TERMINOLOGIJA, MOKSLO KALBA IR DABARTIS

Kazimieras GAIVENIS

A FEW THOUGHTS ON THE STANDARDIZATION OF TERMS

The standardization of terms over the past two or three years has shown that the success of this work depends largely on how standards developers understand terms, which words and combinations of words they regard as terms, and how they select, systematize, classify, and define them. In addition, developers of terminology standards often make one methodological mistake: they assume that, when preparing a standard for a particular field, its terminology must be reconsidered and reorganized from scratch, replacing good terms with even better ones. In fact, this is unnecessary, since terms can essentially be standardized only by the relevant terminology commissions, not by individual developers of terminology standards. When defining terms, three distinguishing features of the concept are most often selected, namely: 1) the scientific nature of the concept; 2) a precisely defined meaning; and 3) the specialized nature of the concept. None of these features alone expresses the modern understanding of a term. For example, no one doubts that one can speak of sports terminology, yet most concepts in this field are not scientific. The specialized nature of a concept is a feature of its professional use. But it does not, by itself, determine whether a word belongs to terminology, since professional language contains not only terms but also professional colloquialisms, jargon, and other words. Thus, terms are distinguished from ordinary words (non-terms) not by any single feature, but by a combination of several. A term is not some special kind of word or word combination, but a word or word combination that has a special function of naming a concept, or a nominative function. Therefore, from among the many grammatical synonyms found in general language, only the most suitable ones should be selected for terminology. For example, one can say shoe brush, brush for shoes, shoe-cleaning brush, shoe-cleaning brush, brush for cleaning shoes, and so on. All these synonyms are essentially consistent with grammatical norms, but in this case only shoe brush—a genitive phrase expressing purpose—is best suited to terminology and terminology standards. Therefore, terminolo-

6

gists, when approving terminology standards, often revise and reorganize long names expressed in various grammatical cases.

In terminology, compound concepts are usually named by multiword terms. For example, a sample of ten terminology standards approved in 1993 contained a total of 908 terms. Of these, 230 were one-word terms, 468 two-word, 150 three-word, 39 four-word, 13 five-word, 6 six-word, and 2 seven-word terms. Comparing this sample with a sample of 0.016 of the terms in Russian technical terminology standards², we found that our terms are somewhat shorter. In Russian terminology standards, one-word terms account for 10.16% (ours: 25.3%), two-word terms for 36.16% (ours: 51.5%), three-word terms for 26.99% (ours: 16.5%), four-word terms for 15.54% (ours: 4.2%), five-word terms for 6.48% (ours: 1.4%), six-word terms for 2.96% (ours: 0.6%), and seven-word terms for 0.84% (ours: 0.2%)³. Of course, this comparison can only be approximate, since the samples are of different sizes. Nevertheless, this comparison shows that the terms in our standards are no longer than those in the terminology of some other languages.

In practical terminology management, two types of conceptual relationships are usually distinguished: hierarchical and non-hierarchical relationships. The most common hierarchical relationships are genus–species and whole–part relationships. The former are several times more frequent in terminology than the latter. Both types of relationships can be illustrated with step diagrams, for example: a) genus–species relationships and b) whole–part relationships:

¹ Thank you to Assistant A. Noreikaitė for providing the statistical data.

² Б о л к о в а И. Н. О краткости стандартизованного термина // “Научно-техническая терминология”. М., 1989. 4. С.13.

³ The remaining terms have conjunctional components.

7

In draft terminology standards, two-word compound terms whose head denotes a whole—a machine, device, or instrument—and whose modifier denotes its part (component) are sometimes indirectly expressed by terms of the type “adjective with the suffix -inis, -ė + noun in the nominative,” for example: pavarinis → pavaros sraigtas, automobilinis → automobilio variklis, and so on. In such a term, the modifier expresses what is called the genitive of a whole–part relationship. Certain grammatical devices in our language are used to designate a type. One of these is the definite forms of adjectives and participles. Not all languages have these forms, so there are people who do not recognize them, even in terminology. In fact, it is often difficult to determine whether a term needs a definite form or not. In general, however, these forms are needed in terminology. They indicate a stable distinguishing feature of a type. For example, gyvenamasis namas may be uninhabited at a given time, but it is still called a gyvenamuoju namu. Geriamojo vandens may not be drunk by anyone now, but it will still be geriamasis vanduo, that is, water of a certain quality. “The Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian” (Vilnius, 1994) notes that the contrast between definite and simple adjective forms is not very clear-cut or consistent, and gives examples from terminology as well, such as: saldus ir rūgštus pienas, bet saldieji ir rūgštieji pipirai, juodieji ir baltieji serbentai, etc. (p. 175). In fact, neither fresh nor sour milk requires the definite form of the adjective, since these terms designate a temporary property of the concept. Moreover, in terminology, contrasts between types may be expressed not only by antonyms but also by other type terms, for example: baltoji nykštukė (star) – juodoji nykštukė (star); juodieji metalai – spalvotieji metalai; juodoji rinka, baltieji suodžiai, baltosios eilės—there are no contrasts between types at all. Definite forms are unnecessary in terminology only when the modifier designating a type itself has an adverbial modifier, for example: lengvasis betonas (German Leichtbeton, English light-weight concrete), but ypatingai lengvas betonas (German besonders leichtes Beton, English very light concrete). In general, definite adjectives and participles are used more or less appropriately in draft terminology standards, but there are instances in which they are missing and others in which they are overused.

Some drafters of terminology standards translate missing Lithuanian terms from other languages and believe that translating a term means reproducing both the meaning and the form of its foreign-language equivalent—

8

meaning and form. In fact, translating terms means conveying only the meaning (terminological meaning); whether the form of a term coincides with that of its equivalent depends on the relatedness of the languages. For example, the title of an English standard is “Asphalt Concrete Mixtures and Asphalt Concrete for Road Construction”. In translating it, one must use not a title that repeats the English construction, “Asphalt Concrete Mixtures and Asphalt Concrete for Motor Roads”, but the original Lithuanian word combination (“Asphalt Concrete and Its Mixtures for Motor Roads”).

According to the standard of the Republic of Lithuania, “Principles and Methods of Terminology” (Lithuanian RST 1115–90), the aims of defining terminological concepts are several: 1) to characterize a concept at a certain level of abstraction; 2) to distinguish that concept from neighboring concepts; 3) to establish the concept’s relations with other concepts in order to indicate its place in the system; 4) to delineate the concept in order to standardize terms. In practical terminological work, intensional and extensional definitions are most commonly used. The former identify the nearest generic concept, which has already been defined or is generally known, and the features that characterize the concept as a type within that genus (a). The latter enumerate specific concepts belonging to the same level of abstraction (b). For example:

a) bibliographic record – bibliographic and other information about a document (a part of it or a group of documents), presented in a prescribed format, by which it can be identified and retrieved in a catalogue⁴;

b) alkaline earth metals – Al, Sc, Y, La⁵.

Definitions of the first type are more characteristic of terminology standards, while definitions of the second type occur only in terminology dictionaries. Intensional definitions are most often classical definitions, definitio per genus proximum et differentiam specificam. These definitions may include not one but several distinguishing features. This is because it is sometimes impossible to find a single feature that distinguishes the object being defined from all other objects and reveals its content in essence.

Errors in definitions of terms in standards most often arise from an incorrect understanding of the relationship between the concept being defined and the defining concept.

⁴ LST 1350: 1994 draft.

⁵ Dauksas K. Chemijos žodynas. V., 1960.

9

For example, the term “lens” in optics cannot be defined as follows: “A lens is an optical device bounded by two convex surfaces.” The distinguishing feature selected here, “two convex surfaces,” applies only to some lenses. There are all kinds of surfaces: both convex, both concave, one flat and the other convex, one concave and the other convex, and so on. Thus, a more precise definition of a lens might be: “A lens is an optical device with two surfaces that refract light rays.”

A vicious circle in definitions arises when an object is defined by a concept that itself becomes clear only through the concept being defined. For example, the terms narkotikai (a) and narkozė (b) cannot be defined as follows: a) “medicinal substances that cause narcosis,” if b) is “a state of the body caused by narcotics.”

Terms should not be defined using words belonging to different categories or having incompatible meanings, e.g.: valkšnumas — “a case in which a solid body undergoes plastic deformation under prolonged load or stress.” The term valkšnumas denotes a persistent property of a material, whereas the word atvejis names only an isolated and accidental occurrence. Thus, such a definition should be corrected, e.g.: valkšnumas — the property of a solid body of undergoing plastic deformation under prolonged load or stress.”

It is sometimes claimed that so-called negative definitions are erroneous. In terminology, however, they are not always wrong. Negative definitions are appropriate when the essence of a term’s content (concept) consists of a negative feature, e.g.: nepataisomoji yda — a defect that cannot be repaired technically and for which repair is economically inexpedient.

Confusing compound sentences should not be used in definitions in terminology standards, nor should various modal words and other parenthetical expressions, e.g.: usually, exclusively, main, comparatively, first and foremost, etc.

In conclusion, it should be emphasized that our experience with terminology standardization is still limited. We are only beginning to learn this interesting and promising work of terminology management. Therefore, the Lithuanian Standards Council should issue more provisional terminology standards, and those preparing terminology standards should take greater interest in the experience of countries that have been doing this work for a long time.

10