TERMINOLOGIJA IR DABARTIS

Kazimieras GAIVENIS

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

PRAGMATICS OF TERMS

The term pragmatics (relations of signs with their users) is primarily associated with the terms semantics (relations of signs with the external world) and syntactics (relations of signs with other signs). Foreign terminologists have repeatedly used this term when discussing various issues in the management of terms (Gajda 1990: 34, Cabré 1999: 27–222, etc.).

In this article, we will use the term pragmatics when discussing the status of normative terms, because neither word is equivalent to another word, nor term to term. For example, folk terminology cannot be equated with scientific terminology. Scientific texts sometimes list quite long strings of folk-term synonyms, e.g.: common yarrow (Achillea millefolium L.) – balžiedės, balžiedis, gajutės, kraujanosė, kraujanosís, krauvauninkas, kruvinis, kruvinžolė, morklapėlis, nosrava, nostravos, nosravės, pelvuodegiai, pipirninkas, siauranosiai, srauzdė, sraujanosís, sraujanosė, sraujazolė, sraužolė, sravai, sravažolė, sravanosė, sravanosís, sravenis, sravinė žolė, sravžolė, sravožolė, srev as, srevanosís, srevžolė, sriaunanosiai, sruvanosiai, sruvažolė, straviklė, straviklis, stravyklas, strevžolė, strujažolė, šiaurole, štrausai (Lietuvos flora VI 96). Why are these synonyms presented in scientific publications? They are probably included for several reasons: 1) as an additional source of names (when distinguishing new plant species or even genera, botanists use these synonyms for the purposes of terminologization); 2) as a source for the history of terms (some of these synonyms were used in the past by well-known botanists), and so on. Folk terminology is very heterogeneous; it includes both barbarisms and words with strong stylistic connotations. Thus, not all folk terms are suitable for terminologization. On the other hand, only a few scientific fields have folk terms. Some specialists strongly dislike folk terms and consider them inaccurate. This is, in general, an unacceptable view—

5

Each folk term’s suitability for scientific terminology must be assessed individually, taking into account the term’s function, motivation, semantics, systematicity, and so on.

Alongside folk terms, two other kinds of terms are widely used in some areas of terminology: systematic and non-systematic (trivial) terms. For example, in chemical terminology, non-systematic names most often indicate the raw material from which a compound was obtained or isolated (e.g., apple acid), the method of production (e.g., pyrogrape acid), the place of production (e.g., Beryno sand), the author (e.g., Michler’s ketone), etc. (ChemŽ 8). These names have been in use for a long time, are easy to remember, and are relatively short. Systematic names, meanwhile, formed according to rules approved by IUPAC, must accurately reflect the structural formula of a compound. They are often longer and more complex. For example, a non-systematic term is ammonia, while the systematic one is trihydrogen nitride; the non-systematic term is water, while the systematic one is dihydrogen oxide, and so on. Systematic names for acids are even more complex. “In systematic names of oxygen acids, the cation (hydrogen atoms) and the part with greater electronegativity (the acid residue or anion) are distinguished. The name of the anion first indicates the number of oxygen atoms (-oxo-) (dioxo-, trioxo-, etc.), followed by the element forming the acid residue with the suffix -ate. The anion charge is written in parentheses after the name” (ChemŽ 11). For example, the non-systematic name is boric acid, while the systematic one is trihydrogen trioxoborate (3–); the non-systematic name is sulfuric acid, while the systematic one is dihydrogen tetraoxosulfate (2–), and so on. Non-systematic names cannot be considered nonstandard.

Nonstandard names are generally given in terminology dictionaries with the indication ntk. (=not recommended). This may be a term used by someone but incorrect, an obsolete term, or a replaced term. It is difficult to agree with those specialists who believe that the concepts of “error” and “prohibited term” are equivalent. These concepts are related by an inclusion relationship: all prohibited (replaced) terms are terminology errors, but not all terminology errors are prohibited (replaced) terms. Terms can become obsolete in two ways: naturally and artificially. As terms naturally grow old, they become historicisms, i.e., words that recede into the passive

6

their reserve because the concepts they denote disappear. For example, names of household objects that are no longer used have become historicisms: krivūlė, dalgiakirvis, piesta, vyžos, etc. In time, even terminological microsystems can become obsolete. For example, many terms denoting kinship relations, old measures of volume and length, names of the fingers, etc., are now losing their significance. Artificially antiquated terms and their forms are another matter—that is, terms prohibited by someone. For example, the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language has declared the forms ipoteka, ekslibris, as well as the terms arenda, bantas, blicas, planeris, salka, etc., unacceptable. During the years of Soviet rule, the terms apskritis, gimnazija, seimas, viršaitis, etc., were declared obsolete. These words have now been revived and are once again in widespread use.

Users of terminology are always concerned with the reliability of terms. Doubting the suitability of a term, a user either uses the word so-called or adds one or more synonyms for the questionable term in parentheses. Sometimes specialists express their opinion without any beating around the bush, for example: “Instead of the terms xerophytes, mesophytes, saprophytes, the terms xerophiles, mesophiles, saprotrophs should be used” (Urbonas 1986: 53).

The pragmatics of terms is also related to their precision, which is usually identified with unambiguity and definiteness of meaning. In practical terminological work, this is not easily achieved. The unambiguity of terms is fostered through an ongoing clash of opinions. Differing understandings of terms can persist for decades. For example, the geological term facies has been in use for more than 100 years, but still lacks anything like a uniform definition. Moreover, the term is used not only in geology but also in geographical terminology, where its understanding and definition are again somewhat different. The same can be said of the term discourse (Hawthorn 1998: 72–75). In the terminology of cultivated plants and domestic animals, the species-distinguishing feature named by a term often also loses its original meaning as varieties are rapidly improved through crossing and selection. For example, the blue-pink (Dianthus gratianpolitanus) now blooms not only bluish, but also white, pink, and red. Such terms should not be considered imprecise either.

7

Standardized terms or those approved by the relevant institutions (e.g., the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language) are often considered the highest-grade normative terms. They can, of course, be regarded as such, but two things should be kept in mind: 1) terminology standards are not mandatory, and 2) scholars must always have the freedom to choose terms and create neologisms. Scientific progress is impossible without this freedom.

Literatūra

1. Cabré 1999 – Cabré M. Teresa. Terminology. Theory, methods and application. Amsterdam / Philadelphia, 1999.

2. ChemŽ – Daukšas K., Barkauskas J., Daukšas V. ir kt. Chemijos terminų aiškinamasis žodynas. Vilnius, 1997.

3. Gajda 1990 – Gajda S. Wprowadzenie do teorii terminu. Opole, 1990.

4. Hawthorn 1998 – Hawthorn J. Moderniosios literatūros teorijos žinynas. Vilnius, 1998.

5. Lietuvos flora – Lietuvos TSR flora. Vilnius, 1980. T. 6.

6. Urbonas 1986 – Urbonas V. Grybai. Vilnius, 1986.

PRAGMATICS OF TERMS

Summary

This article deals with such Lithuanian groups of terms as folk (and dialect) terms, as well as systemic and non-systemic terms. The norms of such terms are discussed. Non-standard terms in Lithuanian dictionaries of terms are marked by the reference ntk. However the concepts “klaida” (mistake) and “uždraustas terminas” (forbidden term) are not of equal value. The State Language Commision declares numerous terms to be forbiden, e. g. arenda, blicas, planerīs, salka etc. If the usage of a Lithuanian term in a text is questionable, it is usually marked by the word vadinamasis, which expresses the doubt.

Kazimieras GALVENIS Lietuvių kalbos institutas Antakalnio g. 6 LT-2055, Vilnius

Gauta 2000 10 31

8