Lithuanian Metaphorical Construction Terms

ROBERTAS STUNŽINAS

Lietuvių kalbos institutas

The emergence of metaphorical terms is associated with the initial, or “spontaneous,” stage in the formation of specialized vocabulary, in which the nomination of terms is determined by subjective factors and the semantics of the linguistic sign reflects a naïve understanding of objects, properties, actions, and processes. As science and technology develop, the most important factor determining term creation is not the correspondence between a concept and a word, but that between analogies. It is convenient to connect new knowledge about the world with familiar images “anchored” in the lexical meanings of words. Therefore, at the initial stage in the formation of specialized vocabulary, words of the general language, endowed with meaning through various associations, serve as terms (Володина 1997: 43). The importance of metaphorical nomination in emerging terminological systems is emphasized by proponents of the cognitive approach, who argue that metaphorical naming is one of the main sources of terminology. Metaphor is an integral part of human cognition and thought, and an effective means of expanding the lexicon. Despite its conditionality, metaphor contains sufficient information and can perform the functions of a term. It is not uncommon for only metaphorical terms to convey the concept of an object or phenomenon that has no stable name (for more, see Ивина 2003: 46–49).

Although the metaphorical way of naming concepts is not particularly productive in construction terminology (metaphorical terms in the sources examined account for less than 1% of all terms), it is important to consider which metaphorical terms are characteristic of this traditional field, which has been developing for a long time. The aim of the article is to establish how metaphorical terms are expressed, which modes of metaphorical transfer predominate, and how Lithuanian terms relate to terms in other languages. The material was collected from bilingual and multilingual dictionaries of construction terms and from textbooks. The article examines 846 metaphorical terms.

Before beginning the analysis, it is appropriate to note that, from a stylistic perspective, metaphorical terms belong to linguistic metaphors. Linguistic metaphors, unlike literary ones, are characterized by objectivity, lexical and con-

62

Robertas Stunžinas | Lietuviški metaforiniai statybos terminai

textual autonomy, systematicity, coherence, and anonymity. These are self-evident and reproducible lexical units used for various communicative purposes, which do not perform an aesthetic function and reflect general logical relations between things (KPP 2003: 324). This type of metaphor is characterized by universality of nomination; its general psycholinguistic feature is the transfer of the name of one object (phenomenon) to another object (phenomenon) on the basis of similarity. This article focuses primarily on two functional types of metaphor: nominative¹ and feature metaphors. Nominative metaphors arise when one descriptive meaning is replaced by another; they are a source of homonymy (cited in Прохорова 1996: 40). Nominative metaphors in scientific language originated in ordinary-language words that had become terms. Metaphors of this type are primary in science because the scientific objects being named have no other names (see Никитина 1987: 37). In this article, nominative metaphors include metaphorical single-word terms, e.g., iešmas STŽ 188; compound terms with metaphorical head elements, e.g., [crane] legs ALSTŽ 25; and phraseological compound terms whose metaphorical meaning arises from the whole phrase, e.g., hearing threshold STŽ 547. A total of 784 nominative metaphors are examined.

Feature metaphors² name the attributes of concepts that arise by comparing the properties of objects belonging to different categories. In this article, feature metaphors include metaphorical modifiers in compound terms and metaphorical combinations of term elements, e.g.: fungus-shaped [structure] ALSTŽ 79, swimming-type [excavation] STŽ 418, “cloverleaf [intersection]” STŽ 497. A total of 62 feature metaphors are examined.

Metaphorical construction terminology is anthropocentric: the human being—bodily structure, activities, and everyday life—serves as the measure for naming. This is evident in the expression of metaphorical terms: the group of nominative metaphors is dominated by names for human body parts; names for human physiological and mental actions, states, and characteristics; and names for household objects and social activities. Terms naming concepts from the animal and plant kingdoms and other areas of nature occur much less frequently. Table 1 shows the number of metaphorical terms and their distribution across groups of naming words.

¹ Nominacinių metaforų tipą yra išskyrusi N. Arutiunova (Никитина 1987: 37; Прохорова 1996: 40).

² Požymių metaforas reikėtų skirti predikatinio požymių metaforų tipui (Никитина 1987: 37).

Terminologija | 2006 | 13

63

Table 1. Metaphorical construction terms by groups of denoted words

Groups of denoted words | Metaphorical terms | no. |% | names of parts of the human body | 86 (29)³ | 11 (21.2) | names of physiological and mental actions, states, and characteristics | 121 (12) | 15.4 (8.8) | names of household and other objects | 406 (53) | 51.8 (38.7) | names of human social activities | 21 (15) | 2.7 (10.9) | names of objects from the animal world | 84 (21) | 10.7 (15.3) | names of objects from the plant world | 41 (5) | 5.2 (3.6) | names of inanimate natural objects | 25 (2) | 3.2 (1.4) | Total | 784 (137) | 100

The data presented show that metaphorical construction terminology contains many terms named after parts of the human body, e.g.: elbow ALSTŽ 246, [pipe] elbow ALSTŽ 124, skeleton STŽ 177, [wooden] skeleton STŽ 140, 177, sole ALSTŽ 40, [tower] base STŽ 376, intestine STŽ 723, STŽ 376, [reinforced] hose STŽ 723. Scientific concepts denoted by diminutives are also frequent here, e.g.: beardlet ALSTŽ 29, cuff RLSTŽ 161, nozzle ALSTŽ 45.

The largest share of metaphorical terminology consists of terms derived from words denoting various groups of objects: a) names of eating utensils and vessels, e.g.: [drill] spoon ALSTŽ 20, 314, spit STŽ 188, [wood-cutting] knife Dzed 22; b) names of work tools, e.g.: [rail] tongs ALSTŽ 60, [drilling] hammer ALSTŽ 117; c) names of clothing accessories, e.g.: strap ALSTŽ 39, [column] collar STŽ 28, [safety] belt ALSTŽ 31; d) names of ornaments and household items, e.g.: [well] ring⁴ ALSTŽ 283, ring ALSTŽ 14, [marking] comb Dzed 14: e) names of food,

³The numbers and proportions of single-word (generic) terms are given in parentheses. These data are intended to show the variety of expressions used for related terms.

⁴According to A. Sabaliauskas, “<...> the finger ring should first and foremost be associated with the verb žiesti—to turn, to make from clay.” For the original meaning of this ring was “some kind of circular object, a circle” (Sabaliauskas 1994: 387).

64 Robertas Stunžinas | Lietuviški metaforiniai statybos terminai

e.g.: [cement] milk STŽ 409, [filtering] cake ALSTŽ 49, cake ALSTŽ 49, dough STŽ 641, crumbs STŽ 663; f) names of structures and their parts, e.g.: vertebra (for water overflow) STŽ 548, [machine] booth STŽ 85, [ball] mill Grig 142, heat cap ALSTŽ 44; g) names of weapons, e.g.: arrow ALSTŽ 39, [distribution] shield ALSTŽ 36, [vibrating] club ALSTŽ 94; h) names of musical instruments, e.g.: [rafter] string ALSTŽ 59, [throat] drum ALSTŽ 26, STŽ 85; i) names of furniture, e.g.: [installation] cradle STŽ 317, [traction] cabinet ALSTŽ 91; f) names of devices and other equipment, e.g.: [air] network ALSTŽ 8, [self-propelled] cart ALSTŽ 45.

The available data show that concrete objects are most often named metaphorically in construction terminology, whereas metaphors for actions, states, and other phenomena are relatively rare (this is characteristic of many technical fields). In construction terminology, abstract concepts were metaphorically named according to: a) human physiological states, e.g.: [asphalt] sweating ALSTŽ 34, [impact] fatigue STŽ 368, aging ALSTŽ 8; b) actions, e.g.: leap STŽ 619, step (progression) STŽ 728; b) mental states or characteristics, e.g.: sensitivity ALSTŽ 297, memory STŽ 50; c) domestic and social activities, e.g.: washing out ALSTŽ 130, splitting (a method of splitting wood) Grig 39, [columns] buckling STŽ 262, [heat] release ALSTŽ 51, stimulation ALSTŽ 133.

Terms named with words denoting animals, plants, and other natural concepts occur relatively infrequently in metaphorical construction terminology. Most terms in this group are named after animals, animal body parts, and objects from the animal world, e.g.: [crane] trestle STŽ 375, [crane] trunk STŽ 588, [building] wing STŽ 558, horn ALSTŽ 152, [hand] winch ALSTŽ 371, caterpillar ALSTŽ 20, worm ALSTŽ 254; [electric lamp] socket STŽ 317, [pipe-insulating] shell ALSTŽ 86. A small group consists of metaphorical terms derived from words denoting plants and objects from the plant world, e.g.: grain ALSTŽ 164, [rope] core STŽ 608, stem STŽ 578, [pipeline] branch ALSTŽ 42. Terms expressed by words denoting inanimate natural objects are also rare, e.g., [cement] stone Grig 230.

According to S. Griniov, the metaphorization of common-word meanings usually begins on the basis of the external resemblance of the objects being named, and later proceeds on the basis of similarity of function (Гринев 1993: 131). This principle could also be applied to metaphorical construction terminology. A considerable number of metaphorical terms involve the transfer of a name on the basis of similarity of form,

Terminologija | 2006 | 13

65

e.g.: [drill] head ALSTŽ 33, [looped] hair (of a carpet) Grig 249, leg Dzed 16, [crane] legs ALSTŽ 25, heel RLSTŽ 119, [suspension] eye ALSTŽ 134, [wire] strand Grig 80. Metaphorical naming transfer based on similarity of form is characteristic of the metaphorical terms in all the groups, e.g.: [crane] drum ALSTŽ 26, STŽ 85, [drill] spoon ALSTŽ 20, 314, grain ALSTŽ 164, cradle STŽ 317, [operator’s] cabin STŽ 85, [safety] belt ALSTŽ 31, arrow ALSTŽ 39, [well] ring ALSTŽ 283, [telephone] booth ALSTŽ 232; [concrete-pouring] trunk STŽ 588, horn ALSTŽ 152, caterpillar track ALSTŽ 20, [furnace] scales Grig 219. Terms derived from words denoting food typically involve metaphorical naming transfer based on similarity of consistency and structure, e.g.: [cement] milk STŽ 409, flour STŽ 339, dough STŽ 641, crumbs STŽ 663. Metaphorical naming transfer based on similarity of function is characteristic of a group of terms, e.g.: [rail] foot ALSTŽ 150, [rail] tongs ALSTŽ 60, [tower] foot STŽ 376, [drilling] hammer ALSTŽ 117, [pneumatic] hammer STŽ 414, [ball] mill (wood-cutting device) Grig 142, [self-propelled] trolley ALSTŽ 45, [distribution] panel ALSTŽ 36, [pipe-insulating] shell ALSTŽ 86.

It is true that it is sometimes difficult to identify the principal feature underlying a metaphorical transfer, since transfers often occur on the basis of several related features. In addition, the impressions evoked by an object (phenomenon) also have a considerable influence. Metaphorical transfer based on various associations is characteristic mainly of terms originating in professional usage, e.g.: swallow’s tail ‘a method of cutting a notch’ Dzed 17, goat ALSTŽ 316, and phraseological compound terms, e.g.: hearing threshold STŽ 547, gearbox ALSTŽ 160, air network ALSTŽ 8, thermal bridge ALSTŽ 44. It is also difficult to classify abstract metaphors according to the types of metaphorical transfer. Such metaphors share the feature that metaphorical naming transfer may have occurred not on the basis of one, but rather of several conceptual features, most often associative ones, e.g.: [winding] pitch STŽ 728, [lime] slaking Grig 132, cutting Grig 39, [load-bearing walls] spacing STŽ 728.

Regarding metaphorical construction terms, it should be noted that, in terms of novelty, most of them are the result of secondary metaphorical nomination—their ordinary words denoting scientific concepts are metaphorical as well. Clearly, most metaphorical terms have been formed according to metaphorical models in the general lexicon, and a considerable number may have been borrowed from folk terminology, e.g.: elbow ALSTŽ 246, [pipe] elbow ALSTŽ

66 Robertas Stunžinas | Lietuviški metaforiniai statybos terminai

124, elbow⁵ 5. “A curved wagon spring protruding far to the rear”: The new-style carts have stronger springs mounted on elbows Nm (LKŽ); [chimney] throat STŽ 167, throat 3. “Opening of a pit”: Cover the mouth of the pit well so that the potatoes do not freeze LŠ (LKŽ); [column] trunk ALSTŽ 292, STŽ 309, trunk 5. “The main part of a tool or implement”: Two handles are attached to the plough body [plough] Užž. (LKŽ); shoulder STŽ 408, [lever] arm STŽ 409, shoulder 7. “Part of a bow”: The bow toppled over and one shoulder broke Grk (LKŽ); [rail] neck STŽ 232, neck 4. EncIV1398 “Part of a scythe by which it is attached to the scythe handle, a small leg”: The scythe’s neck is iron Švnč. (LKŽ); [drill] head ALSTŽ 33, head 8. “A round, thicker part of an object; front; top, upper part”: Cibulio galvelė OG134 (LKŽ); foot RLSTŽ 164, foot 1. Klvr, Brt, Mrj, Šn, Krsn “Part of a cart connecting the axle to the shaft and supporting the wheel”: The foot of a cart connects the axle stub to the axle Brb (LKŽ).

Secondary metaphorical nomination is characteristic of terms in all the groups, e.g.: [plane] blade Dzed 33, blade 2. Gl, Dkš, Šd “Part of a plough or ard”: A blade is fitted beside the ploughshare Jz. (LKŽ); [ball] mill (device for processing wood) Grig 142, mill 3. Klp “sawmill”: Sawmill KII141. Trees need to be taken to the mill to be sawn Prk (LKŽ); [vibrating] table RLSTŽ 39, table 2. Jdr, Pšš “A horizontal plate of a machine, loom, or some device on which something is placed or fastened”: And who will put the [sheaves] on the table? Plm. Secure the table well so it does not topple over while threshing Kt. (LKŽ); arrow ALSTŽ 39, arrow 2. DŽ, NdŽ, Skp, Krn “shoot, sprout”: Trees put out shoots Jn(Pnd) (LKŽ); [crane] drum ALSTŽ 26, STŽ 85, drum 3. “A blown clay vessel, a flask”: There is no tar at the bottom of the little drum Yl. Having strained my mead into little drums, I cork them S. Dauk (LKŽ); grain ALSTŽ 164, grain 3. figurative “a small particle, a tiny amount, a crumb”: A grain of salt K. A grain of sand KI705 (LKŽ); [crane] trestle STŽ 375, goat 11. “A stand with legs on which timber is placed for hewing”: Push the trestle to the end, because the tree is rolling Ūd (LKŽ); [crane] trunk STŽ 588, trunk 2. E, NdŽ “an animal’s snout” (LKŽ); bear RLSTŽ 17, bear 5. Ktk, Kp “A large device with a heavy, thick end for driving in stakes, compacting clay, and so on”: After it has been pulled up, the bear is released so that, as it falls, it drives in the stake Užp (LKŽ); horn ALSTŽ 152, horn 4. N, DŽ, Nd, Kin “A protruding tip at the end of a boat, or the area near it”: Šėpies ragas KII154 (LKŽ); [hand] crane ALSTŽ 371, crane 3. “A lever; a lever pole, a bar”: The crane broke Brž (LKŽ); wing RLSTŽ 241, wing 2. LKAI129 (Trš, Slč, Avl, Kzt, Lkm) “the scissors and fork of a spinning wheel, between which the spindle turns”

⁵ Examples with the indicated meanings are taken from LKŽ.

Terminologija | 2006 | 13

67

on which the bobbin turns”: The wings have teeth, where the thread is put Pb. Don’t stick your fingers near the spindle, boy, or the wings will knock them off Skrb; [fan] blade ALSTŽ 33, wing 4. K, LL230, NdŽ, Žg, Ps. Ssk “the flat board of the part of a windmill turned by the wind, a sail”: [The mill’s] wings turn so fast, it’s frightening LKT265(RdN). It is true that some folk terms may have arisen on the model of terms in other languages. Mill “sawmill” may have arisen on the model of German [Sagen]mühle “sawmill” (Kaulakienė 1991: 88).

A considerable proportion of metaphorical terms may be semantic loans, that is, their metaphorical meaning may have been borrowed from terms in other languages. This can be argued on the basis that more than three quarters (82.5%) of metaphorical terms correspond to⁶ terms in other languages. Nearly three quarters (72%) of terms named after parts of the human body have equivalents in other languages, e.g.: [rail] head – English [rail] head, German [Schienen]kopf, Russian головка [рельса] STŽ 159; [drilling tower] leg – English leg [of boring tower], Russian нога [буровой вышки] STŽ 267; neck – English neck Russian шейка STŽ 232; [lever] arm – Russian плечо [рычага] STŽ 409. Terms named after objects have equivalents in other languages in 85% of cases, e.g.: [stone] bearing – English [stone] bed, Russian [каменная] постель STŽ 184; [drilling] hammer – German [Bohr]hammer, French marteau [de forage], Russian [бурильный] молоток STŽ 414; [suspended] cradle – English [suspension] cradle, Russian [подвесная] люлька STŽ 317; [column] collar – English [column] collar, Russian воротник [колонны] STŽ 28; [safety] belt – English [safety] belt, Russian [предохранительный] пояс STŽ 122; [payphone] booth – Russian будка [таксофона] STŽ 85. Terms named after objects in the natural world have equivalents in other languages in 82% of cases, e.g.: [concrete-pouring] trunk – Russian хобот [для подачи бетонной смеси] STŽ 588, thread – English strand STŽ 168, [building] wing – English [back] wing, German [Gebäude]flügel, Russian крыло [здания] STŽ 558, [cable] core – English [cable] core STŽ 608, [column] socket – Russian гнездо [для колонны] STŽ 317, caterpillar track – English caterpillar ALSTŽ 53. As many as 91% of metaphorical terms for abstract concepts have equivalents in other languages, e.g.: [high-cycle] fatigue – English [high-cycle] fatigue, German Ermüdung [bei hoher Lastspielzahl], French fatigue [multicyclic], Russian [многоцикловая] усталость STŽ 368; [hydraulic] jump – English [hydraulic] jump, German [hydraulischer] Sprung, Russian [гидравлический] скачок STŽ 619; ageing – English ageing ALSTŽ 8. Clear international calques are phraseological metaphorical terms, e.g.:

6 Here, only the correspondence of metaphorical components is being discussed.

68

Robertas Stunžinas | Lietuviški metaforiniai statybos terminai

cement milk – German Zementmilch, French lait de ciment, Russian цементное молоко STŽ 409, hearing threshold – English threshold of hearing, Russian порог слышимости STŽ 547; gearbox – Russian коробка передач STŽ 119.

However, it is doubtful that all such terms should be regarded as semantic borrowings. The comparison with folk terminology presented earlier shows that some Lithuanian terms are entirely motivated within their own language. The correspondence between Lithuanian terms and those in other languages should be explained by the universality of metaphorical nomination and by language contact⁷. According to A. Sabaliauskas, the name crane was given “not only to the well poles in villages, which are now already disappearing, but also to the cranes swaying at construction sites in big cities. As early as the fourteenth century, the Germans gave the name of the crane to a device for loading cargo onto a ship (der Kran; Germans currently call the bird der Kranich). English crane has likewise long meant not only the bird, but also a device for lifting heavy loads. The first to name such a device after a bird were probably the Greeks: their géranos means both ‘crane’ and ‘device for lifting heavy loads’ (Sabaliauskas 1994: 97). For interest, it may be noted that metaphorical nomination is also characteristic of some non-equivalent terms, e.g.: crane – Russian лебёдка STŽ 167, bear – Russian баба RLSTŽ 17, horse – English horse STŽ 375, [suspension] eye – English [lifting] eye ALSTŽ 134, [pressure] surge – English [pressure] kick STŽ 619, [pipeline] elbow – Russian колено [трубопровода] STŽ 18.”

As for metaphors of features, it should be noted that metaphorical nomination of features in construction terminology is based predominantly on the properties of household objects and objects from the animal world, and much less often on the properties of human bodily structure, physical states and characteristics, plants, and objects of inanimate nature. Table 2 presents cases of feature-metaphor nomination⁸ according to conceptual domains.

The forms of individual terms show that features of construction concepts are most often named by dependent constituents on the basis of external similarity to: a) a household object, e.g.: saddle-shaped [support] ALSTŽ 87, 330, boiler-shaped [recess] STŽ 189, sickle-shaped [arch] RLSTŽ 12, saw-shaped [bearing] ALSTŽ 286, fork-shaped [part] STŽ 117, comb-shaped [notch] ALSTŽ 64, fan-shaped [bridge] ALSTŽ 44; b) a musical instrument, e.g.: drum-shaped [boiler] ALSTŽ 294, trumpet-shaped [junction] STŽ 498, harp-shaped [purlin] ALSTŽ 111; c) a plant, part of a plant, or fungus, e.g.: spruce-shaped [splice] ALSTŽ 39, fungus-shaped

⁷ It is likely that construction terminology, like technical terminology as a whole, was influenced considerably by Russian and German.

⁸ The table compares only distinct cases of feature-metaphor expression.

Terminologija | 2006 | 13

69

Table 2. Feature metaphors in construction terminology by conceptual domain

Conceptual domains

Feature metaphors

no.

%

human bodily structure

7

11,3

human physical states and characteristics

7

11,3

domestic sphere

27

43,5

animal world

15

24,3

plant world

4

6,4

inanimate nature

2

3,2

Total

62

100

[overlap] STŽ 401; d) a natural object, e.g.: marble [rot] RLSTŽ 61, cellular [radiator] STŽ 466; e) a part of the human body, e.g.: hairline [cracking] STŽ 418; f) an animal or animal part, e.g., butterfly [roof] STŽ 583. The most typical expression of metaphorical modifiers in this group is through adjectives derived with the suffixes -iškas, -iška, -inis, -inė. Cases of expression through compound adjectives and the genitive of nouns are rare, e.g.: wolf-like [skylight] STŽ 585, “cloverleaf” [intersection] STŽ 497. Resemblance to a food product (in color or consistency) is indicated by a noun in the genitive, e.g.: coffee [shade] / Dzed 11, sour-cream [consistency] / Grig 268.

Dependent modifiers often metaphorically denote surface characteristics, e.g.: toothed [hammer] ALSTŽ 169, [claw bar with a claw, fingered [hoe] STŽ 263, broad-footed [foundation] STŽ 384, winged [nut] ALSTŽ 232, RLSTŽ 22. In other cases, characteristics arising from various associations (similarity of form or function) with the objects denoted by the base words are indicated. Derivatives with the suffix -inis, -inė predominate, e.g.: mole-like [drainage] ALSTŽ 115, nest-like [foundation] ALSTŽ 35, worm-like [hoist] STŽ 250, spinal [wall] STŽ 508. There are few cases of metaphorical designation of characteristics based on physical states or actions, e.g.: saturated [steam] ALSTŽ 318, standing [air] ALSTŽ 10, crawling [arch] STŽ 43, walking [excavator] ALSTŽ 362.

It should be noted that in other languages too, metaphorical naming of characteristics is in most cases based on the same features. It is likely that Lithuanian modifiers may have been formed on the model of terms in other languages, e.g.:

70

Robertas Stunžinas | Lietuviški metaforiniai statybos terminai

“cloverleaf” [intersection] – English cloverleaf [junction], Russian [перекрёсток] по типу клеверного листа STŽ 497; butterfly [roof] – English butterfly [roof] STŽ 583; trouser-shaped [tee] – Russian штанообразный [тройник], French [raccord a trois voices] a pantalon STŽ 660, ALSTŽ 144; barrel-like [vault] – Russian бочарный [свод] STŽ 542; horseshoe-shaped [arch] – English horseshoe [arch], Russian подковообразная [арка] STŽ 43; hair-like [cracking] – English hair [cracking] STŽ 418; spinal [wall] – English spine [wall] STŽ 508; core [drill] – English core [drill], German Kern[bohrer] STŽ 173; crawling [arch] – Russian ползучая [арка] STŽ 43.

CONCLUSIONS

1. In construction terminology, metaphorical designation of concepts is not a productive method of term formation. In the sources examined, metaphorical terms make up only a small proportion of the terms.

2. A distinctive feature of metaphorical construction terminology is its anthropocentricity. In the group of naming metaphors, more than three-quarters (80.9%) are terms designated by names of human body parts, physiological and mental actions, states and characteristics, as well as various objects. Concepts in construction terminology are relatively rarely designated by names of natural phenomena.

3. The metaphorization of meanings in construction terminology may have followed conventional principles: most of the terms analyzed involve metaphorical transfer of a name based on similarity of form or consistency. Only in a small group of terms is the metaphorical name transferred on the basis of functional similarity.

4. Most metaphorical construction terms are not new metaphors; they are chiefly the result of secondary metaphorical naming. The metaphorical terminology of this field was formed according to metaphorical models in the general lexicon, and a considerable proportion of metaphorical terms may have been borrowed from folk terminology.

5. The substantial correspondence between Lithuanian metaphorical terms and terms in other languages suggests that metaphorical meanings may be borrowed. However, clear motivation within the native language also indicates that metaphorical construction terminology arose not through semantic borrowing, but according to universal principles of metaphorical naming. A small group of phraseological terms are clear international calques.

6. Metaphorical naming of characteristics in construction terminology is based chiefly on the properties of household objects and objects in the animal world. Metaphorical term modifiers most often denote characteristics based on external resemblance to objects, and surface characteristics are also named metaphorically.

Terminologija | 2006 | 13

71

ŠALTINIAI

ALSTŽ – Anglų–lietuvių kalbų statybos terminų žodynas. Spec. red. A. Kudžys, Vilnius, 1993.

Džed – Džedulionis J. Namų meistras. Staliaus darbai, Kaunas, 1998.

Grig – Grigaliūnas B. Statybinės medžiagos ir gaminiai. Vilnius, 1974.

RLSTŽ – Rusų–lietuvių kalbų statybos terminų žodynas. Spec. red. A. Kudžys, Vilnius, 1992.

STŽ – Statybos terminų žodynas. Moksl. red. A. Kudžys, Vilnius, 2002.

LITERATŪRA

Gaivenis K. 2002: Lietuvių terminologija: teorijos ir tvarkybos metmenys, Vilnius.

Kaulakienė A. 1991: Mokslo kalbos užuomazgos „Kleivėje“. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 29, 80–91.

Klimavičius J. 2005: Leksikologijos ir terminologijos darbai: norma ir istorija, Vilnius.

LKŽe: Lietuvių kalbos žodynas (elektroninis leidimas), Vilnius.

Sabaliauskas A. 1994: Iš kur jie? Pasakojimas apie žodžių kilmę, Vilnius.

Володина М. Н. 1997: Теория терминологической номинации, Москва.

Гринев С. В. 1993: Введение в терминоведение, Москва.

Ивина Л. В. 2003: Лингво-когнитивные основы анализа отраслевых терминосистем. Москва.

ЛТС 2003: Лексикология. Терминоведение. Стилистика. Сборник научных трудов, Москва.

КРР 2003: Культура русской речи: Энциклопедический словарь-справочник, Москва.

Никитина С. Е. 1987: Семантический анализ языка науки, Москва.

Прохорова В. Н. 1996: Русская терминология (лексико-семантическое образование), Москва.

LITHUANIAN METAPHORICAL TERMS OF BUILDING TERMINOLOGY

In this article 846 metaphorical terms are analyzed, i. e. 784 nominative and 62 attributive metaphors. Metaphorical building terminology is distinguished by its anthropocentricity. In the group of nominative metaphors more than three quarters (80,9%) of terms are names of human body parts, names of human physiological, physical conditions and processes and names of various things. [en elbow pipe – alkūnė ALSTŽ 246]; [en bleeding of (asphalt) – (asfalto) prakai­tavimas ALSTŽ 34], [en (column) collar – (kolonos) apykaklė STŽ 28]. Only rarely in building terminology concepts are named after objects of nature: [en portal gantry – (kraninis) ožys STŽ 375], [(cemento) akmuo Grig 230]. The facts suggest that in building terminology mostly things are named in metaphors whereas metaphors of actions, states and other abstract expressions are rather rare.

In building terminology metaphorization of meaning could have occured according to the usual regularities. For the majority of terms a metaphorical transfer of the name according to analogy of form or consistence is typical: [en drill bit – (grąžto) galvutė ALSTŽ 33], [en paste – tešla STŽ 641]. Only a small group of terms had a metaphorical transfer of the name according to analogy of functions [(rutulinis malūnas Grig 142].

Most of the terms analyzed are not new metaphors and they are a result of secondary metaphorical nomination. Metaphorical terminology of this field was created using metaphorical models of common lexis, most terms could have been borrowed from folk terminology: [(bėgio) kakliukas STŽ 232 – kakliukas LKŽ]. A major part of the terms could be semantic borrowings, i.e. metaphorical meanings could have been borrowed from other languages. More than three quarters (82,5%) of terms are identical to other language terms: [(bėgio) galvutė – en (rail) head, de (Schienen)kopf, ru головка (рельса) STŽ 159. However not all identical terms could be treated as semantic borrowings –

72

Robertas Stunžinas | Lietuviški metaforiniai statybos terminai

most Lithuanian metaphorical terms are fully motivated in the native language. Equivalence of Lithuanian and other language terms could be explained by universality of metaphorical nomination and language contacts.

Metaphoric nomination of attributes in building terminology is based on the features of everyday things and objects of fauna, and only rarely things are named after features of human body structure, physiological processes and conditions and objects of flora and inanimate nature. Attributes are named using metaphoric subordinate components according to exterior similarities to everyday things, musical instruments, plants and objects of nature: [balniškoji (drama) ALSTŽ 87, 330]; [bugninis (kantilas) ALSTŽ 294]; [eglutiškoji (perriša) ALSTŽ 39]; [marmurinis (puvinys) RLSTŽ 61]. Often subordinate components name surface characteristics: [dantytasis (plaktukas) ALSTŽ 169]. In other cases naming of attributes is based on various associations (form, function) with things named in underlying words: [kurminis (drenažas) ALSTŽ 115], [lizdinis (pamatas) ALSTŽ 35], [stuburinė (siena) STŽ 508].

In other languages metaphoric nomination of attributes proceeded according to the same principles. It could be considered that Lithuanian metaphoric subordinate components were created following the example of other language terms: [„dobilo lapo“ (sankryža) - en cloverleaf (junction), ru (перекрёсток) по типу клеверного листа STŽ 497], [drugeliškasis (stogas) - en butterfly (roof) STŽ 583], [kelniškasis (trišakis) - ru штૂంобразный (трߵошник), fr (raccord a trois voices) a pantalon STŽ 660, ALSTŽ 144].

Gauta 2006-11-13

Robertas Stunžinas Lietuvių kalbos institutas P. Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 E. paštas [email protected]

Terminologija | 2006 | 13

73