Kalbos ir teksto atmainas įvardijančių terminų problemos

TERMINOLOGY AND THE PRESENT Rūta MARCINKEVIČIENĖ Vytautas the Great University LANGUAGE AND TEXT MEMORY PROBLEMS WITH INTERVAL TERMS 1. Introduction Recently, with the emergence of new terms and changes in the content of some previously used terms, there is a need to review those linguistic terms that are directly related to various types, units and variants of language. This is best done systematically, discussing them not in isolation, but in groups AND pairs, in order to highlight the similarities and differences of the terminological meanings. This is also the case for the main categories of the language. One involves language as a system, although it can also be focused on language use, the other is related to the basic communicative unit of language – the text. The aim of this article is to discuss the categories of terms referring to both variants of the language, pointing out the problems of their definition, and to describe in more detail the less discussed terms. The aim will be pursued on the basis of three sources: available information publications — dictionaries and reference books, linguistic works and the use of some terms in the Vytautas Magnus University Contemporary Lithuanian Language Textbook, covering the 1994-2004 press. 2. Names of language system variants The first category would belong to the types of language that have long been named, described and used without problems (because the use of language coincides with definitions): general, or literary, language, and dialect, or dialect. Dialects, in turn, are divided into two groups: territorial, or geographical, And social and professional. The latter include professional or social jargons, argo, slang (Palionis 1985: 16— 7 20). Of the two types of language mentioned, literary language is used almost four times more frequently in texts than common language (2615 and 736 times). By the way, the 1990 CIC defines a language type typologically — "a set of generalized linguistic features according to which languages are classified in a typological classification". Thus, the concept of language span in Jon Palionis’ textbook and KTZ 1990 differs. Another not quite problematic distinction is named by the terms spoken and written (book) language, perceived as oral and written communication. They are sometimes confused with the terms written and spoken (KTŽ 1990). There are also the terms living language and written language, and in connection with the Sophist dichotomy, i.e. system and use, the terms language and speech or language and speech. How do we call this group of terms in general? MRL 2000 language — 3. “a certain variation of the system of expression of thoughts: General (literary) language Written, spoken language Newspaper language Poetic language Versed language Maironio, Žemaitės language Lively, natural, clear, processed language- .” (rare of mine —R. M.). Thus, lexicographers propose the term variant, as in the case of the common (literary) language, which J. Palionis calls type. The word combinations presented show that airmena MRL is understood very broadly. Linguistic terminology should define more precisely the type of language, the variety, the kind and some other general terms. Although the word speech itself inevitably has several terminological meanings — the system of verbal expression of thoughts (native language), the already mentioned variant of that system (poetic language), the synonym of conversation, i.e. a certain genre of oral language (to take up speeches), and the designation of public speaking (said a speech). The language is divided into artistic and non-artistic spheres of use. The latter, according to the same criteria, can be divided into domestic and professional language, and the latter into scientific and administrative language. The types of language listed according to the areas of use, with the addition of the language of the publicistic sphere, are called functional styles (Župerka 1997: 78). There is a distinct distinction between formal and informal language. It covers the types of language classified according to two sets of criteria: privacy and publicity, i.e. personal and official communication, as well as the characteristics of generality and speciality. The domestic language, also called the spoken language, 6 has the opposite of the public language. Public and domestic or spoken language, taken together, form the spoken language already mentioned (Koženiauskienė 1999: 42). Thus, the term oral language can be understood both as a synonym for spoken language and as a word of a broader meaning, encompassing both public and private verbal communication. The only difference is that the spoken language can be written, and the verbal only spoken, pronounced. Even written spoken language does not become written, because it retains its own structure and vocabulary (for logical and linguistic differences between spoken and written expression see. Nauckūnaitė 2003). Another member of the opposition between the domestic and the business language is the business language. This term is used more and more often. It summarizes the language of individual specific fields of science and social life — legal, administrative and other. In addition, it is very suitable when it is necessary to translate into Lithuanian the very common English term LSP — Language for Specific Purpose, which is now only an acronym. In the English language, the opposite term is LGP (Language for General Purpose), which is also an acronym. In computer linguistics and other fields, the LSP synonym sublanguage (pamorphemically translated would be pokalbé) is well established and widespread. It refers to any language of a limited topic, such as weather forecasts, navigators, telegrams, which should be distinguished from the broader subject language and perhaps called special language, not to be confused with the specialty language, understood as the Lithuanian language taught to students, associated with their specific specialty. Recently, the term domain has also been used in Lithuanian linguistics to designate the area of language use. This term is commonly used in the study of foreignness of various languages, especially when it comes to the loss of domains, the decline of areas of language use (see Vaicekauskienė 2004: 10). Therefore, there are even several terms for something special, specific language. Unfortunately, in Lithuanian there is no term that covers all non-special or non-professional language. Neither the terms of everyday or even general language are appropriate here, a new, even general, general or simple language is needed. The equivalent of Language for General Purpose, which appeared in the Lithuanian Language Commission’s findings, is not very suitable for the language of the specialty in the language of the general environment. Whatever the name, the opposition between the domestic and the professional language, formed according to two distinct characteristics, it would be better to distinguish between them: according to the characteristic of publicity — into the domestic or private and public language, and according to the characteristic of specificity — into the general, general, ordinary and professional or 9 special language. It might appear that using the long-established names of functional styles (scientific, administrative, publicistic, domestic, artistic), similar terms of administrative or domestic language would no longer be necessary. However, language is not equal to style, which is also shown by such statements as the style of lesson speech (Zuperka 1997: 83). Language is understood here as a certain variant of language, style — as a particularity of that language, as certain features. By the way, style as a term in philology means two different things: individual, or authorial, and functional style, understood as “the collective habit of using language in various areas of communication” (Zuperka 1983: 11), thus a certain variant of language, which should not be confused with the style of a specific text. In English, two terms are used in this case: style and functional style, or more commonly style and register. The register, like the functional style, identifies the types of language usage according to the content, nature or functions of the language, which in one way or another determine the form of the language itself (Halliday et al. 1964: 77; Leckie-Tarry 1993: 28). The term register in English refers to different things — broad fields of activity, such as law, science, religion. In this case, the term register is synonymous with discourse. In other cases, registers are spoken and written variants of language, but most often registers are the scale of public-private and the types of language that are arranged in it, cf. the well-known registers named by M. Joos: frozen, formal, informal, collogual, intimate (Joos 1961), i.e. ritual, formal, informal, domestic. The term register has already appeared in Lithuanian- -translated works of literary theory, obviously in the meaning of the term used in English (Hawthorn 1998; PMLS 2000). It is also discussed by linguists when comparing it with functional style (Vladarskienė 2000). Therefore, it would be worth considering whether the register should not be defined and included in the terminology system of linguistics for naming the subdivisions of the domestic or private and public language scale. In other words, the register could be a legitimate term for language variations in their privacy-publicity or officiality- -intimacy aspect. 10 3. Names of communicative language units The term style is used in both categories of terms that describe the variety of types, types and varieties of language. It can be understood both as the style of the whole language and as the style of a particular text. The latter category, i.e. terms of communicative language units, is associated with the text. They consist of the main term text, best defined by contrasting it with discourse and language, understood as public spoken language or as discourse (Koženiauskienė 1999: 42). The other pair of terms is text type and genre. The term pairs text and discourse, text type and genre need to be described in more detail, because these widely used terms are not discussed by linguists, although they are used in text and textbook linguistics, linguistic text and genre analysis, rhetoric, stylistics and other linguistic works. Public speeches are discussed in rhetoric books (Koženiauskienė 1999; Nauckūnaitė 2000), so this term will not be discussed here. There are several complementary ways of defining terms. One of them is to rely on the concepts of the various authors who used them, the other, additionally, on their actual use in language, especially in the business language. Both methods will be applied to the mentioned term pairs, after checking how these terms are defined in dictionaries and encyclopedias, since these words are not only linguistic terms, but also words of everyday lexical circulation. 3.1. Overview of information leaflets General explanatory dictionaries contain only some of the words of interest. The MRL 2000 recto is defined as 1. ‘relative language structure’, 2. ‘verbal part, as distinguished from drawings, sketches, etc.’, 3. "musical work words", genre ~ "unit of classification of works of art according to structural characteristics- ". Two international dictionaries of words describe the text in a similar way, adding a few additional specific meanings [the printing and computer meanings of the text (TZZ 2001a; TZZ 2001b) are not relevant here]. Those dictionaries define the genre as DLKŽ 2000, and the discourse is described very abstractly and only as two branches of science 11 term —[French discours —language, type of language, text] 1. kalbot. “composed according to a certain system, ppr. an extended expression of a thought about a subject’; 2. „in semiotics —a linguistic or non-verbal process, having one or another meaning- “. As one could expect, the general dictionaries do not present the terminological, but only the general and only some of the terms text, genre, discourse meanings, which do not reflect a significantly changed attitude to the things named by these words. More should be expected from special philological publications, but we are disappointed, because there is also incomplete information. ISIC 1990 describes only one of the four terms — text. It is “a piece of speech or a fragment of speech, forming a sequence of speech sounds or characters and conveying a certain defined content. The text is unlimited in terms of volume." LKE 1999 does not have genre, discourse, text-type articles, and the text is described only in two aspects: written form and coherence, i.e. (a) ‘recorded speech excerpt’; and (b) ‘a set of sentences connected by meaning’. There are also three types of texts: narrative, description, reasoning. LL E 2001 and translational literature theory guides, on the contrary, define genre and discourse, but not text or type of text. This may be because the latter terms are traditionally associated more with literary studies than with linguistics. The genre here is defined traditionally and very narrowly, only as “the main literary (rare among my —R.M.) genres — lyric, epic, drama — a smaller division, uniting groups of works that are structurally close.” In Jeremy Hawthron- 's Handbook of Modern Literary Theory (Hawthron 1998), genre, while also limited to the traditional meaning of genre as a type or subdivision of literature, is expanded to include "a social and a literary or linguistic category- ". Here is the position of feminist Genre researcher Anne Cranny-Francis, which is acceptable to the author: “although her definition of Genre is based on textual things (conventions, formulas, scope), the research also raises social, historical and ideological questions” (ibid.). This concept of genre, as will be explained later, approaches the interdisciplinary definition of genre. Unlike the genre, discourse is described in literary encyclopedias in a much more diverse way. LLE 2001 presents three meanings of discourse: 1. ‘a conversation or discussion on a philosophical, political, religious, literary or similar subject; 12 scientific work, treatise’; 2. “In linguistics, discourse means any section of speech that is larger than a sentence. In this regard, the concepts of discourse and text are often used as synonyms. Discourse is considered to be any linguistic activity—a poem, a commentary on the Bible, a newspaper headline, or a toast.” 3. “In modern cultural theories, discourse is also referred to as other non-verbal expressions (a film, advertisement, a piece of music, a ritual). In a broader sense, discourse refers to the set of statements, statements (both verbal and expressed in other, for example, visual or sign language) characteristic of any social activity (medicine, law, political discourse, etc.)". In J. Hawthorne’s already mentioned Handbook of Modern Literary Theory (Hawthorn 1998), discourse is presented through the views declared by individual authors and the usage of the term discourse that emerges from their works, which, incidentally, does not always coincide with the definitions given by the same authors, in other words, the authors do not always consistently use the terms defined in their own way. The latter way of perceiving the meaning of terms, when looking not so much at definitions as at actual usage, is close to the method of textbook linguistics applied below. Hawthorne's Handbook emphasizes the confusing and ambiguous use of discourse. In linguistics, especially in pragmatics, discourse refers to the language used, not to language as an abstract system. According to Michael Stubbs, discourse implies a broader scope of concepts than text, and may imply interaction, although not necessarily. It cites Michael Foucault’s conception that discourses are “large groups of messages- ”, rules-controlled areas of language characterized by certain “strategic possibilities”. These rules, conventions and systems control how, when, where and what is spoken in one or another discourse, for example, medicine. According to Foucault, every society controls, selects, organizes and distributes the production of discourses in a certain way, and the purpose of these processes of discourse control is to protect against “forces and dangers”. This publication also presents the meanings given to the discourse by E. Benveniste, R. Fowler and M. Bachtin. The positions of the latter two authors are characterized, among other aspects, by the understanding of discourse as an ideology, according to which discourse establishes beliefs, values and categories (Stubbs 2001: 165). 13 In summarizing the cited publications, it can be said that the text is characterized only by three characteristics: coherence, unlimited volume and verbality. DLKŽ 2000 and KTŽ 1990 refer to verbality more broadly — as the spoken and written word, while LKE 1999 refers to it more narrowly, only as the written word. The genre is described rather concisely, only as a division of works of art or purely of art — literature, adding a slightly broader, i.e. social, not purely linguistic or literary, aspect of its analysis. The broadest definition of discourse, by the way, is very similar to LLE 2001 and translation guides. Emphasizing the multifaceted use of discourse, the following things are referred to by this term: a) a discussion, a work implying interaction or dialogue, b) any verbal text, in other words, language used in a specific context or non-verbal works, c) a set of statements characteristic of social activity, certain areas of ideologically committed language. 3.2. Overview of the laboratory work Another way of defining the terms referring to variations of language usage would be to review the works of the most prominent theorists, in which these terms and the concepts referred to by them are described in detail. It should be said immediately that the views of informational publications and various authors do not necessarily have to coincide. Furthermore, the scope of definitions varies greatly, ranging from dictionaries in reference publications to monographs that attempt to describe concepts in detail and comprehensively. 3.2.1. Theoretical concept of text The text is understood and defined in various ways, indicating its various characteristics or conditions for its emergence. Perhaps the broadest definition of text is given by Halliday—- as any functional use of language, any example of real language that plays a role in a non-verbal situation. The text is not so much made up of words and sentences visible from the surface, as of meanings that are encoded by words and then decoded, so the text is a semantic unit. From other semantic units of language (morpheme, word, word combination or sentence) the 1S text is essentially different not so much by its volume as by its different structure, interaction with 14 the context, its peculiarities of creation and perception. In this respect, the text is unique and the only such language construction (Halliday, Hasan 1991: 10). The question of what makes a text a text is answered differently. Grammatical sentences first, but they alone are not enough. There must be a connection between the sentences. It must be felt and interpreted by the reader. Fextforming devices, i.e. words and phrases that we find in sentences, help to create and establish the relationship between sentences. But this is not all — in addition to these linguistic things, the text is linked by non-verbal things, i.e. non-verbal competence related to the subject and to the content of the text. Thus, according to this concept, a text can be described as a continuous speech structure consisting of several sentences (Nunan 1993: 4-5). Teun van Dijk (1998: 39) states that only those sequences of sentences that have a certain macrostructure can be considered text. Macrostructure is understood here as the thematic and propositional framework that encompasses the text, linking language elements to the text as a whole. Halliday points to the fundamental ambiguity of the text. For him, a text is anything that has meaning in a given situation, a text that is a constant semantic selection (1978: 136-137). Thus, context, situation is one of the guarantors of text creation and perception. From a social point of view, the text is inseparable from the context, etymologically understood as accompanying texts, although in fact not only they are important, but the whole context of the linguistic and non-verbal situation. It is the context that makes us look at the text in two ways: as a product and as a process, i.e. as a closed, autonomous structure or a structure determined by the context. The text, as a process, understood because of its interactiveness, its ability to determine meanings, is most evident in dialogue. The text can be understood both as a certain object and as an event determined by a specific situation or environment. Both text and context are semiotic phenomena, certain ways of conveying meanings, so text can be defined by how it relates to the context of the situation, how people predict the meanings of the text according to the context of the situation. It is believed that text and language in general are shaped by their functions and purposes (Halliday, Hasan 1991: 11-12). Similarly, Tony Bexas looks at the text only through context. According to him, texts cannot be autonomous and independent of contexty, they are always nicational situations in which it arises. Both genre and discourse have a specific, socially determined meaning, and therefore texts are determined in two ways: by the type of discourse and by the limitations of a specific genre. Both discourses and genres arise from the specific structure of society, from the various processes that take place in it. Genres are conventional companions of social occasions, through which social life takes place. Discourse determines what is said, the genre—how it is performed, in accordance with the forms dictated by the context. Although both discourse and genre determine the linguistic expression 15 of a text, they are different things, for example, religious discourse can be of different genres, depending on the situation and the audience, cf. a priest’s sermon and a fifth-graders’ textbook of faith. These two sources of meaning and form of the texts have much in common. Firstly, both are social and cultural in nature, and secondly, individual social institutions that generate a certain discourse have more or less stable sets of genres. Some discourses are incompatible with certain genres (see Kress 1989: 20-29). In any case, genre is a term of a narrower semantic scope than text or discourse, since these are characterized by their own genres, not the other way around. Thus, the concept of genre, like text and discourse, has expanded and encompasses more phenomena of social context than before. The understanding of genre has changed most in this respect, since genre has begun to mean not only the conventions of art works, but all kinds of communication, determined by the communicative objectives of each kind. The broadly understood genre identifies typical social actions, cultural ideological phenomena. 3.2.5. Genre and text type Many scholars describe the relationship between text type and genre in a very similar way. They argue that the differences between texts are perceived as characteristics of different types of texts or discourses. The internal differences of the texts themselves (according to their structure and content) are called types of texts or discourses, and genres or registers are perceived as externally described classes of texts (Ostman, Virtanen 1995: 246-247). Thus, the distinction between types and genres of texts coincides with the internal and external characteristics of texts. Internal signs are linguistic (formal or semantic), and external — communicative 22 purpose And subject. However, such a consistent classification of sign types is difficult to follow, and often internal and external signs go hand in hand (Pilergaard, Frandsen 1996: 2-3). According to the purposes of writing or the functions of texts, rhetorical text types are traditionally distinguished. Jų quantity ir Variety depends on the commonality of objectives. There are three main types of rhetorical texts: description (description), narrative (narration), and argument (argument). Other authors add the hortatory type and the instruction type. The tripartite classification of text types established in the works of Lithuanian authors: description, narration, reasoning or reasoning (Koženiauskienė 1999: 155-178; Sirtautas, Grenda 1988: 185). Types of texts differ from genres in that there is not yet a universally accepted classification of text types, so the various types of texts referred to by different authors should be considered intermediate, but not final. Genres, on the contrary, are recognized classifications of texts in a particular linguistic community. Another difference between text type and genre is that for text types it is often enough to have separate parts of the text, its fragments, while genre is already a feature of the whole text (Pilergaard, Frandsen 1996: 3). Genres and text types interact in different ways, i.e. genres do not correspond to text types — texts of one genre can consist of different types of text. One type of text can be used in different genres, for example, narrative — tales, messages, diaries, descriptions of scientific experiments. And vice versa, the diary includes not only narrative but also other types of text (Ostman, Virtanen 1995: iš 246-247; Lee 2001: 41; ir Vestergaard 2003: 10). 2000: 151-175). 3.3. Use of text, genre and discourse in the text After reviewing the definitions of text and discourse given by various authors, it is possible to see how these words are used in speech and to see how and to what extent the theoretical postulates are reflected in real usage. In other words, it is necessary to look, the terms are not defined ar one way, actually used differentlo y. Check how these words are used, best in the text. However, there are some methodological problems in this case. One of them is due to different languages. 23 Although text and discourse are international words, their usage characteristics may differ in different languages, cf. the analysis of the usage of the international word apathy in English and Lithuanian (Marcinkevičienė 2002: 81-93). The definitions of these terms are discussed in the works of English-speaking authors, 0 usage analysis is used Lithuanian text. Another problem is that the study of the usage of terms would require a special textbook of text linguistics and discourse analysis works, in which the words under study would be used as terms. Lithuanian language texts are of a general nature, therefore, the acceptable and typical use of terms by individual authors and the concept of terms referred to by them may not always coincide with the prevailing use. However, there is no possibility to create a special textbook of linguistics in Lithuanian, because the mentioned branches of linguistics are quite new in Lithuania. Even in the face of these problems, it is worthwhile to look at the usage of the word discussed, hoping that a) the differences in their use depending on the language are not very pronounced, and (b) even from a general textbook, certain peculiarities in the use of terms may emerge. When examining the text, the uneven frequency of their use first falls into the eye. Text is used much more frequently and in more diverse contexts, singular — 14412 times and plural — 10902 times, discourse — 1467 and 238 times. In addition, the use of discourse is limited to specific philosophical, literary, and cultural texts, from which the Lithuanian concept of discourse emerges. In a broad sense, discourse is understood as language or speech with certain characteristics or manner of speech (e.g., discourse connecting social institutions, today's discourses enriched with arguments, institutions and discourses, expressing themselves in various discourses, in the framework of imposed Marxist philosophical discourse), encompassing the texts of individual authors, their totality (e.g., Hegel's discourses on religion, determine the rhetoric of Nyka's discourse, the author has cut a convincing rhetorical discourse, we can see two sources of Beauvoir's discourse). The discourse used in a narrow sense denotes the areas of individual branches of social activity or science (social, scientific, political, philosophical, contemporary social discourse, the discourse of art specialists, the language of clerical discourses, the development of the critique of neoromantic discourse) or verbal communication with certain characteristics (deconstructive, intellectual, critical, moral, erotic, official, totalitarian, interdisciplinary, ideological, today’s scientific discourse, between speculative and poetic discourse, the rules of postmodern discourse do not allow Y. From some contexts, the public, discussing nature of the discourse emerges (e.g.: there has been no serious 24 discourse about new music for eight years, a striking example of the latter discourse is the discussion, which proved powerless to control all the events of the discourse, the Lithuanian “public intellectual discourse”, in the public discourse we find only a cynical (and sometimes naive) expression of man’s arrogance), as well as synonymous possibilities of the discourse and text use, i.e. such contexts in which the discourse can be replaced by the text without major changes in meaning (this discourse speaks about reality, from a phrase to a discourse: to a poem, a philosophical essay, so I will try to discipline my discourse, metaphorization permeates every discourse: everyday, scientific, poetry, philosophy, etc.). In other words, the use of the discourse in a general text confirms its following meanings: a) the language used, any oral text, b) a certain area of language, c) interactive, discussion communication. The situation is slightly different in the case of the text. Its usage, judging by the most common combinations of constant words, is more uniform. The most common epithets denote the oral, especially written form of the text (oral, written, read text), the language in which it is written (Lithuanian, original text, text in English, Russian), the genre, nature or specific work (song, book, resolution, declaration, oath, proclamation, text in one's own language; liturgical, ancient, practical, religious, fictional, artistic, Bible texts). Other common phrases: text analysis and interpretation, text structure, text indicates, and further as text, text instead of words. Thus, the non-term use of text does not bear witness to some of the elements of the concept of text that the theorists attribute to it, for example, that the text can be verbal or even nonverbal. In the real Lithuanian usage prevails the traditional concept of written text. Similarly, genre, although defined quite broadly, is used in the text in its usual sense, i.e. to describe certain classes of works of art. Most common constant word combinations: /iteratitra, operetta, novel, poetry, prose genre; genre and style, text and genre, genre work, kind or genre, theme and genre, various 25 genre and volumetric, various, Different genres. Other examples of use indicate that the genre is used to name a) works of art, usually texts, and (b) for media genres or other events: (a) proposed coefficients by book genre: children- 's and youth books; use examples of texts of various styles, types, genres; it is the first Calvinist publication of sermons in Lithuanian; it will be a completely new genre in Lithuania — absurd opera; light genre, pops I don't like; commemorative speeches of a festive nature of a certain genre; descends into the genre of magic realism; (b) the genre of the programme itself requires; the most unpopular genre —journalism and essays; this is determined by the genre, nature of these events; is not afraid of the genre of journalism, writes an essay; and try new television genres. As can be seen from the examples, the genre is often used indefinitely and synonymously for style (the genre of journalism), literary current (the genre of realism), in addition to naming works of oral language. The frequent use of the genre together with other nouns denoting the kind (types, kinds, styles), without indicating the smaller subdivisions of each kind, also indicates a broader meaning than just the genre of the work of art. Thus, the actual use of this noun is the most distant of all four analyzed terms from the traditional meaning presented in dictionaries and references and closer to the broad definition of the genre by theorists. By the way, genre is used in texts much less often than text, but more often than discourse: in the singular it is used 2041 times, and in the plural half as often — 1027 times. Term text type not detected in text. 4. Conclusions 1. In the thesis, some pairs of terms naming the language system are reviewed, as well as terms that summarize them: a) language types: general, or literary, language and dialects, or dialects (geographical and social or professional); (b)variations of language: speech and speech, or speaking, oral and written, or book, language, spoken and written language, living and written language; c)types of language according to its spheres of use: artistic and non-artistic language, which consists of domestic and professional language, and the latter of academic and administrative language; special (specialties, subject language, language domain, or field) and general, general language; public and private language; d)functional styles: scientific, administrative, publicistic, domestic, artistic. 2. Comparing the definitions of these linguistic terms in different sources revealed some problems. It is not clear what general word —variety, type or species—to use for words that represent all the functional and structural diversity of language. Furthermore, it is necessary to define more precisely, on the basis of the trends in the use of the term, the type of language, identifying the language of a general nature, common or common language, as opposed to a special, specialty, technical language or language domain or field. possibly establishing a register of borrowed words, describing the different levels of public and private language. 3. More detailed discussion with the most important communicative language unit —text-related term pairs: (e) text and discourse; text type genre. They are analyzed on the basis f) of three sources: ir definitions of these terms in general and special philological information publications — dictionaries, reference books. in encyclopedias, descriptions of these terms in text linguistics, discourse analysis and communication theory, as well as the use of these words in general texts. 4. It turned out that the text ir genre needs to be defined more broadly, so that the definitions of these terms correspond not only to the theoretical concept of the things named by them, but also to the changed real usage in the language. Discourse and text type should be defined based on the latest text linguistics and discourse analysis works and included in linguistic terms. The aim of this article was to systematically discuss the problems of some linguistic terms, hoping for discussion and proposals on the issues under consideration. 27 Beaugrande de R. 1981: Introduction to text linguistics. New York-Amsterdam. Bex T. 1996: Variety of written English: texts in society: societies in text, London and New York. DLKZ 2000: Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian Language, Vilnius. Fairclough N. 1992: Discourse and Social Change, Cambridge. Freedman A. 19944: Locating Genre Studies: Antecedents and Prospects. —Genre and the New Rhetoric. Ed. by A. Freedman and P. Medway. London, 3-20. Freedman A. 1994b: Anyone for Tennis? —Genre and the New Rhetoric. Ed. by A. Freedman and P. Medway, London, 43-66. Garret P., Bell A. 1998: Media Discourse: A Critical Overview. —Approaches to Media Discourse. Ed. by A. Bell and P. Garret, Malden, USA and Oxford, UK, Halliday M. A. K. 1978: Language as Social Semiotic, London. Halliday M.A. K.. Hasan R. 1991: Languag2-20. e, Context, and Text Aspects of Language in a Social-semiotic Perspective, Oxford. Halliday M. A. K. ir kt. 1964: Halliday M. A. K., Macintosh A. Strcvens D. D. The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching, London. Hawthorn J. 1998: Modern Literary Theory Handbook, Vilnius. Joos M. 1961: The Five Clocks, Bloomington. Koženiauskienė R. 1999: Rhetoric: Stylistics of Speech, Vilnius. Kress G. 1989: Linguistic Processes in Sociocultural Practike, Oxford. KTZ 1990: Gaivenis K., Keinys St. The Dictionary of Language Terms, Kaunas. Leckie-Tarry H. 1993: The specification of a text: register, genre and language teaching. —Register Analvsis: Theory and Practice. Ed. by M. Ghadessy, London and New York. 26-42. Lee D. YW 2001: Genres, Registers, Text Types, Domains, and Styles: Claryfying the Concepts and Navigating a Path Through the BNC Jungle. —Language Learning and Technology 5/3, 37-72. LKE 1999: Lietuvos kalbos enciklopedija Vilnius. LLE 2001: Lithuanian Literature Encyclopedia "Vilnius. Marcinkevičienė R. 2002: Comparative texts — a source for studying the use of international words. —Kalbotyra 51 (3), 81-93. Marcinkevičienė R. 2004: Typology of press genres (Western experience). —Works and Days 38, 191-234. Miller C. R.1994a: Genre as a Social Action. —Genre and the New Rhetoric. Ed. by A. Freedman and P. Medway, London, 23-42. Miller C. R.1994b: Rhetorical Community: The Cultural Basis of Genre. —Genre and the New Rhetoric. Ed. by A. Freedman and P. Medway, London, 67-78. Naucktunaite Z. 2000: Ishalbos mokymas, Kaunas. Nauckinaite Z. 2003: Logical and linguistic differences between spoken and written language. —Man and Word 1/5, 78-83. Nunan D. 1993: Introducing Discourse Analysis, London. 28 Ostman J.-O., Virtanen T. 1995: Discourse analysis. —Handbook of Pragmatics (Manual). Ed. by J. Vershuceren, J.-O. Ostman, J. and Blommaert, Ch. Bulcaen, Amsterdam/- Philadelphia. 239-253. Palronis J, 1985: Basics of Linguistics, Vilnius. Pilergaard M., Frandsen E 1996: Text Type. —Handbook of Pragmatics (Manual). Ed. by J. Vershueren, J.-O. Ostman, J. and Blommacrt, Ch. Bulcaen, Amsterdam /Philadelphia, 1-13. PMLS 2000: The main aspects of modern literary studies, Vilnius. Sirtautas V. and Grenda Č. 1988: Syntax of Lithuanian Language, Vilnius. Stitlar G. 1998: Analyzing Evervday Texts. Discourse, Rhetoric, and Social Perspectives, London, Stubbs M. 1993: British Traditions in Analysis. From Firth to Sinclair. —Text and technology. In Honour of John Sinclair Ed. by M. Baker, G. Francis and E. Tognini-Bonelli, Amsterdam/- Philadelphia, 1-33. Stubbs M. 2001: Words and Phrases. Corpus Studies of Lexical Semantics, Malden, USA and Oxford, UK. Titscher S. irkt. 2000: Titscher S, Mever M., Wodak R,, Vetter E., and others. Methods of Text and Discourse Analysis, London. Tolson A. 1996: Mediations. Text and Discourse in Media Studies, London. 2001a: Vaitkevičiūtė V. Tarptautinis žodžių žodynas, Vilnius. 2001b: Tarptautiniy žodžių žodynas. Ats. red. A. Kinderys, Vilnius. Vaicekauskienė L. 2004: Theory and practice of the standardization of foreign words in the Lithuanian language. Doctoral dissertation, Vilnius. van Dijk T. A. 1998: Opinion and Ideologices in the Press. —Approaches to Media Discourse. Ed. by A. Bell and P. Garret, Malden, USA and Oxford, UK, 23-63. van Dijk T. A. 2001: Discourse, Ideology and Context. —Folia Linguistica 35 /1-2, Berlin, pp. 11-40. Vestergaard T 2000: From Genre to Sentence: the Leading Article and its Linguistic Realization. —English Media Texts —Past and Present. Language and textual structure. Ed. by F. Ungerer, Amsterdam /Philadelphia, 151-175. Widdowson H. 1995: Discourse Analysis. A Critical View. —Language and Literature 4.3. Vladarskienc R. 2000: Apic functional styles and registers. —Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 42, 132-140. Zuperka K. 1983: Lithuanian language stylistics, Vilnius. Zupcrka K. 1997: Stylistika, Šiauliai. SOME PROBLEMS OF language AND text RELATED TERMS Summary The paper deals with two groups of Lithuanian linguistic terms. One group consists of the terms referring to different types and sorts of language as a system, e.g. 29 literary, standard language, language and speech, written and spoken, public and private language, functional styles, etc. Another group comprises the names of the communicative units of language, i.c. feat, discourse, text type, and genre. The first group is merely overviewed pointing out the need to have more consistent generic names, and some equivalents for widely spread linguistic terms in English. such as language for general purpose vs language for specific purpose, and registre. The second group of terms is analysed using three different sources: dictionaries and encyclopedias, theoretical papers, and the Corpus of Contemporary Lithuanian Language. Analysis of different sources revealed the discrepancy between the theoretical approaches to the notions mentioned above, definitions of the terms in general and specific dictionaries and their usage in the general corpus. It was suggested to widen the definition of the terms text and genre in order to make them compatible with the most recent theoretical approaches as well as everyday usage. The other two terms discourse and text type were suggested to be included in the list of linguistic terms and defined. Rūta MARCINKEVICIENE Received 2004-09-09 Vytautas Magnus University Donelaičio g. 58, LT-44248 Kaunas E-mail ruta(a:fc.- vdu.lt 30