Statybos liaudies ir mokslo terminijos bendrybės ir skirtybės

Commonalities and Differences between Folk and Scientific Construction Terminology ROBERTAS STUNŽINAS Mykolo Romerio universitetas This article discusses the main similarities and differences between folk and scientific construction terminology. This work continues the author's research on folk construction terminology. Before comparing these two terminologies, it should be noted that living language and its terminology are an important source of scientific terminology. St. Šalkauskis, the pioneer of Lithuanian terminology theory, wrote in the article “The Theory of Terminology and Lithuanian Philosophical Terminology,” published in the journal Logos, that the words of ordinary language are the main source of scientific terminology: “there is no need either to coin a new term or to borrow a foreign one if a word from ordinary language can be adapted quite satisfactorily to the scientific need at hand” (Šalkauskis 1991: 55). The philosopher emphasized that ordinary language is not only the richest but also the most comprehensible source of scientific terminology. This has also been discussed by the prominent Lithuanian linguists K. Būga (1961: 784), J. Balčikonis (1978: 164), and Pr. Skardžius (1997: 300). Terminologists, too, emphasize the importance of specialized words from living language in creating terms for individual fields. According to St. Keinys, the foundation of terminology creation consists of the resources of one's own language, and in particular fields one can draw extensively on the dialect lexicon, especially folk terms (2005: 232). Construction specialists also stress the importance of words from living language in creating scientific terms. The authors of Statybos terminų žodyno—A. Kudzys, A. Rosinas, and B. Kudzienė—write in the dictionary's preface that correctly formed terms long used in living language are important in construction terminology (STŽ 2002: 6). Nevertheless, folk and scientific terminology are distinct domains—“this is determined by the differences and contradictions between science, civilization in general, and ethnicity and folk life” (Klimavičius 2005: 133). As for the commonalities between folk and scientific terms, it should be noted that both belong to the specialized vocabulary layer. Scientific terms are words or fixed attributive word combinations that have a highly specific meaning in the language of a particular field and name concepts as members of a particular system (Keinys 2005: 229). 42 R. Stunžinas | Statybos liaudies ir mokslo terminijos bendrybės ir skirt ybės Folk terms are nomenclatural reflections of concentrated information. Like scientific terms, folk terms denote specialized concepts (Никитина 2009: 80). However, neither scientific nor folk terms are merely a category of words—they are not confined to the boundaries of a word and may be either single-word or compound (see Gaivenis 2000: 14, Jakaitienė 2010: 182). FOLK TERMINOLOGY—THE BASIS OF SCIENTIFIC TERMINOLOGY As already mentioned, folk and scientific terminology are distinct, separately functioning domains. J. Klimavičius argues that folk terminology is a source of scientific terminology: scientific terminology draws terms from it to name concepts within a scientific conceptual system. The linguist notes, however, that borrowing varies: “Incidentally, these sources are not equally deep for all branches of scientific terminology; sometimes they are entirely absent” (Klimavičius 2005: 133). This can be seen by examining early construction terminology. In the mid- and late nineteenth century, when construction terminology began to appear in periodicals, its main source was folk terms. For example, in articles offering agricultural advice in L. Ivinskis's calendars (1846–1863), in articles in Aušros, Medega statant trobas (1883–1886), and in Ūkinikas (Ūkininkas), a monthly for farmers published by the Lietuvos draugijos (1890–1905), one can find construction concepts drawn from living language, for example: durelės Uk 1891 IV 175, durės Uk 1890 II 22, gelžis M 1884 I–II 56, gomurys Uk 1891 IV 174, grįčia Uk 1891 IV 173, grindys Uk 1891 IV 171, juška 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, palubė Uk 1891 IV 175, pamatas Uk 1890 II 22, pecius Uk 1891 IV 173, plyta Uk 1891 IV 171, samanos Uk 1891 III 134, siena K 1849 31, sienojas Uk 1891 III 132, sklepas Uk 1891 IV 172, smiltis Uk 1891 III 134, stiklas M 1884 I–II 56, stogo čerpės M 1884 I–II 56, teptuvas K 1849 31, tinkas Uk 1891 III 134, trioba Uk 1891 III 134, vaini-kas Uk 1891 III 132, ziame K 1862 45. However, not all folk terms have entered scientific terminology with their direct meanings. St. Šalkauskis has noted that words from ordinary language adopted for terminology are adapted, and their meanings are refined, expanded, narrowed, or shifted by analogy Terminologija | 2010 | 17 43 (Šalkauskis 1991: 24–31). Terminologists have also written about this (Keinys 2005: 231; Klimavičius 2005: 135; Gaivenis 2000: 52–53). In J. Klimavičius’s vivid formulation, “the use of folk terminology is not pouring from one vessel into another, but a blood transfusion matched to the appropriate group; not moving something from one place to another, but transplanting or grafting it” (2005: 135). It is generally acknowledged that scientific terms differ from ordinary words (including folk terms) through specialization of meaning and a clear semantic boundary (LE XXXI 1964: 81; Гринев 1993: 29). A review of the terminology in early twentieth-century (1910–1937) construction-science publications shows that construction concepts often draw on folk terms. In the early terminology of construction science, folk terms designate the principal construction concepts, and a considerable proportion of scientific terms are almost identical in meaning to folk terms, for example: akmuo Jod 2, alie jus Kind 32, anglis Iv 48, ąžuolas Kind 7, balana Jan 16, eglė Jan 18, sija Kind 14, kambarys Jan 14, kūtė Van 10, lenta Braž 2, lubos Jan 15, molis Reis 1, namas Zub 9, pečius Braž 1, pušis Jan 18, rąstas Reis 24, siena Reis 1, smėlys Jan 9, šulas Braž 10, žabai Van 28, žvyras Reis 13. In many cases, however, the meanings of folk terms are specialized, narrowed, or broadened, and scientific terms may therefore acquire new meanings, for example: druskos Jod 1, grindys Kind 13, krosnys Šim 4, lubos (lubos ir perdangos) Šim 4. Here, terminologized plural forms designate classes of objects (see Stunžinas 2007: 125–134 for further discussion). REQUIREMENTS FOR FOLK AND SCIENTIFIC TERMINOLOGY Linguists have noted that not all folk terms are suitable for scientific terminology. A. Salys wrote that “folk terms take root as standard-language terms only when they do not conflict with logic and are otherwise readily adopted in use” (Salys 1985: 102–103). K. Gaivenis argued that there are numerous obstacles to terminologizing folk-language words: a considerable part of specialized vocabulary consists of words used in a limited area and known to few people, while many folk terms are words with unclear motivation and stylistic connotations (Gaivenis 2002: 52). It can therefore be said that folk terms may have features not characteristic of scientific terms. Scientific terms, however, are subject to stringent requirements. The principal characteristics of scientific terms are precision (Keinys 1980: 31, Гринев 1993: 29, Skujiņa 1993: 51, Gaivenis 2002: 38), univocity (Гринев 1993: 32, Skujiņa 1993: 51), definiteness of meaning (Keinys 1980: 28, Гринев 1993: 30), correctness (Keinys 44 R. Stunžinas | Statybos liaudies ir mokslo terminijos bendrybės ir skirtybės 1980: 52, Gaivenis 2002: 36), emotional neutrality (Keinys 1980: 35, Гринев 1993: 32, Gaivenis 2002: 44), ease of use (Keinys 1980: 42), systematicity (Keinys 1980: 37, Skujiņa 1993: 51, Gaivenis 2002: 40), ease of formation (Keinys 1980: 45, Gaivenis 2002: 47), nominative function (Гринев 1993: 33), contextual independence (Гринев 1993: 32, Skujiņa 1993: 51), mononymity, and unambiguity (Skujiņa 1993: 51), among others. In many cases, precision is emphasized as the essential distinguishing feature of scientific terms (Keinys 1980: 31; Гринев 1993: 29; Skujiņa 1993: 50). The article goes on to discuss some of these characteristics. CORRECTNESS Scientific terms must meet the requirements of the standard language; they are directly connected with its general lexical system and must under no circumstances be isolated from it (Keinys 1980: 53). Folk terminology contains many words of foreign origin that are regarded as foreignisms in the standard language, for example: xkatukas (Belarusian комух, 1. ko-tuch) ‘henhouse’ LKŽe, xpavietis (Belarusian павец) ‘shed’ LKŽe, xsienis (1. sien) ‘vestibule’ LKŽe, xšopas (1. szopa < German Schuppen) ‘barn’ LKŽe, etc. It should also be added that spoken and written forms are among the most important distinguishing features of folk and scientific terms (Никитина 2009: 82). S. Nikitina states that scientific terminology is a means of conveying conceptual knowledge about the subject under study and functions primarily in written form. Everything in scientific terminology must be made explicit, and written text is the principal means by which such knowledge is realized. Folk terminology is characterized by spoken communication, with some knowledge conveyed through nonverbal means of communication (Никитина 2009: 82). The inconsistency in the forms of terms should apparently also be associated with the spoken use of folk terms. Construction-related folk terminology is characterized by instability of expression, with many instances of phonetic and grammatical variation, for example: daržinė (3b) LKA I 53, LKŽe – daržinė (1) LKA I 53, klėtis (1) LKA I 47, LKŽe – klėtis (3) LKA I 47, LKŽe, málkinė (1) LKŽe – malkinė (3a) LKŽe; peludnica LKA I 54 – peludnyca LKA I 54, pūnė LKA I 49, LKŽe – punė LKA I 49, sušnia LKA I 65 – sūšnia LKA I 65; abarės LKA I 50, LKŽe – abarai LKA I 50, ankletis LKA I 49, LKŽe – ankletė LKA I 49, arklinykas LKA I 50 – arklinykė LKA I 50, aruodas LKA I 47, LKŽe – aruoda LKA I 47. Terminologija | 2010 | 17 45 EMOTIONAL NEUTRALITY Scientific terms are characterized by emotional neutrality; an ideal term should be the dispassionate creation of a logical mind (Keinys 1980: 35). Folk terms, however, unlike scientific terms, may have an emotional coloring. K. Gaivenis drew attention to this, writing that a considerable proportion of folk terms are stylistically marked words (Gaivenis 2002: 52). For example, some folk terms have evaluative features. A small, poor-quality dwelling is referred to in folk terminology by stylistically connoted terms or terms with an evaluative seme, for example: lūšna KazRŽ I 468, numpalaikiai DūnŽ 224, laužas LKŽe, laužynas LazŽ 141, trobukas LKŽe, ZanavŽ3 481, trobapalaikė DūnŽ 406, trobesikė ZanavŽ3 481. MONOSEMICITY AND POLYSEMY In a perfectly organized scientific terminology, 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 ideal nomination is possible only when terminology is established and there is a clear link and motivation between categories of terms and the corresponding categories of concepts. Ideal nomination occurs when a term names one concept and a concept corresponds to one term (Kaulakienė 2009: 82). However, in areas of terminology that are not fully systematized, several concepts are often named by one term, or one concept is denoted by several terms. Polysemy and synonymy of terms are regarded as flaws in terminology (Даниленко 1977: 65). These phenomena in terminology make information transfer more difficult and cause confusion throughout the system of terms—which is one of the reasons for the non-isomorphism of the system of concepts and the system of terms. Despite this, polysemy is quite common in folk terminology. For example, the same term often denotes different buildings, or a building and a room, e.g.: butas “any building, structure” LKŽe – “residential house, farmhouse, cottage” LKA I 34, LKŽe, daržinė “a building used to store hay” KaltŽ 40, LKA I 56 – “a building in which grain is merely stored” LKA I 53, LKŽe, klojimas “a building used to store hay” LKA I 57 – “a building in which grain is stored and dried” LKA I 53; namas “residential house” LKA I 34, LKŽe – “a small detached building with a stove for summer use” LKŽe – “a barn under the same roof as a residential house” LKA I 49, LKŽe; buta “building, house” LKŽe – “room” LKŽe, gryčia “residential house” KupŽ 733, LKA I 34, LKŽe – “one end of a residential house” LKA I 34, LKŽe, jauja “a separate building in which flax is dried and threshed” 46 R. Stunžinas | Statybos liaudies ir mokslo terminijos bendrybės ir skirtybės LKŽe, ZanavŽ1 563 – “a room for drying grain” LKA I 64, LKŽe. Polysemy in folk terminology is multifaceted: terms are often connected by various associative links and may be related through metonymic relations such as whole and part, tool and result of an action, material and product, or other relations (for more detail, see Stunžinas 2009: 68–92). MONONYMY AND SYNONYMY As already noted, mononymy (naming a concept with one term) is one of the requirements of scientific terminology. Naming the same concepts with several terms is one of the oldest and most important problems in terminology. The most general causes of synonymy are inconsistency in terminology, disregard for established usage, uneven use of a language’s resources (Keinys 1980: 98–99), the desire to name a concept more rationally, the effects of linguistic interference (Kaulakienė 2009: 178), variation in the forms of terms, emphasis on different aspects, borrowing two different terms or borrowing a term and the emergence of a native-language doublet, use of an official and a colloquial term or a modern and an obsolete term, and use of a long and a short variant of a term (Гринев 1993: 29). In terminology, synonyms are deliberately avoided, and there is general agreement that each concept should be denoted by only one term (Keinys 1980: 98). Synonymy may be permitted in terminology in a few cases. First of all, synonyms are justified when different features of one concept are to be highlighted in different systems of terms. Synonyms may also arise through the use of shorter variants. Synonymy between international and native terms is also justified (Keinys 1980: 103). In folk terminology, as in ordinary language, synonymy is a common phenomenon that demonstrates the semantic flexibility of language and the diversity of its means of expression. For example, in living speech a residential house is called by nearly three dozen terms of diverse origin, e.g.: apseigos LKŽe, butas LKŽe, duba LKŽe, gyvenimas LKŽ, gūžta LKŽe, namas LKŽe, pastatas LKŽe, pašalys LKŽe, pirkia LKŽe, pirktaitė LKŽe, pirkutė LKŽe, priešinė LKŽe, triobesys LKŽe, troba LKŽe, trobinė, xbudavonė (1. budowanie) LKŽe, xbudinkas (1. budynek, Belarusian будынак) LKŽe, xgaspada (1. gospoda) LKŽe, grinyčia (Belarusian грыдніца) LKŽe, gryčia (Belarusian грыдніца) LKŽe, xbakūžė (German dialectal backhus) LKŽe, xistuba (German Stube, Latvian istaba, istuba) LKŽe, xkūta (German Kote) LKŽe, rūmas (Germanic) LKŽe, xstuba (German dialectal stuba) LKŽe, xškūnė (German dialectal schūne) LKŽe, xūta (German Hütte) LKŽe, xšeimynstubė (hybrid) LKA I 34. Terminologija | 2010 | 17 47 Moreover, many synonymous folk terms are also interconnected by a shared relation of polysemy. For example, the synonymous terms denoting a building used to store hay—šieninė LKŽe, daržinė LKŽe, klaimas LKŽe, klojimas LKŽe, kluonas LKŽe, skūnia LKŽe—also have the meaning of a building used to store grain, while terms denoting the entrance hall of a residential house—butukas LKŽe, kalidorius LKŽe, nameliokas LKŽe, namelis LKŽe—also have the meaning of the first room in a bathhouse (for more detail, see Stunžinas 2009: 70–72). This can be explained by the fact that folk terms, like words in ordinary language, are characterized by instability of meaning (Трубачев 1966: 62; Клепикова 1974: 30; Klimavičius 2005: 134). In ordinary language, word meaning is indeterminate and context-dependent; synonyms arise to avoid ambiguities that result from the figurative use of words and the broadening or narrowing of meaning (Riggs 1993: 195). The synonymy of folk terms is determined by the sources of synonyms in ordinary language. Three main sources of synonyms in ordinary language are distinguished: word-formation resources, the possibility of new meanings arising, dialects, and other languages (see Jakaitienė 2010: 124). ASSOCIATIVITY AND LOGIC Associativity and logic are closely related to the requirement of terminological precision. Elements of the content of thought are expressed differently by folk and scientific terms. A. Salys has noted that in everyday language, words with specialized meanings, especially neologisms, are formed according to a different principle than in scientific terminology: “in the living folk language, terms and neologisms are formed more readily from the first sight of an object and the impression it makes, sometimes also by an analogy that is not entirely logical” (Salys 1985: 102). S. Nikitina states that the foundations of concepts expressed by scientific terms are formulated by specialists through theories and conceptions, whereas the world view expressed by folk terms is based on different, no less complex principles, established through long experience and knowledge (Никитина 2009: 81). It is argued that scientific terms denote specialized concepts, whereas folk terms denote images1 (see Гринев 1993: 48). S. Griniov wrote that the system of everyday images differs considerably from the system of scientific concepts. The system of everyday images, expressed by the means of ordinary language, is formed through associative relations; the system of scientific concepts, expressed by terms, 1 An image is a sensorially vivid representation of an object that remains in and is recreated by consciousness even when the object itself no longer acts upon the sense organs. A concept is a generalized reflection of things in the world in human consciousness, a special form of thought that reflects the results of cognitive activity (Jakaitienė 2010: 46). In terminology, a concept is “a generalized mental equivalent (concept) of a particular subject field.” In terminology, a concept is not only a unit of thought, but also a unit of knowledge (Jakaitienė 2010: 183). 48 R. Stunžinas | Statybos liaudies ir mokslo terminijos bendrybės ir skirt ybės tema kuriama loginių, visų pirma hierarchinių, ryšių pagrindu (Гринев 1993: 172). Sąvokų ryšiai atsiskleidžia terminų apibrėžtyse – tai taip pat yra vienas pagrindinių liaudies ir mokslo terminų skiriamųjų bruožų. Folk terminology is a reflection of a nation’s worldview, and therefore lacunae occur here. Lacunae are lexical units that reflect specific elements of a particular culture and have no direct lexical-semantic equivalents in another language (Kvašytė 2009: 63). The reason for the emergence of lacunae is the particularities of categorizing the world in language (Gudavičius 2007: 93). This feature of folk terminology has been emphasized by S. Nikitina (Никитина 2009: 82). Systems of scientific concepts reflect only the structure of science and do not reveal the perspective of language. Scientific concepts are independent of any particular language—even if they do have a distinct social or cultural coloring (Antia 2000: 105). SYSTEMATICITY An important difference between folk and scientific terms is that folk terms name specialized images without linking them to a system of concepts (Гринев 1993: 48). Scientific terms are created as reflections of the concepts of a field of science—a point emphasized before the war by the philosopher St. Šalkauskis: “a term is a word expressing a concept that has a special meaning in some subject of science” (Šalkauskis 1991: 15). In terminology, scientific terms are understood only as members of a system: “words or fixed attributive word combinations that have a very precisely defined meaning in the language of a particular sphere of human activity and whose purpose is to name the concepts of any field as members of a particular system” (Keinys 1983: 229; Gaivenis 2002: 14). Terminologists emphasize that systematizing concepts is an important part of the science and practice of terminology (Picht 2009: 14). One of the main tasks of terminology is to construct and analyze terminological systems. According to researchers, constructing and analyzing terminological systems should help achieve isomorphism—a reciprocal correspondence—between a system of concepts and its formal expression (Татаринов 2006: 81). SEMANTIC FIELDS The concept of the terminological field is related to the systematicity of scientific terms. A terminological field is defined as a complex classification structure unified on a systematic basis and encompassing the terms of one professional field. In terminology, it is also important to study terminological fields: the structuring of material, the relations among the elements of terminological fields, the mutual determinacy of elements, the universality of field structure, historical interaction, and development (Татаринов Terminologija | 2010 | 17 49 2006: 275–276). The semantic field formed by folk terms is not characterized by strictness or uniformity. The semantic fields of ordinary language reflect the real or imagined world, in which objects, phenomena, and properties are also connected by various relationships and form certain spaces or territories, conditionally separated from one another (Gudavičius 2007: 117). The semantic fields of folk terms, like those of ordinary-language words, differ from the semantic fields of scientific concepts in that their content is less homogeneous, more complex, and broader (see Antia 2000: 105). NOMINATION OF FOLK AND SCIENTIFIC TERMS Folk terminology differs from scientific terminology in the spontaneity of its emergence and functioning (Никитина 2009: 80–81). G. Klepikova argues that scientific terminology consciously seeks correspondence between an object in reality and a sememe; here, nomination is definitive. In folk terminology, unlike scientific terminology, the relationship between an object in reality and a sememe is established spontaneously, and nomination is selective—its degree of detail depends on the importance of objects in reality (Клепикова 1974: 33). It can therefore be assumed that folk terminology displays features characteristic of the initial stage in the formation of specialized vocabulary. In this case, nomination is determined by subjective factors: the semantics of the linguistic sign reflect a nonscientific understanding of objects, properties, actions, and processes (Володина 1997: 43). A nonscientific understanding of objects and phenomena determines the naming of concepts and images through particular associations. S. Nikitina argues that metaphors are one of the most important means of naming in folk terminology (Никитина 2009: 82). Metaphorical naming of concepts is common in folk construction terminology, e.g.: kamurka ‘a poor little hut’ LKŽe, kaniūkšlė ‘a poor hut’ LKŽe, pašiūrė ‘a miserable little hut’ LKŽe, pirtis ‘a poor dwelling house’ LKŽe; nameliokas ‘a porch’ LKA I 39, namelis ‘a vestibule’ LKA I 39, LKŽe, pirtikė ‘a porch’ LKŽe. It may also be added that metonymy is a very important means of naming in folk terminology. In folk construction terminology, specific objects (fittings, parts of buildings) are named after actions, e.g.: užsukimas ‘a turning latch’ LKA I 41, nusirengimas ‘a bathhouse vestibule’ LKA I 58; or structures—floors—are named after the building material, e.g.: žemė ‘a threshing-barn floor’ LKA I 54, molis ‘a dwelling-house floor’ LKA I 37. According to terminologists, metonymy is an important means of forming new words and meanings of scientific terms. It has been observed that metonymic transfer of meaning in scientific terminology, although it has certain distinctive features, is 50 R. Stunžinas | Statybos liaudies ir mokslo terminijos bendrybės ir skirt ybės grindžiamas tokiais pačiais principais, kaip ir paprastojoje kalboje (Прохорова 1996: 69). Tiesa, terminologai atkreipia dėmesį, kad mokslo terminus veikia paprastosios kalbos leksiniai ir semantiniai procesai. Taip pat sakoma, kad mokslo terminai priklauso nuo vartosenos situacijos ir konteksto. Tokiu atveju mokslo terminai gali sinoniminiais ryšiais sietis su kitais terminais, pasižymėti daugiareikšmiškumu, vaizdingumu ir ekspresyvumu (Татаринов 2006: 134). Terminų vaizdingumas, metaforiškumas ir emocingumas gali atsirasti dėl funkcionavimo sferos išsiplėtimo, vartojimo už specialiosiosos mokslo srities ribų (Татаринов 2006: 134). Pavyzdžiui, statybos mokslo terminijoje pasitaiko iš profesionalizmų atsiradusių terminų, kuriems būdingas metaforinis perkėlimas pagal įvairias asociacijas, pvz.: (girdėjimo) slenkstis STŽ 547, greičių dėžė ALSTŽ 160, oro tinklas ALSTŽ 8, šilumos tiltelis ALSTŽ 44, (apvijos) žingsnis STŽ 728, (laikančiųjų sienų) žingsnis STŽ 728 (plačiau žr. Stunžinas 2006: 66). Taip pat mokslo terminijoje pasitaiko ir daugiareikšmių terminų. Tuo mokslo terminai panašūs į liaudies terminus. Tačiau kalbininkai atkreipia dėmesį, kad daugiareikšmiškumo reiškiniai mokslo terminijoje skiriasi nuo analogiškų paprastosios kalbos reiškinių. Skirtumas yra tas, kad visi šie procesai neveikia leksinių ir semantinių mokslo terminijos požymių ir nesuardo terminų semantinio apibrėžtumo (Даниленко 1977: 65). CONCLUSIONS 1. Folk and scientific terms are nomenclatural words and word combinations that designate specialized concepts and perform a nominative function. Folk terminology is an important source of scientific terminology: examples of early scientific construction terminology show that folk terms were adopted with both literal and figurative meanings. 2. Not all folk terms are suitable for naming scientific concepts—they also differ in the requirements they must meet. Scientific terms are required to be precise, unambiguous, correct, systematic, stylistically neutral, and logical. Folk terms demonstrate the diversity of linguistic means of expression and are characterized by synonymy, polysemy, and vividness. 3. Scientific terms are created as members of a system of scientific concepts. They are created and defined by specialists. The semantic field formed by scientific terms is a classificatory structure, unified on a systematic basis, that brings together terms from a single field. Folk terms reveal a nation’s worldview and name specialized images without linking them to a system of concepts. Their Terminologija | 2010 | 17 5 1 semantic field is more complex and broader than the semantic field of scientific concepts. 4. Scientific terminology seeks correspondence between concepts and terms, whereas nomination in folk terminology is selective. Owing to various factors of ordinary language and usage, scientific terms may come to resemble folk terms and exhibit synonymy, polysemy, and vividness. ŠALTINIAI ALSTŽ – Anglų–lietuvių kalbų statybos terminų žodynas. Vilnius, 1993. Braž – Bražinskas J. Kaip ir iš ko galima statyti pigius ir tvermingus ūkio trobesius, Vilnius, 1910. DūnŽ – Šiaurės rytų dünininkų šnektų žodynas. V. Vitkauskas, Vilnius, 1976. Iv – Ivanauskas J. Plytų gamyba kaimo plytinėse, Kaunas, 1932. Jan – Januševičius P. Namai, jų svarba, vieta, padėjimas, stilius, medga, statymas, Kaunas, 1917. Jod – Jodelė P. Statybos medžiagoms priimti normos ir joms bandyti sąlygos, Kaunas, 1929. K – Kalendorius arba Metu skajtlus uzkiskas ant metu nuog užgimima Wieszpaties Metu paprastunju turenčziun 365 dienas. Parašitas par L. Iwiński, Wilniuje, 1849–1862. KaltŽ – Kaltanėnų šnektos žodynas. A. Vilutytė, Vilnius, 2008. KazRŽ – Kazlų Rūdos šnektos žodynas. A. Pupkis, Vilnius, 2008–2009. Kind – Kindurys V. Ūkiškų trobų statybos vadovas, Kaunas, 1935. KupŽ – Kupiškėnų žodynas. K. Vosyl y tė, Vilnius, 2007. LazŽ – Lazūnų tarmės žodynas. J. Petrauskas, A. Vidugiris, Vilnius, 1985. LKA I – Lietuvių kalbos atlasas. T. 1: Leksika. Red. K. Morkūnas, Vilnius, 1977. LKŽe – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas (elektroninis leidimas, www.lkz.lt), Vilnius. M – Medega statant trobas. – Auszra, 1884, Nr. 1–3, 56–59. Reis – Reisonas J. Molio statyba, Kaunas, 1928. STŽ – Statybos terminų žodynas. Ats. red. A. Kudzys, Vilnius, 2002. Šim – Šimoliūnas J. Statyba. I tomas. Statybos medžiagos, Kaunas, 1937. Uk – Ukininkas: lietuviszkas laikrastis, paskirtas reikalams ukininkų. Ats. red. M. Jankus, Ragainė, 1890–1891. Van – Vanagaitis R. Ūkio statyba: ūkininkams ir statybos darbininkams vadovėlis, Šiauliai, 1922. ZanavŽ1–3 – Zanavykų šnektos žodynas. T. 1. Vyr. red. A. Pupkis, Kaunas, 2003. T. 2. Vyr. red. V. Sakalauskienė, Vilnius, 2006. Zub – Zubauskas K. Statybos ir butų tvarkymo įstatymai, taisyklės, Tilžė, 1922. LITERATŪRA Antia B. E. 2000: Terminology and Language Planning, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Balčikonis J. 1978: Rinktiniai raštai 1, Vilnius. Būga K. 1961: Rinktiniai raštai 3. Sudarė Z. Zinkevičius, Vilnius. Gaivenis K. 2002: Lietuvių terminologija: teorijos ir tvarkybos metmenys, Vilnius. Gudavičius A. 2007: Gretinamoji semantika, Šiauliai. Jakaitienė E. 2010: Leksikologija, Vilnius. Kaulakienė A. 2009: Lietuvių fizikos terminijos raida, Vilnius. Keinys St. 2005: Dabartinė lietuvių terminologija, Vilnius. Keinys St. 1980: Terminologijos abėcėlė, Vilnius. Klimavičius J. 2005: Leksikologijos ir terminologijos darbai: norma ir istorija, Vilnius. Kvašytė R. 2009: Tautinės realijos: pavadinimai, terminai ir jų pavartojimas. – Terminologija 16, 56–67. LE XXXI – Lietuvių enciklopedija. Vyr. red. V. Biržiška, Boston, 1964. Picht H. 2009: The seven pillars of terminology. – Terminologija 16, 8–22. Riggs F. 1993: Social Science Terminology: Basic Problems and Proposed Solutions. – Terminology: Applications in Interdisciplinary Communication, 195–202. 52 R. Stunžinas | Statybos liaudies ir mokslo terminijos bendrybės ir skirt ybės Salys A. 1985: Raštai 3, Roma. Skardžius Pr. 1997: Rinktiniai raštai 2, Vilnius. Skujina V. 1993: Some Aspects of the Specific Character of the Semantic Level in Terminology. – TKE’93 Terminology and Knowledge Engineering, Frankfurt/M.: Indeks Verlag, 50–55. Stunžinas 2006: Lietuviški metaforiniai statybos terminai. – Terminologija 13, 62–75. Stunžinas 2007: 1910–1937 m. lietuviškoji statybos terminija (iš turimų išteklių). – Terminologija 14, 125–134. Stunžinas 2009: Daugiareikšmiai ir homoniminiai statybos liaudies terminai. – Terminologija 16, 68–92. Šalkauskis St. 1991: Raštai 2, Vilnius. Володина М. Н. 1996: Термин как средство специальной информации, Москва. Гринев С. В. 1993: Введение в терминоведение, Москва. Даниленко В. П. 1997: Русская терминология, Москва. Клепикова Г. П. 1974: Славянская пастушеская терминология, Москва. Никитина С. 2009: Народная терминология и народное знание. – Терминология и знание: материалы Международного симпозиума (Москва, 23–24 мая 2008), 78–88. Прохорова В. 2006: Русская терминология (лексико-семантическое образование), Москва. Трубачев О. Н. 1966: Ремесленная терминология в славянских языках: (этимология и опыт групповой реконструкции), Москва. Татаринов В. 2006: Общее терминоведение: энциклопедический словарь, Москва. SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES OF FOLK AND SCIENTIFIC TERMINOLOGY OF BUILDING This paper deals with similarities and differences between folk and scientific terminology of building. Folk and scientific terms are functional and semantic types of words, both are a nomenclative reflection of condensed information. Folk terminology is treated as an important source of scientific terminology and scientific terminology uses folk terminology for the needs of a naming system. Folk terms are incorporated into scientific terminology with revised, expanded, narrowed or figurative meanings. Some folk terms cannot be used for scientific concepts. Scientific terms have strict requirements of precision, monosemy, correctness, systematicality, stylistic neutrality, logicality. In folk terminology synonymy, polysemy and figurativeness are regular phenomena, which show the semantic flexibility of language. Scientific terms are created as units of a scientific concept system and they are defined by the specialists of the particular knowledge field. Terminological field is a systemic unified classification structure which comprises terms of a particular field. Folk terminology reflects the world view of a nation and names special concepts without relation to a concept system. In scientific terminology correspondence of concepts and terms is claimed. In folk terminology nomination of terms is a matter of choice. Due to various factors of common language and usage scientific terms can show the resemblance to folk terms and develop synonymy, polysemy and figurativeness. Gauta 2010-12-10 Robertas Stunžinas Mykolo Romerio universitetas Ateities g. 20, LT–08303 Vilnius E. paštas [email protected] Terminologija | 2010 | 17 53