Tarptautinė konferencija „Terminologija III tūkstantmečio pradžioje“

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE TERMINOLOGY AT THE BEGINNING OF THE THIRD MILLENNIUM On 7–8 October 2003, an international scientific conference, Terminology at the Beginning of the Third Millennium, was held in Vilnius. It was organized by the Terminology Centre of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and the Latvian Language Institute of the University of Latvia. Papers were delivered in Lithuanian, English, and Russian. The conference was opened, and a welcoming address was given, by Jolanta Zabarskaitė, Director of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language. Valentina Skujina, Head of the Terminology Department at the Latvian Language Institute, delivered a paper on changes in the semantics of international words in contemporary terminology. She noted that the meanings of international words derived from Greek and Latin often do not coincide across languages. Adjusting their semantics is one way of eliminating these differences. The speaker also discussed semantic distortions in recent borrowings from English. Although a word is usually borrowed in one particular sense, over time further meanings from the source language emerge. A language is impoverished when borrowings from a particular field penetrate other fields as well, since they often displace words previously in use. There are many borrowings whose semantic accuracy has been compromised in comparison with the original. According to the terminologist, this indicates a failure to understand the purpose of borrowing; that is, it distorts the very essence of borrowing and, in turn, encourages miscommunication. In his paper The State, Role, and Concerns of Terminology at the Turn of the Millennium, Stasys Keinys, a researcher at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language, first surveyed the development of Lithuanian terminology. He stated that the number of terms had increased substantially during the 20th century, and that ever more of them were entering general use. According to the speaker, terminology is increasingly approaching the core of the language system used for naming. Some term dictionaries and almost all standards for terms and other matters are translations; part of the new Lithuanian terminology is alien to the Lithuanian language, incomprehensible, and unmotivated. The paper emphasized the need to create a system for linguistic and terminological training for specialists in all fields engaged in terminological work, and to discuss state language and terminology policy extensively. Jonas Klimavičius spoke about the history of Lithuanian terminography. He identified current difficulties and tasks. Although about 200 dictionaries of terms have been published since independence was restored, this number does not reveal the true state of affairs. Long-outdated dictionaries of physics, medicine, polytechnics, geography, geolo- 166 gy, and there is no comprehensive dictionary of legal terminology; moreover, not all dictionaries are prepared to a high standard. Terminographic work in Lithuania is not regarded as scientific, J. Klimavičius emphasized. Latvian linguist Ojārs Bušs considered what terms and onyms (proper words) have in common. One school of terminology denies that terms belong to the lexical system, while most onomastics specialists maintain that onyms have no lexical meaning. According to O. Bušs, many terms and onyms are created “here and now” (they are the result of conscious naming). Moreover, most terms and onyms belong to language as speech (parole), rather than as a system (lingua), and in this sense are not elements of language. Terms and onyms are also brought together by their semantic characteristics (a precisely defined denotatum, quasi-synonymy), as well as by lexemes whose classification as terminology or onomastics is disputed (e.g., internet or Internet). The subject of Angėlė Kaulakienė’s paper was the time required for new terms to become established and the principle of stability. Terms that become established immediately indicate that an appropriate equivalent has been selected for the foreign-language term. As the speaker stated, the stability of such terms is directly proportional to the time they take to become established, whereas the stability of terms that become established over several years is inversely proportional to that period. The time required for the latter to become established is determined from their synonyms or variants. The speaker identified three factors that determine how long it takes terms to become established: linguistic, interlinguistic, and extralinguistic. The conference also discussed terminology in specific fields of science, technology, and other areas of public life. A paper by Latvian researchers Juris Borzovs and Ilze Ilziņa discussed the difficulties involved in creating terms for information and communication technologies (relatively recently merged fields—information technology and telecommunications). These terms must be created quickly; otherwise, some substitutes will take hold instead (sometimes even slang or Latvian-transcribed English terms). Problems also arise because information technology terms were created on the basis of English terms in the field, while telecommunications terms were borrowed from Russian terminology. Difficulties occur when a Latvian equivalent is selected for an English term even though the concept is unclear and the term’s meaning and use are not strictly defined. In addition, information technology terms that have been approved and used for quite some time have acquired a different, often even unfamiliar, meaning in telecommunications. The authors set out ten key recommendations for developing Latvian terminology in this field. 167 Latvian linguist Iveta Pūtėlė spoke about names of professions in the Latvian language. The speaker identified three main problems encountered in creating new names for professions: 1) the relationship between derivatives and loanwords; 2) the alignment of names of professions with their equivalents in another language; 3) the alignment of the principles for creating terms and nomenclature. She emphasized that names of professions are influenced not only by linguistic but also by extralinguistic factors. Gita Kazlauskaitė gave a presentation on antonymy in Lithuanian phonetics terminology. She noted that antonymic phonetics terms are related by contradictory, contrary, or vector oppositions; some pairs of antonymic terms also have synonyms. Quite a few antonymic phonetics terms (or only their components) are regarded as antonyms in general language as well. More distinctive antonymic terms with the prefix ne- (e.g., labial consonant – non-labial consonant). Regina Kvašytė spoke about Latvian and Lithuanian stylistics terms. She distinguished six groups of terms used in stylistics and discussed the terms’ origins, structure, and synonymy. According to the speaker, Latvian and Lithuanian stylistics terms are quite well organized. Jurgita Mikelionienė examined the synonymy of philosophy terms collected from the corpus of contemporary Lithuanian texts at the Vytautas Magnus University Centre for Computational Linguistics. The presentation introduced a method for searching for synonyms of terms and synonymic relations between philosophical lexemes, based on connector analysis, and discussed types of synonyms, their origins, and word-formation devices. It was acknowledged, however, that the automatic word-grouping method also identifies many non-terms. The presentation by Loreta Alešiūnaitė, Vytautas Gedrimas, and Elena Moly­tė was entitled Changes and the Principle of Stability in Certain Anatomical Terms. It discussed the use of the prefixes pa- and po-, pronominal forms, participles, the linking vowels a and i, and the suffix -inis, -ė in forming anatomical terms, the Lithuanianization of terminology in this field, and other matters. Attention was drawn to inconsistencies in usage and to insufficiently clear criteria for selecting certain forms of expression (e.g., ascending aorta or ascending aorta). Valerijonas Žalkauskas analyzed certain scientific and technical terms denoting an action (process), a property (quality), a physical quantity, or the result of an action. He identified terms that, in his opinion, should be changed or refined, and proposed several neologisms. The long-standing discussion was raised again concerning terms with the suffix -tis, e.g., completion, solution, input, rise, and so on. The speaker argued, 168 that they are unsuitable for naming an action, although there were dissenting views (arguments included, for example, memory, composition). Genovaitė Irmonienė and Albina Pribušauskaitė’s presentation addressed trends in the creation of sports terminology and problems of usage. They spoke about terms that have become established as well as new ones, most of them loanwords, whose Lithuanian equivalents sometimes struggle to gain acceptance. Gražina Akelaitienė considered whether the term keyword, used in abstracts, is necessary. In her view, it is semantically unmotivated and was blindly formed on the model of the corresponding English word, and thus should not be used in abstracts. The speaker also criticized the synonyms of keyword, “meaning word” and “significant word”, since every word has a meaning or significance. According to G. Akelaitienė, the phrase key concepts would be appropriate here. Another suitable suggestion also emerged in the discussion: key word (S. Zajankauskas also mentioned it in his presentation). Considerable attention at the conference was also devoted to the history of terminology. Two presentations concerned nineteenth-century Lithuanian botanical terminology. Roberto Gedrimas’s presentation was entitled Compound Names of Flowering Plants in J. A. Pabrėža’s Work Taislos Augumynis. He determined that compounds account for the largest share of the names of plant genera (derivatives) in this work, which was the first to describe the flora of Samogitia in Lithuanian, but that only a quarter of all the compounds are used in contemporary botanical terminology. Albina Auksoriūtė, head of the Terminology Centre of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language, discussed and compared the plant names coined by L. Ivinskis in his Polish-Samogitian Dictionary and in his scholarly work Prigimtūmenė. Nearly half of the plants were given one name in one manuscript and a different name in the other. Alvydas Umbrasas spoke about single-word terms in interwar Lithuanian civil law. In his presentation, he compared Lithuanian translations of Russian laws that were in force in Lithuania at the time. Eglė Makariūnienė and Angelė Kaulakienė’s presentation examined terms and neologisms in the natural sciences in two books by Stasys Dabušis (1898–1974), a linguist and translator. Most of S. Dabušis’s neologisms did not catch on, but some of his terms are still used in physics (e.g., reflector, plug). Representatives of the technological sciences, Stasys Žebrauskas and Rimantas Jonas Mukulys, examined the electrical engineering terms used by Professor Leonas Kaulakis (1903–1987). The presentation identified which terms are still in use and which are no longer used or are used rarely, and discussed in greater detail the terms conductance and resistance. 169 In his presentation On the Urgency of Terminology Management, Stasys Zajankauskas identified and discussed such current problems in terminology as literal translation, the unjustified Lithuanianization of terms, disregard for the established terminology system, hasty approval, and others. In his view, a number of terminology-management tasks are carried out in haste and receive little consideration. The speaker criticized some dictionary terms, particularly those in standards. Several of them sparked heated discussion, for example, the proposal to replace railway applications, used in standards, with auxiliary railway equipment or railway auxiliary devices. Another equivalent, railway applications, was also discussed. Irma Zeller’s presentation, Possibilities and Features of Term Recognition in a Text Corpus, generated considerable discussion; it dealt with the application of computer programs for term recognition. The speaker introduced the general operating model of such programs. First, a list of term candidates is compiled; then, by applying various criteria, it is gradually refined by removing the irrelevant material. One thing is clear, however: ensuring the reliability and quality of the data is impossible without human involvement—only a qualified specialist can recognize and approve the term candidates at the final stage. No such programs have yet been developed for the Lithuanian language, but work is under way in this area. In the discussion, terminologists who have long collected data manually disagreed with the speaker’s view that the advent of new technologies fundamentally changes terminological work. Text was and remains the principal source of research; only the methods of processing it are changing. The most important contribution new technologies can make is greater speed, but, unfortunately, this does not guarantee quality. Estonian scholar Maire Raadik, who had planned to speak about terminology work in Estonia, did not attend the conference. The terminology conference, held at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language after a thirteen-year hiatus, was lively: for two days participants discussed issues, proposed terms, and simply shared their views. As J. Klimavičius noted in his summary, its outcomes will be pondered for a long time. A collection of the conference presentation abstracts was published. Asta MITKEVIČIENĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas P. Vileišio g. 5, LT-2055 E. paštas [email protected] Alvydas UMBRASAS Lietuvių kalbos institutas P. Vileišio g. 5, LT-2055 E. paštas [email protected] Received 2003-11-18 170