Lietuviškų terminų vaizdingumo klausimu

PROBLEMS OF LITHUANIAN LEXIC AND TERMINOLOGY QUESTIONS OF LITHUANIAN LINGUISTICS, XXIX (1991) KAZIMIERAS GAIVENIS ON THE QUESTIONS OF LITHUANIAN TERMINOLOGY 1. Introductory notes 1. 1. The most characteristic features of scientific language are abstraction, logic, objectivity, accuracy, etc. Expressivity and visuality are not among the most important general features of the scientific language. Therefore, it was believed that emotional-expressive connotations are not characteristic of the language and terminology of science at all. However, it has long been suggested that the language of science is not completely stylistically neutral, that it contains peculiar features of emotional-expressive connotation (Koxnxna, 1971, 32; KajrMsikoa, 1974, 83—88; Cenresnu, 1976, 46—109). In the scientific language we will hardly find vivid words, which in general dictionaries are marked with special stylistic notes, e.g. fam. (familiarus), iron. (ironic), laugh. (joking), please. (malonyl), min. (Pejorative), nothing. (degrading), vulg. (vulgarism) and so on. Therefore, the language of science is not characterized by either pronounced meliorative or perjorative. There are also few phraseologisms and comparatively few figurative meanings of words. In other functional styles, words with strong connotations in the scientific language are often used in a completely different way. For example, in texts of scientific language, exonyms are either not used at all, or in some of its genres and subsystems they perform only a special nominative function (e.g., description of bird calls in scientific ornithological literature). Emotional-expressive connotation has also been regarded as a flaw of scientific language (Ilauduxros, 1968, 26; Jlantesa, 1968, 136—139 and others). On the other hand, there were and still are linguists who vigorously defend the emotional-expressive connotation of the scientific language, claiming that it is necessary for the effectiveness of the scientific language, that the scientist cannot be merely a fact-finder, but must also be their evaluator (Cenxennu, 1976, 29 and others). This requirement is particularly emphasized in relation to the specificity of the language of social sciences. Without agreeing with extreme opinions on this issue, we would think that M. Senkevičius is right when he states that the elements of emotionality and expressiveness are not an intrinsic and necessary feature of the scientific language (Cenxenua, 1976, 32). This is only permissible and tolerated within certain limits. Emotional-expressive connotation in the scientific language also depends on the individuality of the author (scientist): scientists of the same specialty and equal qualification write far from equally — some more visually, more extensively, others — dryer, more concise. Thus, it can be affirmed that the clarity of the language of science is determined by objective and subjective things. ir Discussing the role of emotional-- expressive connotation in the scientific language, it should be emphasized that it is related to the modality of the scientific language, and in the most general sense — su anthropocentrism. 26 1.2 The lexical content of a word consists of two parts — the intentional (nucleus of lexical meaning) and the implicational (periphery of semantic features) (Huxuran, 1983, 24). In addition, in linguistic semantics, lexical meanings are now commonly divided into sems, the smallest units of meaning. The whole of the sems is not a simple but an ordered cluster. Some researchers argue that there is a hierarchy of sems: the most abstract and general (categorical) sems at the top, 0 at the bottom — the most specific (I'ymasmutoc, 1985, 19 et al.). Some researchers associate emocing-expressive connotation with the implicational of lexical meaning or even do not assign it to lexical meaning at all, considering it a certain superlayer of lexical meaning, while others not only separate emotionality from expressiveness, but also divide the latter into types (inherent and adherent expressiveness). Without delving into the subtleties of the structure of lexical meaning and differences of opinion on this issue, in this article we will discuss only matters related to terminology, adhering to the view that the terminological meaning is included in the lexical meaning of the word as a set of special sems. Thus, in this article we will discuss mainly only one thing — the lexical (term) expression of emotional-- expressive connotation and its most important features in Lithuanian scientific language. 2. Expression of emotional-- expressive connotation in terminology 2.1 It is widely accepted that the lexicon of scientific language consists of 3 layers: the lexicon of literary language, the general scientific lexicon and terminology. The latter is also heterogeneous. There is a distinction between general scientific, interdisciplinary and specific scientific terminology. In addition, terminology is supplemented by nomenclature and professionalisms. In the scientific language, nouns and noun constructions generally dominate. According to M. Senkevičius, among the stylistic means, personifications, hyperboles, allegories are not used in scientific language, but comparisons and synecdoches are frequently used (Cenkenuu, 1976, 56). E. Kalmykova has stated that metaphors are used very peculiarly in the language of science. The duality of semantic metaphor (naming an object and describing it) is not characteristic of scientific style. Here only the communicative, informative and nominative functions of metaphor arise (Kanmeixosa, 1974, 83). This idea of E. Kalmykova is only partially correct: in some subsystems of scientific language the distinctive function of terms overshadows the nominative one. Therefore, the metaphor acquires distinctive features of expression (this will be discussed later, when discussing the terms of systematics). With the consumer vocabulary of all and the general scientific vocabulary, the expressive metaphor very rarely enters the language of science. Much more often in the scientific language emotional-- expressive connotation is associated with various comparisons, because analogy is one of the most important ways of scientific thinking. S. Nikitina divides metaphors of scientific language into several groups: 1) based on traditional transfer of meanings according to external characteristics or functions (such transfers of meanings are not considered metaphors by all linguists); 2) nominative and predicative metaphors; 3) epiphora and diaphora (Hukutuua, 1987, 37). In her opinion, the language of science is mainly used nominative metaphors. These metaphors are primary: scientific objects have no other names. 27 This is where scientific metaphors differ from poetic metaphors. Probably wrong those researchers (M. Senkevičius et al.), ir who argue that the expressiveness of the word word combination fades when it is terminated ar and long used in terminology. ba Iš in fact such terms as: rams foreheads (geomorphology), saddle (geomorphology, mathematics), cat's eye (mineralogy), hat (meteorology), slug (technics), witch broom (botany), hare tears (plant systematics), snail (anatomy of animals and humans), etc., expressiveness is maintained by (have), because some jų (e.g., saddle, hat, snail, snail) emotional-expressive connotation acquires together with terminology, other su o (e.g., witch's broom, hare's tears) do not lose their meaning due to terminology, because only the lexical meaning changes, acquiring terminological sems. jų True, the internal form of the motivation of long-used terms generally ir fades, but the expressiveness, in our opinion, remains in most cases. The common scientific ir vocabulary of literary language often becomes figurative when used in unusual meanings, when words of one style are transferred to another style. į Writers often feel the stylistic macaroniness of such words and try to distinguish ir them with quotation marks, e.g. : grafted polymers, old-town reanimation, cows "face" ir etc. This revitalization of the iš scientific language is really related to ne su the search for imagery, the o su linguistic incompetence of the writers, the inability to find the necessary neutral more accurate ir word. For specialists in scientific language it is sometimes difficult to give up jargons and ir professionalisms, which are also often a kind of vivid imagery. ir 2.2. Prof. J. It is important to note that the expression of emotions differs from ir the expression of emotions. For example, the suffix -ybė adjective that expresses the characteristic of the object more strongly than a suffix -umas, the o corresponding derivatives of the extremities are už allegedly more poetic than the two aforementioned derivatives (Pikčilingis, 1975, 31). Adverbs -inis adjectives už for noun ancestors, in P. Kniūkšta's opinion, are drier rational ir (Screaming, 1971, 14). S. Keinys has observed that in terminology things called deminutive derivatives are usually smaller than things of the same kind, named by base nouns (Keinys, už 1975, 46). For example, the terminological words hood hood, ridge ridge, ir tape strip, sheet sheet, ir plate plate ir ir ir ir t. t. The clear thing is that the diminutives of these pairs are emotional expressive. ir Therefore, it cannot be said that the operative connotation is ignored in the terminology at all. Be Furthermore, terminologically it is important ir that the derivative loanword is ar not funny, vulgar, misleadingly associative. ar In the history of ir terminology of the scientific language, there are many examples when new ones did not survive mainly because they had a strong emotional-expressive connotation. Vocabulary terms personification, riestinis (slash mark) once easily defeated the newly made folding, roof probably because the latter were too picturesque. For the same reason J. Emphasis is placed on the creation of compound terms of plant morphology such as raffle root, covered leaf, cross-crown, etc. ir were replaced by more neutral terms gradual root, fluffy leaf, cross crown, etc. ir In general, at the beginning ir 28 of the development of the terminology of our scientific language (19th—20th centuries) the use of figurative names was considerably more frequent. In terminology, the imagery is now usually not avoided where the distinctive (distinctive) function of terms is more important than the nominal (nominative) function. For example, expressive terms are often created in systematic terminology, because in order to distinguish one plant or animal species from another, there is often recourse to figurative comparison, e.g.: Fingered willow (Carex digitata), Pasagnosic bats (Rhinolophidae), Dryopteris cristata, Eared willow (Salix aurita), Helmet-winged willow (Orchis militaris) and so on. Such terms are usually (approximately 3/4 of the cases) not original, but translated from Latin or Russian. The visuality of systematic terms is inevitable also when the distinguishing feature is taken as the impression of the researcher, which the named plant or animal makes him, or when some plant or animal characteristics are subjectively evaluated, e.g.: the beautiful carnation (Dianthus superbus L.), the graceful lime (Tilia x euchlora), the sad evening (Hesperis tristis L.), the slender swirl (Sriophorum gracile), the bad otter (Lolium temulentum), the oat (Avena strigosa) and so on. Such terms, of course, are figurative, and this imagery is specially created in the language of science. In other cases, the imagery is transferred to the scientific language from the popular language (by terminology of expressive popular names), e.g.: thunderwort (Sempervivum L.), crow-foot (Coronopus), moose (Morchella- ), boob-eye (Helvella), mushroom- -eater (Gerum), hare tears (Briza media) and so on. In the terminology of technology, astronomy, chemistry, medicine and other fields, figurative terms are usually international values, e.g.: swallow tail (cf. rusy sacmoukun xeocm, English swallow tale), hare's lip (cf. rusy 3dxuba 2yba, Latin labium leporinum), dew point (cf. rusy mouxa pocu, English dew point, German Taupunkt) and others. 2.3. The language of social sciences has peculiar features of emotional-expressive connotation. We will not find any pictorial terms based on the bahuvrihi type of synekdoche, which, as we have seen, are very characteristic of systematic terminology. International phraseological values are also a rarity in it. However, the terms of philosophy, politics, literary science are often characterized by peculiar ideological semantics, not related to the form of the concept, but to the emotional-expressive connotation of their content. The visuality of the scientific text can also be incidental. 2.4. In the scientific language, the imagery can be two-fold: fragmentary and synthetic. So far we have mainly spoken about the fragmentary imagery (of a single word or a combination of words). Synthetic visuality occurs when the researcher, by describing the research object in great detail, as if constructs a generalized image of it. This is particularly true for animals and plants. For example, here is how the image of the hair-plant poplar (Populus trichocarpa) is created in P. Snarskio and V. Galinio “Guide to Lithuanian ornamental trees and shrubs” (V., "Trees 1974): with stem-like flowers, and with pistils are very rare. 40-60 pages. Knife, box and ring are abundantly haired. The box opens with 3 latches. The petals are dark or greenish brown, ribbed. Leaves ovary, rhombic ovary, oblong or generally rhombic, broadly lanceolate or oblong triangular, 29 7—14 cm length ir 4—9 cm 10-15 cm wide, round, steeply cut, slightly heart-shaped or wedge-shaped at the base, gradually pointed at the top, finely dented, at least young with flared edges, stiff, leathery, dark green or green, shiny on the top and white or grayish white, sometimes brown underside, young hairy, older bald, often with pink threads. Peduncles 2-6 cm long, at least young hairy, often red. Buds up to 1.2 cm long, sticky, fragrant. Fragrant and young leaves, especially their main stem. The young trunk bark falls off in thin leaves. The leaves are wide, etc.” (p. 53-54). This description is created according to a certain scheme, following the rules of characterization of plant morphology. There are also cases of synthetic visuality in literary science and art history works. 3. Conclusions 3.1. Emotional-expressive connotation in scientific language is vague, rare. It is associated with the modality of the language of science, and in the most general sense — with anthropocentrism. Imagination is not a necessary feature of scientific language, but only permissible and tolerated within certain limits. Its role is not only in the language of individual fields of science, but also in different genres. The visuality of the scientific language can be two-fold: fragmentary and synthetic. 3.2. Emotional-expressive connotation is related to the nature of the lexical meaning of the word. The semis of imagery words or their combinations receive in popular language or terminology. Terminology does not eliminate the emotional-expressive connotation, but excessive or erroneously oriented imagery of the word can be a hindrance to its terminology. Emotional-expressive connotations can be found in all three layers of the vocabulary of the scientific language — literary vocabulary, general scientific vocabulary and terminology — and in all three groups of terminology — general scientific, interdisciplinary and specific scientific terminology. The stylistic expression of emotional-expressive connotation in the language of science is mainly associated with various comparisons. Terms acquire emotional and expressive characteristics especially when their distinctive (distinctive) function is actualized. LITERATURE Keinys S. Lithuanian terminology || Lithuanian terminology. V., 1975. The poetic phrase "P.S." Our Language, 1971. No. 2., P. 14. J. Pikčilingis Lithuanian language stylistics. V., 1975. T. 2. I'yvaasuuioc A. ConocTaBuTeIbHAS CEMaCHOJIOTHS JIHTOBCKOTO H PYCCKOIO A3BIKOB, BHJILHIOC, 1985. Kaameikosa E. M. O muramuke Metadopsl B HAYYHOM cTHJIe //Oujiojnornueckue HayKH. 1974, Ne 2. Koxuna M. K. K npo6jneMe 3KcūpeccHhBHOcTH B HayuHoH peur //ViccjiejioBaHHSA MO CTHJIHCtake. [lepms, 1971. Bem. 3. 30 Jlanresa O. A. BayrpucrujieBas DBOJIIOLASA COBPEMEHHON pycckoii HayuHO)H npossi //Pa3BUTHE (DYHKIIHOHAJIbHLIX CTHJICH COBDpEMEHHOTO pycCKoro A; s351Kka. M., 1968. Huxaran M. B. Jlexcnueckoe 3HaueHue thing. M., 1983. Judge C. E. CemanTnueckuit and Judge HayKH. M., 1987. CenreBuu M. Il. CrunucTuka HayaHoit peuH HM JIMTEPATYPHOE DpejiaKTHDpOBAHHE HAYYHBIX npousBepennii. M., 1976. K. TAUBAHUC K BOITPOCY OB OEPA3HOCTH JIMTOBCKUX TEPMHHOB Pe3iome DMONKOHAJILHO-5KCIMPECCHBHaA KOHHOTAIHA —MAJIO3aMeTHAS OCOOEHHOCTb S35IKA HayKH. I'm not sure if I'm going to be able to do it. DKCIPECCHBHOCTB, OOpa3HOCT5 H BOOOINE CTHIIMCTHYECKAsI OKDAINEHHOCTL —HE BHYTPEHHSSA, CYINCCTBEHHAS, a TOJIBKO BHEIIHSAA, NOMYCTHMasi OCOOEHHOCTH si3bIka HayKH. Ee polis He OOMHAKOBAa HE TOJIBKO B OTĮĮEJIbHLIX OTDACIJISIX, HO H B OTHEIbHBIX Hay4YHbIX XaHpax. OOpa3HOCTh S3b5IKA HayKH ObIBaeT JIBYX BHHOB: (hparmeHTapHas (OTJIEJIGHOTO CJIOBA HJIH CJIOBOCO4eTAHHS) H CHHTeTHYeckas (GojIee KDYIKHbIX TEKCTOBBIX €QWHMI, Hamp., ab3aua H T. J. ). DMONHOHAaJILHO-5KCIDDEeCCHBHAa1 KOHHOTAIHSA CB532aHa C JIEKCHUCECKHM 3Hau4ucHHeM CJIOBA, CeMy 0Opa3HOCTH CJIOBA HJIH CJIOBOCO4ETAHHSA IIOJIYAIOT B HADOJIHOM $i3bIKE HJIH B TEDMHHOJIOrad, TepMUHOIOrH3aUMs He HEHTpAIM3yeT H HE CTHPAeT DSMOKKHOHAJILHO-SKCIDECCHBHYIO KOHHOTALMIO. OjiHaKo CITMINKOM GOOJIbINAS WIM JIOKHO OPHEHTHPYIOIas OOpa3HOCTL C/IOBAa MOXKET OBITH IOMEXOlH B €ro TEPMHHOJIOTH3ALHH. Bce ocHOBHBIE TpYyrinbi TEDMHHOJIEKCHKH —OOIIEHayYHas, MEXHay4Hasi H KOHKPETHO-- Hay4Has TEDMHHOJIOTHA —OOjJIajiaItOT cnenu(UYECKAMH YepTaMH 3MOLMOHAILHO-IKCIPECCHBHOM KOHHOTAHHH. TepMuHBI OOpa3HbIMH CTAHOBSITCH OCOGEHHO TOrJa, KOrjda AKTVAJIH3HDYETCS HX ĮMMCTHHKTHBHAS (DYHKI[HS, HAND., B CHCTEMAaTHKE pacTEHHŪ H)XHBOTHEIX (Cp. paukséiakojé viksva — Carex ornithopoda —ocoxa aanuamas, Orchis militaris —ampwiunux mnemoHoCcHhoti KTP.)