ROBERTAS STUNŽINAS

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

TERMINOLOGY PROBLEMS OF THE BALTIC NATIONS AND THE EUROPEAN UNION

Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 2005, 172 p.

This is a collection of articles officially presented by the Institute of the Lithuanian Language at the 2006 Book Fair, based on papers delivered at the international terminology seminar held in 2004, Terminology Problems and Tasks of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in the European Union. The publication is international—the editorial board and article authors are Lithuanian and foreign scholars—and more English-language than Lithuanian-language: three articles are in Lithuanian (with English summaries) and seven in English (with Lithuanian summaries). The publication is intended “both for those engaged in practical terminology work and for everyone interested in terminology” (p. 8).

The collection covers a variety of topics. Most of it concerns the terminology work of international organizations and various countries (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Hungary and Russia); it also explores some theoretical issues and presents developments in terminology.

The collection’s arrangement of articles—alphabetically by author—is not particularly convenient. It opens with A. Aukso-riūtė’s non-problem-oriented survey article, Terminology Work at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language (pp. 11–20). It concludes that the scale of terminology work at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language has expanded considerably. Previously, the Institute’s terminologists focused more on practical work, but in recent years theoretical research has been developed to a greater extent (p. 17). The collection’s longest survey article is St. Keinys’s overview, in English, of the history and current state of Lithuanian terminology (pp. 48–67). It discusses all periods in the history of Lithuanian terminology—from the first written texts of the 16th century (a kind of response to the view that Lithuanian terminology began in the 20th century) through the 20th century. Contemporary Lithuanian

Terminologija | 2006 | 13

213

terminology faces difficulties arising from the translation and borrowing of terms (“Europeanization” based on English), the irresponsible preparation of multilingual terminology dictionaries, the translation of texts in the humanities and social sciences, legislation and technical standards, and the widespread use of Lithuanian and English as a pair of languages (pp. 61–65).

The situation of Latvian terminology following accession to the European Union and its prospects are reviewed in Valentina Skujiņa’s article in English (pp. 154–159, with summaries in Latvian and Lithuanian). In Latvia, terminology work is carried out by two institutions—the Terminology Commission of the Latvian Academy of Sciences and the Translation and Terminology Centre (p. 154). Difficulties in terminology work arise from disagreements among specialists and inadequate theoretical and practical training. In the rush, terms are borrowed from English; terminology work is also hampered by synonymy in existing dictionaries and by terminology tools—term databases—that are not updated. Major changes lie ahead for terminology work in Latvia; the State Language Commission’s project to modernize terminology work is expected to identify a more successful model (p. 157).

H. Tam’s article introduces the difficulties of translating terms in Brussels, Luxembourg and Estonia (pp. 160–167). At the Estonian Legal Language Centre, difficulties in terminology work arise from insufficient funding (over two years, staff numbers fell almost ninefold) and differing views between the Centre itself and the Ministry of Justice (p. 164).

The complex situation of Hungarian terminology is described in J. Pustaj’s article, Term Creation in Central Europe in the Context of EU Terminology (pp. 100–107). In Hungary, the translation of European Union documents and the creation of terms are carried out by non-terminology institutions (p. 102); terminology work is relatively spontaneous and mainly connected with translation (p. 105). The author emphasizes the importance of deliberate language policy and establishing terminology institutions (p. 105). However, comparing small groups of terms from a single source (pp. 103–105) with regard to origin and structure does not, in itself, reflect the language policies of various countries.

Different problems in terminology work at standardization institutions are explored in articles by N. Dudlauskienė and Ch. Galinskis. N. Dudlauskienė’s article, Standardization of Lithuanian Technical Terms (pp. 21–34), reviews the activities of the Lithuanian Standards Department and identifies the most pressing and current problems in terminology work: “<...> In July 2004, the LST Technical Committee adopted a resolution to adopt European terminology standards as Lithuanian terminology standards, approving—

214 Robertas Stunžinas

by means of a notification. The consequence of such a decision is that 44 Lithuanian standards have already been issued without Lithuanian terms, thereby adding only foreign-language terms to the corpus of Lithuanian technical terms” (p. 28). Other difficulties in the work of the Lithuanian Standards Department include insufficient funding for the activities of LST TC 37 and the inability to ensure the participation of representatives of this institution in the work of ISO/TC 37 (p. 29). It is true that a specific proposal for solving the existing problems is also presented: all institutions responsible for terminology management should jointly consider the State Programme for the Standardisation, Use, Development and Dissemination of the Lithuanian Language under preparation, as well as the annual implementation plans for measures related to terminological work drawn up under this programme (p. 30).

Ch. Galinski’s article ISO/TC 37 and Semantic Harmonization (p. 34) discusses the work of ISO/TC 37 and its subcommittees, newly formulated tasks, and the policy of global semantic harmonization. Semantic harmonization must be based on a unified methodology and carried out not only on a global scale, but also across different societies and application programmes (p. 42). Terminology and other language resources play an important role and are not only an integral part of all types of textual content, but also serve as tools for indexing and searching (p. 45).

Problems in the theory of terminology are analysed in articles by Russian and Latvian terminologists. V. Leičikas and S. Šelovas’s article Russian Terminology: State and Prospects (p. 68–88) briefly identifies the features and problems of Russian terminology theory: the nature of the term, the linguistic structure of the term, the character of terminological systems, the development of terminology and terminological systems, the term and text, and so on. Discussing the nature of the term, the authors emphasise that this issue was explored in the early publications of D. Lotes and K. Drezen. The terminologists’ debate is summarised in the assertion that the basis of a term is linguistic, borrowed from ordinary language, while its most important characteristic is the ability to denote and name a defined concept within a system of concepts (p. 70). The chapter Linguistic Structure of the Term (p. 72–74) emphasises that one of the main goals of linguistic research in Russia is the problem of varying (dimorphic) terms and the limits of terminological variation (p. 73). The chapter Terminology as a Science (p. 79–80) addresses whether terminology should be regarded as a linguistic discipline. The question is answered with the following assertions: 1) the science of terminology studies not only terms as particular lexical units, but also terminological systems, which are essentially not a linguistic category; 2) the issues most often addressed in terminology

Terminologija | 2006 | 13 215

non-linguistic theoretical matters; 3) methods of terminological work are heterogeneous and lie beyond the scope of linguistic competence. It is concluded that terminology is a complex, multidisciplinary field of study, and R. Kobrin’s claim is cited that “the science of terminology develops methods from the fundamental sciences: linguistics, philosophy, cognitive science; formal, dialectical, and mathematical logic; classification theory and semiotics” (p. 79). At the end of the article, a substantial list of the most important works on terminology by Russian scholars is provided.

In S. Shelov’s article Terms, Termhood, and Term Definitions (Seven Steps Toward a Theory of Terminology) (pp. 122–153), the author’s practical and theoretical research is summarized in the form of questions and answers. The problem of definitions in Lithuanian terminology has been examined in greater detail by K. Gaivenis (see Gaivenis 2004: 85–117). Having defined the essence of a term and termhood (p. 123), S. Shelov presents the concepts of a term definition (definition) and an explanation (exposition) (p. 124). According to the Russian scholar, in the broad sense of the word, a terminological definition is an explanation of the conceptual content of the term being defined (p. 127). Discussing types of term definitions, the terminologist offers his own classification: classificatory, enumerative, operational, contextual, non-specific, and general definitions (p. 133). Raising the question of whether a definition is necessary, S. Shelov emphasizes that some terms are fully motivated and do not require definitions (p. 133). The section on the conceptual structure of terminology (pp. 138–148) discusses issues concerning the hierarchy of classificatory concepts. The tables (pp. 143–148) provide examples of levels of concepts in the terminologies of heat treatment and communication.

The use of metaphors in the terminology of information and communication technologies is surveyed in an article by Latvian terminologists D. Reizniece, J. Silis, I. Ilzinia, and J. Borzov (pp. 108–121). Presenting extreme views on metaphors, the authors emphasize two main functions of metaphorical terms—cognitive and aesthetic. The article formulates two rules governing the use of metaphorical terms: 1) wherever possible, English metaphors and expressive elements should be replaced with Latvian equivalents; 2) a balance should be maintained between the cognitive and aesthetic functions of Latvian terms. However, these rules are not exclusive; the general principles for work on information and communication technology terminology must also be followed.

The development and evolution of the terminology tool Lietuvių kalbos termynyno are presented in S. Meškauskienė’s article (pp. 89–99). In 2002, K. Gaivenis

216 Robertas Stunžinas |

having mentioned that a Lithuanian term bank had been in preparation for several years at the Institute of Mathematics and Informatics, “in creating the term bank’s main database, the grammar, semantics, and pragmatics of terms are parameterized. Terms can be searched by the normative term, its synonyms, definitions, and equivalents in other languages <...>” (Gaivenis 2002: 84). The result of this work, carried out over several years, is “238 thousand terms transferred from twenty-four dictionaries of terminology in various fields (physics, mathematics, botany, chemistry, sociology, geology, etc.)” (p. 90).

In conclusion, it can be said that the collection of articles Terminology Problems of the Baltic Nations and the European Union offers useful information not only to specialists engaged in practical terminology work, but also to those engaged in theoretical work. The collection’s material is very diverse, covering the terminological problems of various languages and the political tasks involved in joining the European Union. The essential questions of terminology theory and term usage are also discussed briefly but relatively clearly.

LITERATŪRA

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

Gaivenis K. 2004: Sudėtinių terminų pateikimas ir aiškinimas terminų žodynuose. – Terminologijos istorijos ir dabarties problemos, Vilnius, p. 85–117.

Gauta 2006-12-04

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

Terminologija | 2006 | 13

217