J. Balčikonio kalbotyros terminų antonimai

Ramunė ANDRIUŠKAITĖ Vilnius City 3rd District Court ANTONYMS OF J. BALČIKONIS’S LINGUISTIC TERMS In the theory of terminology, the view long prevailed that semantic processes characteristic of general vocabulary do not affect terminological systems. Indeed, the purpose of the requirements imposed on terms—unambiguity, precision, and clarity—is to prevent semantic categories such as polysemy and synonymy from arising in a system of terms. Nevertheless, a clear contradiction emerges in the theory and practice of terminology: semantic processes characteristic of general vocabulary often occur within a strictly defined terminological system. When addressing semantic problems in terminology, the question of the nature of a term is important. First and foremost, a term is a word—a sign denoting a particular concept. This raises the question of whether, in the language system, it has the same properties as other words and performs the same functions, or whether it operates in the system of terms according to its own laws, unique to it. In V. P. Danilenko’s view, the nature of a term does indeed contradict the asymmetry between the sign and what it signifies, while synonyms and polysemous words found in terminology are a phenomenon of how terms function, rather than a matter of their nature (Даниленко 1977: 55). The verbal nature of the term—another aspect of its nature—has a major influence on the emergence of this phenomenon. All words in general language are subject to certain laws of usage. As words, terms are also subject to these laws, under whose influence they may either acquire synonymous counterparts or themselves come to denote two concepts. Thus, in terms of their functioning, terms are no strangers to polysemy, antonymy, or homonymy: they behave like words, and terminology like vocabulary, with all the laws of semantic development characteristic of it. However, because terminological systems differ from lexical systems, all the semantic properties of a lexical unit are understood somewhat differently in specialized vocabulary. Many terminologists distinguish similar semantic processes characteristic of terms. Russian terminologists examine the broadest range of them. 65 V. P. Danilenko (Даниленко 1977: 65–81) ir A. V. Superanskajos, N. V. Podolskajos bei N. V. Vasiljevos (Суперанская, Подольская, Васильева 1989: 40–55) darbuose kalbama apie terminų polisemija, homonimiją, sinonimiją ir antonimiją. * * * Of all semantic categories, antonymy is the least frequently discussed in studies of semantic processes in terminology. This phenomenon does not attract terminologists’ interest because it has little to do with problems of term use; it is viewed more as a phenomenon in the organization of a terminological system, and its manifestation in terminology is very similar to antonymy in general vocabulary. In Lithuanian linguistics, the category of antonymy is defined in various works on lexicology and stylistics; I. Ermanytė examined some of its types in greater detail in her dissertation. In Lithuanian linguistics, the category of antonymy is defined in various works on lexicology and stylistics; I. Erm anytė examined some of its types in greater detail in her dissertation and compiled the “Dictionary of Lithuanian Antonyms.” In all these works, the concept of antonyms is understood in a fairly unambiguous way. Their defining basis is considered to be opposition of meaning. More recent works on lexicology distinguish between true antonyms and conversives. According to I. Erm anytė, conversives express the inverse relations of an antonym pair: that is, the same situation is portrayed from the perspectives of its different participants as reciprocal (Ermanytė 1995: 10). Semantics also distinguishes other kinds of oppositional relations between antonyms: contrary opposition (where antonyms denote the extreme concepts in a coordinated set), vector opposition, and contradictory opposition (Ermanytė 1995: 9–10). In this article, the more relevant classification is that of antonyms according to their form—by what linguistic means their opposition is created. From this perspective, antonyms are usually divided into root and derivational types. Antonymy among terms is scarcely mentioned in Lithuanian terminological literature. Only in the past decade did K. Gaivenis’s article “Some Cases of Antonymy in Lithuanian Terminology” appear. Somewhat earlier, discussion of term antonymy had begun in Russian terminology. V. P. Danilenko, A. V. Superanskaja, N. V. Podolskaja, and N. V. Vasiljeva mention it alongside other semantic features of terms in their works. However, even these works devote far less attention to antonymy than to other semantic processes in terminology. 66 …sams, the presentation is limited to the general theory of antonymy, without delving into the specific features of terminological antonymy. The authors justify this indifference to the issue by arguing that the phenomenon of antonymy in terminology does not differ in any way from the same phenomenon in general vocabulary (Даниленко 1977: 79). V. P. Danilenko notes only a quantitative difference: in her view, antonyms are even more common in terminology than in general language. This is determined by the very nature of scientific concepts. Human thinking is structured in such a way that concepts most often arise in pairs (Даниленко 1977: 79). In the view of A. V. Superanskaya, N. V. Podolskaya, and N. V. Vasilieva, antonymy in terminology is important because it helps identify the extreme points of a term field and review the logical possibilities of the terminological system (Суперанская, Подольская, Васильева 1989: 54). The aforementioned article by K. Gaivenis is somewhat more focused on the specific nature of antonyms in terminology. Its author also emphasizes that antonyms in terminology are related to the dichotomy of concepts, more precisely, to the relations between concepts of properties, states, and processes (Gaivenis 1989: 100–101). In his view, when identifying antonyms in terminology, their correlative, hyponymic, and hyperonymic relations must be taken into account. Only terms that are correlates—that is, belong to the same category (hyperonym)—but are contrasted by some essential feature can be considered antonyms (Gaivenis 1989: 101). Antonymy in terminology also differs from antonymy in general language in that words considered antonyms in general language may not be related by opposition in terminology. In other words, antonyms in general language may undergo neutralization in the language of science. The reverse may also occur: words that are not opposed in general language acquire opposite meanings in terminology. Such terms and nomenclature names are perceived as antonyms only by specialists. This article examines in greater detail the antonym terms used in the writings of J. Balčikonis. The research material was collected from J. Balčikonis’s “Selected Works” and from the manuscript translation of J. Otrębskis’s “Grammar of the Lithuanian Language” (Jan Otrębski. Gramatyka języka litewskiego, tom III, Nauka o formach). 67 A total of 142 pairs of antonymic terms can be identified in the terminology of linguistics used by J. Balčikonis. The opposition between the meanings of these terms is created in two ways—lexically and derivationally. Lexical antonyms are formed using roots of words with opposite lexical meanings. Among this type of antonym are a distinct small group of terms that have an antonymic terminological rather than lexical meaning. Their semantic opposition is not reflected in their form. They have neither affixes nor roots with opposite meanings. Most antonyms in terminology are formed using word-formation devices. The types of antonyms in J. Balčikonis’s terminology are summarized in the first diagram. Diagram 1 Types of antonyms in J. Balčikonis’s terminology 1. Lexical antonyms Lexical antonyms make up 40.28% of all antonyms in J. Balčikonis’s terminology. They are defined as pairs of terms formed from words with opposite lexical meanings. In lexicology, this type of antonym is also called a root or non-cognate antonym. This type of antonym can be divided into two groups. The antonyms in the first group are related by contradictory opposition (65.52%). These are mostly terms denoting dichotomous concepts, for example: vowel length Otr LKG 262 – vowel shortness Otr LKG 321, capital letter Balč RR I 58 – lowercase letter Balč RR I 58, voiceless consonant Balč 68 RR II 8 – voiced consonant Balč RR II 8, final syllable Otr LKG 12 – front syllable Otr LKG 39, long diphthong Otr LKG 40 – short diphthong Otr LKG 66, long syllable Otr LKG 13 – short syllable Otr LKG 13, long vowel Balč RR I 180 – short vowel Balč RR I 180, hard vowel Balč RR II 6 – soft vowel Balč RR II 6, hard consonant Otr LKG 68 – soft consonant Balč RR I 357, rising pitch Balč RR I 233 – falling pitch Balč RR I 233, negative sentence Balč RR II 134 – affirmative sentence Balč RR II 135, consonant hardness Otr LKG 61 – consonant softness Otr LKG 279, compound tense Balč RR I 42 – simple tense Balč RR II 45, compound adjective Balč RR I 204 – simple adjective Balč RR II 34, compound noun Balč RR I 336 – simple noun Balč RR I 336, verb of completed action Balč RR I 377 – verb of beginning action Balč RR I 377. The basis of the antonymy of many of these terms is words used antonymously in the standard language. International terms with opposite meanings also belong to this group of antonyms, e.g.: active voice Balč RR II 46 – passive voice Balč RR II 46, analytic language Balč RR II 83 – synthetic language Balč RR II 83, archaism Balč RR I 219 – neologism Balč RR I 163. The second group of lexical antonyms consists of terms linked by a relation of contrary opposition (34.48%). They most often denote the boundary concepts of a terminological field, e.g.: Aukštaitian dialect Balč RR II 55 – Samogitian dialect Balč RR I 72, plural Balč RR I 156 – singular (between them dual Balč RR I 156), acute accent Balč RR II 8 – grave accent Balč RR II 8, right-hand diacritic Balč RR I 40 – left-hand diacritic Balč RR I 40, feminine gender Balč RR I 266 – masculine gender Balč RR I 248, feminine form Otr LKG 164 – masculine form Otr LKG 7, feminine stem ending Otr LKG 178 – masculine stem ending Otr LKG 178, Eastern Aukštaitian dialect Balč RR I 350 – Western Aukštaitian dialect Balč RR I 233, Eastern Aukštaitian dialect Balč RR II 147 – Western Aukštaitian dialect Balč RR II 147. Standard-language antonyms have also been adopted to form these terms. In some cases, however, the terms neutralize their semantic opposition. For example, the ethnonyms Aukštaitians and Samogitians were formed by contrasting the characteristics of the areas inhabited by these people, but the linguistic terms Aukštaitian and Samogitian dialect have practically lost this relation of opposition. Similar 69 neutralization of antonymy has also taken place in the terms Eastern and Western Aukštaitian dialects. The words east and west denote opposite cardinal directions, but there is no basis for opposing dialects named on the basis of this geographical distinction. 2. Derivational antonyms Derivational antonyms are by far the most numerous type of antonym in terminology. They make up 44.44% of all the antonyms used by J. Balčikonis. Derivational antonyms share a common root. Their opposite meaning is supplied by derivational elements—most often prefixes. I. Ermanytė also classifies compound words containing one root of antonymic meaning among derivational antonyms (Ermanytė 1985: 6). 1) ANTONYMS WITH THE PREFIX ne- The majority (59.375%) of derivational antonyms are formed with the negative prefix ne-. Derivatives with the prefix ne- denote the opposite of what is expressed by the base noun (DLKG 1994: 147), e.g.: personal form Balč RR II 16 – impersonal form Otr LKG 285, agreeing attribute Balč RR I 360 – non-agreeing attribute Balč RR II 105, expanded sentence Balč RR II 96 – unexpanded sentence Balč RR II 90, derived verb Balč RR I 300 – underived verb Otr LKG 373, pronominal form Balč RR I 72 – non-pronominal form Balč RR II 103, inflecting part of speech Balč RR I 274 – indeclinable part of speech Balč RR I 274, inflecting word Balč RR II 74 – indeclinable word Balč RR I 303, mobile stress Balč RR I 202 – fixed stress Balč RR I 202, comparative degree Balč RR I 265 – positive degree Balč RR II 144, palatalized allophone Otr LKG 71 – non-palatalized allophone Otr LKG 66, fixed stress Balč RR I 95 – variable stress Balč RR I 233, transitive verb Balč RR II 43 – intransitive verb Balč RR II 43, complete sentence Balč RR II 89 – incomplete sentence Balč RR II 89, prefixed verb Balč RR I 377 – unprefixed verb Balč RR I 377, compound verb Otr LKG 313 – simple verb Otr LKG 418, mobile stress Balč RR II 222 – non-mobile stress Balč RR I 372, direct speech Balč RR I 362 – indirect speech Balč RR II 49, direct mood Balč RR I 361– indirect mood Balč RR II 93, direct case 70 Balč RR II 96 – indirect case Balč RR II 96, true preposition Balč RR II 75 – false preposition Balč RR II 75, acceptable word Balč RR I 135 – unacceptable word Balč RR I 134, active verb Balč RR II 73 – passive verb Balč RR II 72, active voice Balč RR I 302 – passive voice Balč RR I 209. 2) ANTONYMS WITH THE PREFIX be- Derivational antonyms can also be formed with the privative prefix be-. Derivatives with this prefix are not entirely identical to those with the prefix ne-. They denote the lack or absence of what is expressed by the base word, while also indicating a property opposite to the property described by the main word (LKG 1954: 431). In J. Balčikonis’s linguistic terminology, antonyms of this type were found five times less often—only 10.94%, e.g.: personal form Otr LKG 359 – impersonal form Balč RR II 139, personal sentence Balč RR II 89 – impersonal sentence Balč RR I 261, personal verb Balč RR I 338 – impersonal verb Balč RR II 137, formal word Balč RR I 182 – formless word Balč RR II 86, inflected form Otr LKG 59 – indeclinable form Balč RR II 91, indirect government Balč RR II 98 – direct government Balč RR II 98. These pairs of antonyms, like those discussed earlier, are characterized by one term denoting a property marked by a specific feature, while the other does not. Thus, their opposition is based on the relation of “having – not having.” Antonymic term pairs are formed not only by adjectives but also by adjectives and participles used adjectivally, for example, inflected form Otr LKG 75 – indeclinable form Balč RR II 91. 3) ANTONYMS WITH OTHER PREFIXES In J. Balčikonis’s linguistic terminology, there was only one instance in which the opposition between terms was formed by two prefixes with opposite meanings—accent retraction Otr LKG 39 – accent advancement Otr LKG 44. These antonyms are related by a vectorial opposition (direction “forward – backward”). A considerable number of antonyms in terminology are formed with international prefixes expressing negation. J. Balčikonis’s terminology used antonymic international terms with four international prefixes of opposite meaning. The following terms belong to the traditional formation of international antonyms, e.g.: assimilation Balč RR I 382 – dissimilation 71 Otr LKG 181, thematic form Otr LKG 308 – athematic form Otr LKG 334, thematic ending Otr LKG 308 – athematic ending Otr LKG 316, thematic verb Otr LKG 288 – athematic verb Otr LKG 290. Two international linguistic terms are formed with distinct Latin prefixes of opposite meaning—preposition Balč RR I 315 – postposition Balč RR I 315. In Lithuanian, they correspond to the prefixes prieš- and po-, which have antonymic meanings. The two Latin terms verbum transitivum Balč RR I 182 – verbum intransitivum Balč RR I 182 also belong among international antonyms. 4) COMPOUND TERMS WITH ROOTS OF ANTONYMIC MEANING The final group of derivational antonyms consists of compound terms, each containing one root with an opposite meaning, e.g.: polysyllabic form Otr LKG 82 – monosyllabic form Otr LKG 237, polysyllabic root Balč RR I 202 – monosyllabic root Balč RR I 183, polysyllabic stem Otr LKG 159 – monosyllabic stem Otr LKG 227, polysyllabic word Balč RR I 99 – monosyllabic word Balč RR I 358, velar consonant Balč RR II 10 – coronal consonant Balč RR II 10, falling-tone vowel Balč RR II 160 – rising-tone vowel Balč RR II 160, falling intonation Balč RR II 136 – rising intonation Balč RR II 136, falling pitch accent Balč RR I 181 – rising pitch accent Balč RR I 202, falling-accent root Balč RR I 101–rising-accent root Otr LKG 101, falling quantity Balč RR I 100 – rising quantity Balč RR I 100, falling accent Balč RR I 40–rising accent Balč RR II 147, falling-tone syllable Otr LKG 142 – rising-tone syllable Balč RR I 202. Semantically, these antonyms are close to lexical antonyms. Their opposition is created by words with opposite meanings, rather than by affixes. The diversity of derivational antonyms is reflected in the second diagram. 3. Antonyms of terminological meaning The final group of antonyms in J. Balčikonis’s terminology consists of terms that are opposed in their terminological meaning. These terms are formed from roots with different meanings, but their meanings are not opposites in general vocabulary. These terms acquire an antonymic relationship only within the system of linguistic terms. They all denote concepts distinguished according to the dichotomous principle. 72 Diagram 2 Some antonyms of this kind have synonyms or Lithuanian equivalents whose form allows them to be considered antonyms in general vocabulary as well, e.g.: acute accent Balč RR I 248 – circumflex Otr LKG 180, acute-ending Otr LKG 5 – circumflex ending Otr LKG 56, acute intonation Balč RR I 375 – circumflex intonation Balč RR I 375 (cf. falling-rising – rising-falling), secondary form Otr LKG 46 – primary form Otr LKG 502, secondary stem Otr LKG 71 – primary stem Balč RR I 38, secondary verb Balč RR II 64 – primary verb Balč RR II 64 (cf. derived – underived), pronominal adjective Balč RR I 315 – simple adjective Balč RR I 302 (cf. non-pronominal adjective), active voice Balč RR II 46 – passive voice Balč RR II 46 (cf. passive voice). Other antonyms of terminological meaning simply name dichotomous concepts, e.g.: secondary sentence element Balč RR II 96 – major sentence element Balč RR II 90, common noun Balč RR I 200, name Balč RR I 73, word Balč RR I 389 – proper noun Balč RR I 200, name Balč RR I 324, word Balč RR I 390, process verb Balč RR I 361 – event verb Balč RR I 361, ongoing-action aspect Balč RR II 51 – event-action aspect Balč RR I 51, written language Balč RR I 120 – spoken language Balč RR I 265, main clause Balč RR I 146 – subordinate clause Balč RR I 146. The antonyms discussed are somewhat close to contextual antonyms. They are used antonymically only in scholarly works on linguistics. However, it is precisely this type of term antonyms that provides the basis for 73 speaking of the specific expression of antonymy as a semantic category in terminology. ŠALTINIAI Balč RR – Balčikonis J. Rinktiniai raštai 1, 2, Vilnius, 1977, 1979. Otr LKG – Otrembskis J. Lietuvių kalbos gramatika. Morfologija (rankraštis). LITERATŪRA DLKG 1994: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika, Vilnius. Ermanytė I. 1985: Lietuvių kalbos antonimų žodynas, Kaunas. Ermanytė I. 1995: Priešybė kaip semantinis ir loginis antonimijos pagrindas. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 35, Vilnius, 9–31. Gaivenis K. 1989: Kai kurie antonimijos atvejai lietuvių terminologijoje. – LTSR MA darbai, A serija 2 (107), Vilnius, 98–104. LKG 1965: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 1, Vilnius. Даниленко В. П. 1977: Русская терминология: Опыт лингвистического описания, Москва. Суперанская А. В., Подольская Н. В., Васильева Н. В. 1989: Общая терминология: вопросы теории, Москва. ANTONYMS OF JUOZAS BALČIKONIS’ TERMS OF LINGUISTICS Summary This paper deals with antonyms of terms of linguistics used in Juozas Balčikonis works. The material for investigation was taken from Balčikonis’ „Rinktiniai raštai“ and from manuscript of the translation of Jan Otrębski’ „Lietuvių kalbos gramatika“. Investigation of 142 pairs of antonyms in the system of terms of linguistics showed that they had been created either in a lexical or derivational way. Amongst investigated terms derivational antonyms are more frequent (44 percent of all antonyms). The opposite meaning is given by prefixes, less frequently – by roots of compound terms. Lexical antonyms are almost similarly frequent – they make 40 percent of antonyms. They mark concepts which are distinguished by dichotomy principle (connected in the relationship of contradictory opposite) either by limiting concepts of the field of terms (connected in the relationship of contrary opposite). Antonyms of terminological meaning should also be mentioned (15 percent). Such antonyms 74 are separated only in the terminological system, because their contrast is created not by the lexical, but by the terminological meaning. Usually they note concepts that are opposed to each other. Gauta 2001 09 27 75