64, LKŽe. Polysemantic terminology in folk terminology is multifaceted, here terms are often linked by various associative relationships, may be related by metonymy of whole and part, tool and effect of action, material and product or other relationship (see Stunžinas 2009: 68–92). Mononymy and Synonymy As already mentioned, mononymy (naming a concept with one term) is one of the requirements of scientific terminology. The use of multiple terms for the same concepts is one of the oldest and most important problems of terminology. The most common reasons for synonymy are terminology inconsistency, disregard for established usage, uneven use of language powers (Keinys 1980: 98–99), the desire to name a concept more rationally, the consequences of linguistic interference (Kaulakienė 2009: 178), variation of term forms, emphasis on different aspects, borrowing of two different terms or borrowing of a term and the appearance of a duplication of the own language, the use of an official and colloquial term or a modern and obsolete term, the use of a long and short term variant (Гринев 1993: 29). In terminology, synonyms are deliberately avoided and it is unanimously agreed that each concept should be represented by only one term (Keinys 1980: 98). In terminology, synonymy can be allowed in several cases. In particular, synonyms are justified when it is desired to raise not the same characteristics of one concept in different terminological systems. Synonyms can also arise by using shorter variants. The synonymy of international and native terms is also justified (Keinys 1980: 103). In popular terminology, as in plain language, synonymy is a common phenomenon that indicates the semantic flexibility of language and the variety of means of expression. For example, the residential house is called by almost three dozen terms of different origins in the living language, e.g.: apseigos LKŽe, butas LKŽe, duba LKŽe, gyvenimas LKŽe, gūžta LKŽe, namas LKŽe, pastatas LKŽe, pašalys LKŽe, pirkia LKŽe, pirktaitė LKŽe, pirktukė LKŽe, priešinė LKŽe, triobesys LKŽe, troba LKŽe, trobinė LKŽe, ąbudavonė (l. budavimas) LKŽe, ąbudinkas (l. budynek, brus. бyдынaк) LKŽe, nuogaspada (l. gospoda) LKŽe, grinyčia (brus. грыднiца) LKŽe, gryčia (brus. грыднiца) LKŽe, ėbakūžė (l. backhus) LKŽe, rūmas (germ.) LKŽe, ųstuba (german. stuba) LKŽe, ėškūnė (german. schūne) LKŽe, ėūta (german. hütte) LKŽe, ėšeimynstubė (hebr.) 4 8 R. Stunžinas | Commonalities and differences in construction folk and scientific terminology In addition, many synonymous folk terms are related to each other by a common multi-meaning relationship. For example, synonymous terms denoting a hay-stored hut, such as šieninė LKŽe, daržinė LKŽe, klaimas LKŽe, klojimas LKŽe, kluonas LKŽe, skūnia LKŽe, also have the meaning of a grain-stored hut, while terms denoting the front of a residential house, such as butukas LKŽe, kalidorius LKŽe, nameliokas LKŽe, namelis LKŽe, also have the meaning of the first room of a sauna (see Stunžinas 2009: 70–72 for more details). This can be explained by the fact that folk terms, like ordinary language words, are characterized by the instability of meanings (Trubachev 1966: 62; Klepikova 1974: 30; Klimavičius 2005: 134). In plain language, the meaning of words is undefined and context-dependent, and synonyms are created to avoid the ambiguities that arise from the figurative use of words and the expansion or narrowing of meanings (Riggs 1993: 195). The synonyms of common language are the sources of synonyms of common language. There are three main sources of synonyms in ordinary language – the power of word formation, the possibility of new meanings, dialects and other languages (see Jakaitienė 2010: 124). ASSOCIATION AND LOGIC With the requirement of accuracy of terms are closely related associativity and logic. Elements of the content of thought in popular and scientific terms are defined differently. A. Salys has pointed out that in living language words of special meaning, especially new ones, are formed on a different principle than in scientific terminology: “in living folk language new terms are formed rather by the first sight and impression of the object, sometimes by not quite logical analogy” (Salys 1985: 102). S. Nikitina states that the basis of the concepts expressed in scientific terms is formulated by specialists in theories and concepts, while the world view expressed in popular terms is based on different, no less complex principles, established by long-term experience and knowledge (Никитина 2009: 81). It is stated that scientific terms denote special concepts, and folk terms – images1 (see Гринев 1993: 48). S. Griniov wrote that the system of household images differs considerably from the system of scientific concepts. The system of household images expressed by means of plain language is created by associative connections; Image – sensory vivid image of an object, which remains and is reproduced in consciousness even when the object itself no longer affects the sensory organs. The concept is a generalized reflection of things in the world in people’s consciousness, a special form of thinking reflecting the results of cognitive activity (Jakaitienė 2010: 46). The term in terminology is "a generalized mental equivalent (concept) of a particular subject area". In terminology, a concept is not only a unit of thought, but also a unit of knowledge (Jakaitienė 2010: 183). Terminology | 2010 | 17 4 9 The theme is created on the basis of logical, above all hierarchical, relationships (Гринев 1993: 172). The relationships of concepts are revealed in the definitions of terms – this is also one of the main distinguishing features of popular and scientific terms. Folk terminology is a reflection of the world view of the people, so there are flying here. Lacunae are lexical units that reflect specific elements of a certain culture and do not have direct lexical semantic counterparts in another language (Kvašytė 2009: 63). The reason for the appearance of the lakūnai is the peculiarities of world categorization in language (Gudavičius 2007: 93). This feature of folk terminology has been emphasized by S. Nikitina (Никитина 2009: 82). The conceptual systems of science reflect only the structure of science and do not reveal the perspective of language. The concepts of science do not depend on a particular language – even if they have a specific social or cultural connotation (Antia 2000: 105). SYSTEMICITY An important difference between folk and scientific terms is that folk terms designate special images without connection with the system of concepts (Гринев 1993: 48). Scientific terms are created as reflections of concepts in the field of science – this has been emphasized in pre-war times by the philosopher St. Šalkauskis: “a term is a word meaning a concept having a special meaning for some subject of science” (Šalkauskis 1991: 15). In terminology, scientific terms are understood only as members of a system: “words or constant attributive combinations of words having a very defined meaning in the language of a certain field of human activity and whose purpose is to name concepts of any field as members of a certain system” (Keinys 1983: 229; Gaivenis 2002: 14). Terminologists emphasize that the systematization of concepts is an important part of terminology science and work (Picht 2009: 14). One of the main tasks of terminology is the compilation and analysis of the terminology system. According to the researchers, the composition and analysis of the terminology system should help to achieve isomorphism of the concept system and its formal expression – mutual correspondence (Татаринов 2006: 81). SEMANTIC FIELDS The concept of the field of terms is related to the systematicity of scientific terms. A term field is defined as a complex classification structure unified on a systematic basis, combining terms of one professional field. In terminology, it is also important to study the fields of terms: the structuring of material, the relationships of the elements of the term fields, the mutual definiteness of the elements, the generalization of the field structure, historical interaction and development (В. 5 0 R. Stunžinas | Common features and differences in the terminology of construction folk and science 2006: 275–276). The semantic field formed by popular terms is not characterized by strictness and uniformity. The semantic fields of ordinary language are a reflection of the real or imaginary world, in which objects, phenomena, properties are also connected by various connections and form certain spaces or territories conditionally separated from each other (Gudavičius 2007: 117). The semantic fields of popular terms, like those of ordinary language words, differ from those of scientific concepts in that their content is less homogeneous, more complex and broader (see Antia 2000: 105). Folk terminology differs from scientific terminology in the spontaneity of its emergence and functioning (Nikitina 2009: 80–81). G. Klepikova claims that the terminology of science consciously strives for the correspondence of the object and the semantic of reality, here the nomination is final. In folk terminology, unlike in scientific terminology, the relationship between the object of reality and the semantic is determined by verbs and the nomination is optional – its detailing depends on the importance of the objects of reality (Клепикова 1974: 33). Therefore, it can be assumed that the folk terminology is characterized by the signs of the initial stage of the formation of special lexicon. In this case, the nomination is determined by subjective factors – the semantics of the language sign reflects the non-artificial perception of objects, properties, actions and processes (Volodina 1997: 43). Non-scientific perception of objects and phenomena leads to the designation of concepts and images according to certain associations. S. Nikitina states that metaphors in folk terminology are one of the most important means of naming (Никитина 2009: 82). Metaphorical designation of concepts is a common phenomenon in the folk terminology of construction, e.g.: kamurka „poor hut“ in LKŽ, kaniūkšlė „poor troba“ in LKŽ, pašiūrė „poor hut“ in LKŽ, pirtis „poor dwelling house“ in LKŽ; house „front door“ LKA I 39, house „front door“ LKA I 39, LKŽe, sauna „front door“ LKŽe. It can also be added that a very important means of naming folk terms is metonymy. In construction folk terminology, specific objects (accessories, parts of buildings) are named according to actions, e.g.: screwing „rotary latch” LKA I 41, stripping „sauna entrance” LKA I 58, or constructions named according to building material – paving, e.g.: earth „paving grounding” LKA I 54, clay „residential house flooring” LKA I 37. According to terminologists, metonymy is an important way of forming new words and scientific terms. It has been observed that the metonymy transfer of meanings in scientific terminology, although it has some differences, is