Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ NO USE OF NOMINAL FORMS IN THE TERMINOLOGY AND ITS CHALLENGES KEY WORDS: defining meaning, definiteness, noun form, norm, emphasis, type, usage, term indicator. INTRODUCTION The formulations contained in normative publications regarding the use of noun forms (hereinafter referred to as “NF”) in terminology are strict: most of them state that the adjective element of the term must be used only in “NF”. However, such a statement differs significantly from the general normative context, which shows that there is usually a tendency only to name the possible meanings of the UF and, adding that they are no longer worthwhile to use, not to determine the necessary consumption by those meanings. Such a normative context would fully correspond to the results of diachronic and synchronic language studies, which reveal that the LFs are disappearing – they are withdrawing from dialects, and in common language they are often replaced by ordinary LFs. These contradictions would lead to questioning the basis and the extent to which the rule establishing the mandatory term marking by morphological indicator is justified, but also to the assumption that the rule may be based on more regular use. However, the mere examples given in the study of terminology of a special field (e.g. Umbrasas 2002; Zemlevičiūtė 2003; Stunžinas 2005) are a sign that the FFs are not always used in terms either. In 1973, Angelė Kaulakienė stated that they were not used in the dictionaries of terms and described this tendency as a trend of the time. However, the tendency not to use FF in terminology is mentioned later, while also indicating the tendency not to use FF at all. In the grammar of the contemporary Lithuanian language (hereinafter – DLKG) it is also stated that the IFs vary in terms, although they are more prone to common language (DLKG 1997: 175). Such a repeated assertion of the tendency would already encourage to make a different assumption – that the strict proposition about terminology not only differs from the general normative context, forms a certain contradiction to linguistic studies, but also does not receive sufficient echo in the usage, and this, as it could be hypothesized already taking into account the repetition of the tendency, is more inclined to observe the general direction of the development of the IW and more corresponding to it non-necessity determining Ramune Vaskelaite. The non-use of noun forms in terminology and its challenge to the norm |2 norms. Of BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 course, these assumptions and hypotheses can only be tested by examining the norm and usage. not Tačiau tokių tyrimų nėra, jei neskaitysime vieno darbo, kuriame konstatuojama, kad ĮF used in welding scientific works (Gedzevičienė, Gedzevičius 2011), and the subject of the A. Kaulakienės (1973) straipsnio, bet jame norma ne tiek nagrinėjama, kiek teikiama. Reikšmingą vartosenos tyrimą yra atlikusi Adelė Valeckienė (1957), tačiau jo tiesioginis aforementioned are not terms and since the publication of the study has passed 60 years. There are publikacijų, kuriose vartojimo terminijoje klausimas užkliudomas netiesiogiai – nagrinėjant several meanings of FF (Valeckienė 1961) or cases of their incorrect use in the office language (Oginskienė 1993), participants of the inactive kind (Ambrazas 1964), suffixes -inis, -ė adjectives (Kniūkšta 2001). In terminology works, the opinion on the use of UF is also rarely expressed (Gaivenis 1975; Keinys 2004), in some places it can be inferred indirectly (Gaivenis 1995; Keinys 2005). Without examining either the norm or the usage, the inconsistency of the latter increases. This alone would raise the question of the use of UF in terminology. The fact that the terms are marked with this morphological indicator irregularly is clearly seen from the language of economics. However, it also shows some more regular tendencies. By analyzing them, it would be possible to determine the relationship of these tendencies to the norm and to assess their validity. However, the normative contradictions identified would indicate that the analysis of use alone would not be sufficient to assess the validity of the analysis. After all, if the norm is not sufficiently justified or is characterized by certain unlawfulness, it would be illogical to draw conclusions from the objection of the usage about the unfoundedness of its tendencies. It is possible that the usage simply takes more account of the tendency to decline of the LF, revealed by diachronic language studies and not excluded in normative works. Thus, the validity of the usage can be assessed only after examining the norm, and one of the criteria for assessing the norm is the extent to which it is observed in the usage. Such mutual relationships determine the aim of this article – to examine the rate of usage of UF in terminology, the tendencies emerging in usage and, based on comparative analysis, to assess the validity of both usage tendencies and the rate. The usage under consideration is represented by two types of texts: coherent texts, namely articles published in periodicals of economic science, and contextless environment of usage of terms, i.e. dictionaries of economic terms and glossaries of terms (concepts) presented in legislative acts. Another object of the study is the statements formulated in normative, descriptive, explanatory, educational and research works on the use of IF in terminology, as well as the treatment emerging from the interpretation of the essence of IF, their evaluation with regard to grammatical categories, classification of meanings, the set of research works. Ramune Vaskelaite. The non-use of nominative forms in terminology and its challenge to the norm |3 The BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 main methods used – comparative analysis, typical of theoretical works, indukcija, dedukcija ir sintezė. ĮF vartosenos tyrimas grindžiamas terminų žodynų ir teisės aktų statistinių duomenų lyginimu ir vertinimu. 1. GENERAL LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT Termino žymėjimas lietuvių kalboje nėra vienintelė ĮF funkcija. Tų funkcijų, most commonly called values, and more. It is by them that o is most often interpreted, and in ĮF ir neįvardžiuotinių formų (toliau – NF) opozicija. Vis dėlto reikšmių klasifikacija skiriasi, the system of grammatical forms and categories, IF still does not find a definite place. Choosing one or another model of their evaluation, there are also many exceptions that are difficult to explain by that model. This language phenomenon is a difficult puzzle to memorize, as would be shown by the studies of language development. They are able to reveal that the FF is disappearing, but the reasons for the disappearance are not entirely clear. This encourages the examination of ambiguities and the assessment of the codified consumption rates of HF in the light of these ambiguities. 1.1. Problems and connections revealed by research works LF is not an object that would be chosen to be studied frequently in Lithuanian linguistics, but some essential points have been established. For example, the basis for their formation has been established: ĮF was formed by joining the simple forms as an enclitic to the pronoun iiokamienas he, she – (Rosinas 1975; Valeckienė 1986; Zinkevičius 1957, 1966, 1981, 1996). However, more remains to be clarified. Here the basis of origin is known, but the pronoun ’s meaning is interpreted differently, and in differently evaluating one of the theories of origin of this pronoun presented in the articles of A. Valeckienė (1986, 1990) can be discerned: when the pronoun  is considered anaphoric (demonstrative), the Fs tend to be considered as denoting a certain object or signifying determination and corresponding to the designative articles of other Indo-European languages, and when the pronoun is considered relative (relative), they are darybos formantų, nevienodai suprantama paties darinio reikšmė. Tokią sąsają galima mainly interpreted as emphasis – emphasis of the designative object or constant feature. A. Valeckienė (1957) herself had already drawn attention to the duality of semantic function. It is a function of the emphasis, and she stated that some nominative adjectives acquire a denoting (determinative) meaning, while others acquire an emphasizing (emphatic) meaning. Takya biyopa Ramune Vaskelaite. The non-use of noun forms in terminology and its challenge to the norm |4 with BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 funkcijos prigimtis aiškinta ĮF susidarymo specifika: „Dėl įvardžio neatskiriamo susijungimo adjectives made the functional meanings of noun adjectives dependent on the syntactic-semantic relationship of the adjective and its denoting word. <...> noun words form a single semantic compound būdvardžiai, žymintieji tokį daiktą, kurio išreiškia skiriamąją ypatybę, su pažymimuoju and acquire a denoting meaning, – indicate a certain known object, noun adjectives, denoting such an object, which expresses a characteristic and acquire a pure emphasizing meaning.” (Brown 1957: 210). žinomą ypatybę, su pažymimuoju žodžiu glaudaus sintaksinio-semantinio junginio nesudaro Although it has been stated that in the present language nominative adjectives have two meanings, the evolution of meanings has also been observed: the emphasized adjectives were assessed as disappearing, not inclined to roll further, and the indicative adjectives were regarded as the main ones in the language of that time. The concept of the development of meanings is further developed in subsequent articles by A. Valeckienė, the noun iojau linking to the Indo-Iranian and Greek noun in the kalbų konstrukcijomis. Teigiama, kad šis įvardis, tose konstrukcijose eidamas po identical position, was neither purely relative nor true anaphoric, it by nature had an emphasizing, repeating reference (“identifying”) function, and the denoting function expanded later; Moreover, there is no strict boundary between the indicative and the emphasizing meaning in Lithuanian (Valeckienė 1986: 184–185; 1990: 27–28). It is precisely such insights that could become the basis for allocating the category of definiteness in Lithuanian language. In the chapter of the first volume of the Lithuanian Grammar (hereinafter – LKG) prepared by A. Valeckienė, the correlation of definiteness and indefiniteness is only mentioned, while in the article of 1986 definiteness is already clearly distinguished, and later it is assigned to the DLKG. Incidentally, the 1986 article no longer uses a descriptive but a defining term (or “definiteness”), so, to avoid confusion, it continues to be used in this article, except in cases where it will be important to convey the exact terms used in one or another work. When the CIC tried to distinguish between definiteness and uncertainty, the question of emphasis immediately became a tricky one. The grammar states that the emphasized noun adjectives stand apart from that correlation – their function is of a stylistic emphasis character (LKG 1965: 511). However, in recent studies of the Lithuanian language’s grammatical structure, LFs are already considered only as means of expressing definiteness (Holvoet, Tamulionienė 2006; Mikulskas 2006; Spraunienė 2008a, 2008b, 2011; Judžentis 2012: 99– 110). The fact that in Lithuanian, unlike in article languages, the FF is used with an emphasis is usually not appreciated. It is true that one more attempt to solve the issue of the emphasis occurs, but they would indicate that it is wanted to be included in that distinction has been criticized: because the adjective ĮF is only one of the many morphological forms defining the characteristic, that this contradiction is visible in the conjunctions of lexical and Ramune Vaskelaite. The non-use of noun forms in terminology and its challenge to the norm |5 function BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 apibrėžtumo kategoriją: teigiama, kad pabrėžiamąją reikšmę reikėtų laikyti ĮF pragmatine (Mikulskas 2006: 64), and in one doctoral dissertation – that “all noun adjectives traditionally referred to as emphasis adjectives can reasonably be considered as having a defining function” (Spraunienė 2011: 112). Mėginant lietuvių kalbos ĮF aiškinti apibrėžtumu, kyla ir kitų neaiškumų. Kaip būdvardžio kategorija apibrėžtumo ir neapibrėžtumo priešprieša skirta jau ir DLKG, tačiau grammatical forms (Paulauskienė 1994: 225), developing a different than the traditional Lithuanian linguistics concept of noun compound, – because it is not an adjective but a noun compound category (Holvoet, Tamulionienė 2006: 12). Nevertheless, the question of whether the Lithuanian language in general is characterized by such a grammatical category is clearly concluded in the works presenting the criticism by Christofer Lyons’s thought that not all languages have definiteness, and by the observation that the grammatical description of the Lithuanian language does not translate without neatsakyta. Axelio Holvoeto ir Aurelijos Tamulionienės straipsnyje atsakymo paieškos this concept (Holvoet, Tamulionienė 2006: 32). Artūras Judžentis nevertheless decides to distinguish the grammatical category of definiteness, but the grammatical category is understood by him in a different way than is usual for the traditional grammar of the Lithuanian language – as encompassing not only morphology, syntax, but also semantics, pragmatics. Definiteness is primarily associated with the latter (Judžentis 2012: 99–110). Perhaps the main uncertainty arising from the fact that the LF of Lithuanian language is considered as a means of expressing definiteness is the great irregularity of the expression of opposition: there are many examples when LFs are used without a clear definition and defined without LF (Spraunienė 2008b, 2011). A. Valeckienė has also discussed the irregularity of use in the emphasizing sense, but her interpretation is more convincing: the emphasis on the peculiarity of the object depends on the author’s subjective view of the object (Valeckienė 1957: 203–212). In general, the attempts of researchers to memorize the riddle of the function of adjectives in the Lithuanian language resemble a closed circle: A. Valeckienė’s overview of the attempts to memorize it in 1957 shows that based solely on deterministic or solely emphatic theory, this riddle was not memorized, and the problem was tried to be solved by recognizing two main semantic functions, while studies of definiteness again focus on only one of them, and the result is usually the finding that the expression of definiteness in adjectives in the Lithuanian language is irregular (Valeckienė 1986; Holvoet, Tamulionienė 2006; Spraunienė 2011; Judžentis 2012). On the other hand, the ongoing attempts to clarify the function and to find a more definite place of IF in grammatical forms RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai |6 BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 and category system leads to the assumption that that function is probably not very important for language, because the essential one had to be clarified over so long. The assumption about the non-essential importance of the function would be confirmed by language development studies, which reveal that the LF is disappearing. Zigmas Zinkevičius (1957, 1966, 1978, 1981, 1996) indicates dialects where they are no longer used. A. Valeckienė (1957) concludes that the emphasizing meaning is disappearing, but she also sees signs of the decline of the defining meaning in dialects – in this sense, ĮF are no longer used in the southern part of the western Dzūkijos and the eastern and central Highlands, and are used less frequently in dialects that meet with areas that have almost no ĮF, namely in the eastern part of the south-western Highlands. Considering the defining meaning as the main and most vital in the present language, and the accentuation used in the aforementioned dialects as dwindling, the article concludes that all nominative adjectives in those dialects are also dwindling (Valeckienė 1957: 303). However, the question of why they are disappearing has not been answered very clearly. Having drawn attention to the expression of the defining meaning in ordinary forms in dialects that also use substantive adjectives abundantly, A. Valeckienė identified one reason – the specificity of defining objects with substantive adjectives of the Lithuanian language: „In Lithuanian language  the pronoun of the subject, performing a determinative function, is inextricably linked to the adjective, therefore the definition of the object – its distinction from others depends very much on the lexical meaning of the adjective and its syntactic-semantic relationship with the denoting word <...>. If an adjective can distinguish one thing from another by its specific lexical meaning, then the determination sign – the noun ending – is no longer necessary.” (Brown 1957: 303). It is suggested that such individual cases of inconsistent expression of adjectives of defining meaning may have contributed to the beginning of the decline of noun forms. LKG similarly interprets the laxness of the correlation of certainty and uncertainty (LKG 1965: 511). In searching for reasons for the non-use of the IF in the works of the current Lithuanian grammar structure, another factor is indicated – small difference in meaning. Although the meaning of the LKG is considered the main criterion for distinguishing the IPA from the ordinary IPAs, in 1986 it is noted that the difference in meaning is not made in both the written language and the dialects, and this is questioned (Paulauskienė, Tarvydaitė 1986: 136). būtų didelis (esminis) reikšmės skirtumas, tai nebūtų bendrine kalba kalbančių žmonių, It is then discussed: "If between ordinary and nominative adjectives that can translate būdvardžių nevartojančių tarmių, ir kalbėdami bendrine kalba be jų išsiverčia, tuo without nominative adjectives. And now those who are descended from nouns contributing RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai |7 BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 to the decline of noun adjectives in general. <...> In view of the current mixing of populations, urbanization, bilingualism or trilingualism, it must be assumed that nemokančių vartoti įvardžiuotinių formų ir galinčių išsiversti be jų dabar yra labai daug.“ (Paperback 2006: 222–223). In addition to the above-mentioned factors, the influence of neighbouring languages (Pupkis 1980: 137; Paulauskienė, Tarvydaitė 1986: 136–137; Paulauskienė 1994: 223) is also cited as a reason for the decline of LF. 1.2. Reflection of objections in normative works If a language phenomenon automatically withdraws from usage, it should be difficult and probably unnecessary to restrict such tendencies by language norms. In order to regulate the use of HF, the function should also be difficult to fully understand. This link is not mentioned in the discussion of the consumption rates of HF, but some factors are mentioned which should be a significant barrier to claiming a minimum consumption of HF. In most textbooks on morphology or language culture, as well as in the LKG, the tendency to not use LF in common language is primarily associated with the influence of dialects: there are dialects that have almost no LF, so that the representatives of those dialects do not easily feel their specificity (Piročkinas 1990: 86; Šukys 2003: 113); in many dialects the FFs have disappeared or have only left fixed forms, and therefore they are not always properly used in common language (Pupkis 1980: 137); Representatives of dialects, when speaking common language, can translate without ĮF (Paulauskienė 1983: 212–213; 1994: 222), there is no internal hearing for nominative adjectives (Paulauskienė 2004: 309). The corresponding tendencies of language development can also be determined by a slight difference in meaning: "By indicating a very small difference in meaning between noun and ordinary adjectives, it is not at all meant to say that noun forms in common language should be abandoned in general. The aim here is simply to show that it is easiest to give up the form that does not have a very clear specific meaning and which is not protected by the innate sense of language.” (Brown 1986: 137). When considering such factors, often only the listed IFs have a potential significance and the essential consumption is not emphasized by them. However, the nominal values differ. A. Valeckienė (1957), who presented the most comprehensive classification of them, distinguished two main ones – the indicative and the emphasis. The main difference is that the nominative žodžio reiškiamą sąvoką papildo, padaro konkretesnę (senasis namas), o pabrėžiamosios adjectives of the indicative meaning only reinforce, emphasize the characteristic of the indicative word (the cold spring). RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai |8 BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 There are two subspecies of the indicative meaning – the distinctive meaning, with which they įvardžiuotiniai būdvardžiai apibrėžia daiktus juos išskirdami iš kitų panašių daiktų, ir are used, and the indicative meaning, with which they are used to define objects by indicating ypatybes (žr. 1 pav.) 1 . Išskiriamoji reikšmė skirstyta dar smulkiau – į išskiriamuosius ir the above-mentioned, well-known generic designations of them, and the use of the IF in terminology, which is related to the latter. 1 PAV. "The Origin of the Names" (PDF) (174–175). A similar classification was applied in the LKG, only the species certificates held by A. Valeckienė as a unit of the tertiary division became a unit of the secondary division (see Figure 2). 1 The indicative meaning of A. Valeckienė is illustrated by examples such as the description of the light as magical in J. Biliūnas's story: On a high steep mountain appeared a magical light. It shone like a star, wrapped in a bright circle of golden letters. <...> But many years of sacrifice and dedication passed, and yet none of the climbers reached the top of the mountain, did not touch the magical light (Valeckienė 1957: 189). In the new studies of the Lithuanian language, this expression of definiteness is associated with the pragmatic level (Holvoet, Tamulionienė 2006). Ramune Vaskelaite. Non-use of nominative forms in terminology and its challenge to the norm |9 2 PAV. BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 Classification of the meanings of the noun forms LKG (1965: 505–510) The notation of the species feature in DLKG again becomes a unit of tertiary division (DLKG 1997: 174–176) (see Figure 3). This step-by-step classification is also presented in the Functional Grammar of Lithuanian Language (Valeckienė 1998). In the studies of LF based on the model characteristic of foreign linguistics, several types of definition are distinguished: deyctic, anaphoric, situational, etc. definition (Holvoet, Tamulionienė 2006; Spraunienė 2008b, 2011; Judžentis 2012: 103–104). 105). 3 PAV. Classification of the meanings of noun forms in DLKG (1997: 174–175) Ramune Vaskelaite. The non-use of noun forms in terminology and its challenge to the norm |16 with the BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 Viename kalbos kultūros vadovėlyje būtinasis termino žymėjimas ĮF grindžiamas ambiguity that may arise: NF can also indicate a species, but it would be ambiguous, so only the noun form of an adjective or another word should be used in terminology (Paulauskienė 2001: 24). However, at least some explanation of the norm is rarely attempted. A much more common model is that the listed or classified NFs may have meanings and, when discussing one of them, pogrupį, būtent rūšies žymėjimą, nurodoma, kad ĮF vartojamos terminijoje. Nei the causal relationship or the relationship between the designation of the species and its use is usually not mentioned in the terminology. Incidentally, the subgroup of meaning is also called differently: in some places as species indicative (Valeckienė 1957), in others as the notation of the kind of objects (LKG 1965) or of the thing (Jakaitienė et al. 1976), the expression of the kind of objects (DLKG 1997), the notation of the species characteristic of the thing (Paulauskienė, A. Valeckienė, aptarusi rūšinius pažyminius, konstatuoja: „Kadangi rūšiniai Tarvydaitė 1986: 137), the indication of the kind of thing (Paulauskienė 1994). adjectives usually indicate some individual, generalized characteristics of a group of objects, with a denoting word signifying the name of that group, so with such adjectives very often are formed terms, for example, terms of linguistics.” (Brown 1957: 186). The LKG repeats this statement, only before it states that nominative adjectives with certain signs can express the name of the kind of objects (LKG 1965: 507). The DLKG does not mention any causal connection or relationship, but only states that distinguishing noun adjectives with certain designative words can also denote the kind of objects, and indicates that such adjectives are often used to form terms in various fields of science (DLKG 1997: 174). From such formulations, unlike from the From the normative works cited in subsection 2.1, it would be clear that neither the universality of species marking nor the necessity of term marking is determined. On the other hand, the designation of species as a subset of the tier classification implicitly provides for the possibility of not designating a species. After all, if the specific value is assigned as a subgroup of the defining value (or its subgroup – the distinguishing value), then the subgroup should not be alien to the laws of the group. And when discussing the group, there are various exceptions, neutralization and cases of competition of NF with IF. Even neutralization directly related to the designation of the species is mentioned – the non-use of adjectives of specific meaning in the IF. Since the species marking is also one of the cases of the use of IF in general, it should also be characterized by the general tendency of non-use of IF. They are based on important factors, such as the decline of NF in dialects and no longer used in common language, small difference in meaning from NF (and thus small importance of opposition), thus it remains to assume that further NF RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai |17 BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 the evolution of the type of use, as well as the direction of their use in other meanings, should be declining. However, the tiered classification also distinguishes an intermediate link between the defining value and the designation of the type, namely the distinctive value. A. Valeckienė (1957), having indicated that distinguishing signs distinguish objects according to the lexical meaning of the adjective, distinguishes between distinguishing signs and species signs. 1) the separation of one or more objects from many other similar objects with a relatively higher degree of distinctive characteristic (Mother and the big girl were washing; The new neighbor appeared candy); 2) the separation of one or more objects from many other similar objects with a comparatively higher degree of distinctive characteristic (Mother and the big girl were washing; The new neighbor appeared candy); 2) distinguishing an object from another similar object by one characteristic that is opposite to the characteristic of the other object (Right shoulder slightly below; New preposition is better than old one); 3) the distinction of one object from many other objects of the same kind by some specific, individual characteristic, which is not characteristic of all objects of that kind (Once there was a holy place here, an altar stood and the eternal fire burned; Leave the dried sacks for the grain, and pour the roputas into the even ones). More precisely, the ways of distinguishing things are listed and illustrated with examples in the subsection of distinguishing marks, and in the subsection of species marks it is said that they define things in the same ways as distinguishing marks, only rarely the species is marked in the first way, usually in the third, and examples of species marks are given: 1) The throat boils from the sluggish, from the evil cough; 2) Growing chamomile nothing, small (chamomile) smell; Need a round nozzle; 3) Sweet onions; Red potatoes are not afraid of rotting; Red clover. As can be seen, the difference between the examples illustrating the distinctive and the generic marks is small, which, as just mentioned, is also pointed out by A. Valeckienė. If the difference is indeed small, then such a classification would allow to assume that both subspecies of intermediate significance – distinctive marks and generic marks – should be characterized by the same tendencies. Nevertheless, in other works a boundary is drawn between the distinction and the designation of species: in the first case the difference between NF and NF is small, it can be eliminated by intonation, contextual elements, therefore in many cases the forms for conveying Tarvydaitė 1986: 137). Išeitų, kad rūšies žymėjimas yra būtinesnis nei įvardžiuotinių formų the same information can be freely chosen, and in terminology NF is something else – they have a special purpose to mark the species characteristic of the object (Paulauskienė, 2006). tiek rūšiniams pažyminiams daiktų išskyrimo pagal ypatybę būdus. Ramune Vaskelaite. The non-use of nominative forms in terminology and its challenge to the norm in the BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 Tokio skirtumo darymo priežasčių irgi galima ieškoti A. Valeckienės (1957) usage study carried out by |18. Based on ancient writings, the linguist finally concluded that the meaning kad rūšiniai pažyminiai yra tolesnės išskiriamųjų pažyminių raidos rezultatas – išskiriamoji was moving towards generalization and at the same time stronger determination. It is also concluded that the defining meaning becomes the main in the present language, and the emphasis disappears. Unless this would allow to explain the greater importance attached to the notation of the species characteristic, and also to guess that the notation of the species in the LF is probably considered a promising tendency of language development, therefore, as the functions of the LF deteriorate, it is tended to be transferred to terminology as a general principle. Such assumption is confirmed by changes in the provision of LF to terminology in Aldona Paulauskienė’s works. In 1986, she and her co-author prepared a paper in which the conclusion regarding terminology was presented with some doubt: “In those cases where the word has a clear terminological purpose, it might be better to use the noun form, but in other cases it would probably be necessary to recognize the free competition of forms.” (Brown 1986: 138). It is true that in the 1994 publication, after listing the meanings of nominative adjectives as determined by traditional grammar, adjectives denoting kind in the terminological sense were distinguished as the least compliant with the general tendency not to use NF, but it was also added: “you don’t have to be a terminologist to notice the tendency to use the ordinary form instead of the nominative one” (Paulauskienė 1994: 224). The use of the IPA is not required in terminology. And in 2001, the rule of no exceptions was already formulated, that when making two-word terms “the rule must be observed: if an adjective or any other word can be noun, then in terminology only the noun form is suitable without any exceptions.” (Paperback 2001: 204). An attempt to justify the rule would show that the termology is given NFs not because of their inherent ability to denote a species, but because of all possible meanings: “The main purpose of the noun form is to emphasize, define and distinguish. Therefore, nominative adjectives or subjunctive participants are very suitable for terminology that is characterized by definiteness and distinction from other similar things.” (Paperback 2001: 204). Such a statement would also confirm that it is probably precisely in terminology that the perspective of opposition, which is already inclined to levelling, is seen. However, another criterion is mentioned at the same time – normative tradition: “Such terminology is already traditional, legalized, mėginimas išsiaiškinti normos pagrindą tėra šio straipsnio autorės interpretacija, nes codified, although the non-nominative form can also indicate a species.” (Paperback 2001: 204). Of course, here the direct norm is usually not argued. RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai |19 BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 Direct arguments can be found in A. Kaulakienė’s perhaps only article. which usually reflects the Jame nurodoma, kad nuoseklus ĮF vartojimas „padėtų susidaryti terminų sistemiškumui, interface of the respective concepts. On the other hand, the rule imposing a mandatory time įvairavimo, kuris nepageidautinas terminų žodynuose“ (Kaulakienė 1973: 30–31). Išeitų, kad limit that could be avoided is based on a systemic approach. The validity of another argument – that the non-use of LF terms in dictionaries contradicts the already established usage of nominative adjectives – could be assessed only by examining the usage of that period (about 1973). In A. Kaulakienė’s article, the principle is proposed to be applied everywhere, i.e., terms with adjectives as a dependent element must be marked with FF both in texts and in term sets. Thus, it would appear that the designation of the species, which in the research works is mainly seen as a pronounced tendency of usage, directly and indirectly associated with neutralization cases, should become a general principle in terminology, and as such it is provided for by terminological incentives, namely the principle of systemicity of terms. However, there are also some doubts about the necessity of the LF in the terminology works. For example, K. Gaivenis (1975), who for the first time began to discuss compound biword terms more systematically, among their possible grammatical configurations mentioned not only noun forms, but also simple forms (disturbing factor, falling source). In another article, he argued that they are indeed often nelengva būna nustatyti, ar reikia terminui ĮF, nors apskritai šios formos terminijai necessary (Gaivenis 1995: 8). And Stasys Keinys, noting that due to the influence of terminology, substantive genders spread very pervasively, pushing out the ordinary ones, and directly indicated that in terminology they are not in all cases necessary or even more necessary (Keinys 2004: 81). However, the question of the necessity or non-necessity of the LF is not discussed in terminology works. The overview provided would make it clear that the apparently clearly provided standard is dual. On the one hand, the necessary use of the UF in terminology is determined, but even if such a claim is based on the aim of systematicity, the tendency of the development of the UF towards stronger determination or any other, not discernible to the author of this article, ne tik tiriamojo, bet ir norminamojo pobūdžio darbuose pateikiama reikšmių klasifikacija. Tai, kad rūšies žymėjimas laikomas išskiriamosios ar apibrėžiamosios reikšmės pogrupiu, important arguments, such a norm is denied by the fact that the UF is a subgroup of the semantic group. pakankamai svarios ĮF nevartojimo priežastys. Kita vertus, galimybę ĮF nevartoti numato ir Ramune Vaskelaite. The non-use of noun forms in terminology and its challenge to the norm |20 of the BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 formulations presented only in discussing this semantic subset would suggest that as a species indicator, the N should be quite optional. Therefore, there is a dual norm – one which affirms the mandatory marking of the term in the TF and one which provides for that marking as essentially optional. Such uncertainties would not arise if the normative works clearly defined the relationship between the type marking and the term usage, but this is not the case. From some works it is possible spręsti, kad rūšies žymėjimas ĮF ir terminas yra tapatinami. Kalbos praktikos patarimuose to see that (1976) among the cases of use of noun words was mentioned the denotation of the species characteristic of the object, but it is illustrated with such examples as table salt, short waves, sewing, knitting, cutting machine, composite feed, etc. (KPP 1976: 114). In one of the educational publications, it is initially stated that the noun adjectives are used to form terms in various fields of science (open theft, public order, general lawsuit procedure, free economic zone), and when distinguishing the most typical cases of the use of noun adjectives, only the use of the N is mentioned to indicate the specific characteristic of the object and analogous examples are given, e.g.: separate order, radioactive materials, small business, public administration (Kunevičienė 2003: 146). It is true that the difference could be discerned in the Language Guidelines, which provide the current morphological norms: they provide the necessary expression of the species in terms as a rule, and as an exception (black bread, etc.) indicate the exception that is otherwise characteristic of the expression of the species (KP 2002: 26). However, the DLKG, which is also a publication providing current morphological norms, concludes on the basis of such an exception that the ordinary forms of certain adjectives have also been adopted in terms formation. If in fact the inherent ability of the IF to designate a species is used only as the basis of the norm given to terms, generalizing the principle of systemic requirements in terminology, then the exceptions to the designation of species should not apply to terminology. Thus, if the norm of the necessary use of FF in terminology is based on something, this basis is not sufficiently clear and even in normative works is confused. The ambiguity of the grounds, its non-interpretation or the interpretation indicates unequal criteria, the classification of IF values creates the possibility of interpretation of the conformity of use to a certain pagrindo galinčiai turėti normai turėtų daryti keblią. 3. VARTOJIMO RIŠLIUOSE TEKSTUOSE POLINKIAI Any online journal of economic science would be sufficient to establish the non-conformity of standards and usage as the necessary indicator of the term. But immediately Ramune Vaskelaite. The non-use of noun forms in terminology and its challenge to the norm |21 complies BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 tenka minėti ir vieną šios vartosenos lemiamą apribojimą – joje akivaizdžiai nepakankamai with language norms or even completely disregards them. However, the linguistic quality of articles published in the same publication, or even in the same issue, varies. This leads to the assumption that publications are not edited by language editors and that editing is left to the authors themselves, who rely on language editors of different qualifications or on their own language knowledge. And more or less deficient in terms of language norms is the language of many periodicals of economic science, thus choosing the advantage – better reveals the ambiguities arising for language users. After evaluating all idealiosios vartosenos nėra iš ko. Kita vertus, tokia realioji vartosena teikia ir vieną these circumstances, the texts are selected: those scientific articles that do not respect the most general language norms are rejected, and in others the prominent laws of non-use of FF are examined. A total of 60 publications published between 2006 and 2016 were selected. 3.1. Criterion and semantic boundary ambiguities It would be unjustified to consider all cases of variation of the form of the dependent pronoun of the word combination used in the text as non-compliance with the norm, since this is provided for in normative works. The general opposition of NF and DF can be realized on the basis of a single word combination, which in grammar is associated with the defining meaning or category of definiteness characteristic of DF. The DLKG states that the category of definiteness of adjectives is formed by the IFs, relating to the ordinary forms in the following way: the IFs indicate the characteristic of the object, indicating at the same time that the object is known, and the ordinary forms only indicate the characteristic of the object (DLKG 1997: 174). It is true that such opposition, as it has already become clear from the works of A. Valeckienė and the classification of meanings provided by LKG and DLKG, allows the known object to be indicated in different ways – to distinguish it (distinctive meaning), to indicate its previously known characteristic (indicative meaning) and to mark the type of object. Thus, this opposition foresees that the object will also be indicated as known when denoting a type, but it does not foresee that in the same text the object cannot be indicated as unknown, simply having one or another characteristic. Scientific texts are a favourable medium for the realization of such opposition, not only of normative works, but also of the grammatical system of the language. After all, they often define and interpret concepts, and the definition or interpretation of a concept is an indication that the object is known. However, the definition or interpretation of those concepts may also include reference to the characteristics that formed the basis for the term designating the concept. This is shown in one scientific article RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai |22 BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 provides an overview of the history of the single market: European integration is primarily about creating and improving the market (Miniokas, 2003), which is why the Single European Act of 1986 referred to the creation of the single market. At that time, the need to create a single market in which national borders do not impede economic activity became even more apparent. The common market is defined as a form of economic integration of states characterized by the free movement of goods, capital and persons (Vilpišauskas, 2003) (EVAP 2007 1(8): 101). The first two uses 3 of the word combination ‘common market’ indicate precisely that common characteristic which, as is apparent from the third use, already becomes the basis of the conceptual term. If this case is described by the wording of the provision discussed, it could be argued that the common market feature is mentioned twice in the word combination as simple and the third time it is already mentioned as distinguishing. Applying other formulations presented in the normative works, the feature marked by the FF could be named not as accidental or temporary, but as permanent, essential. The classification criteria of the IF values would have to consider the word combination common market in the case of a type. Thus, whatever criterion mentioned in the normative works, distinguishing UF from NF, would be applied in this case, all of them would provide for the use of UF in the third case and all would coincide. In other cases, however, the question of the criterion becomes tricky. First of all, such ambiguities are caused by the context in which objects or phenomena are classified or simply mentioned as their types. When distinguishing or mentioning types of objects, as provided for by the methods of distinguishing objects associated with the designation of a generic feature, objects distinguished by properties opposite to other objects or characterized by specificity should be indicated, and therefore, the UF should be used. Such cases occur in the usage, e.g. : The collateral may be divided into immovable and movable (T 2005 3(32): 17); According to the economic classification, state expenditure is divided into ordinary and extraordinary expenditure (EVAP 2015 2(37): 7); Learning in this context is considered broadly, encompassing both formal and non-formal and informal learning (VPA 2011 4(10): 634); Voluntary migration includes the following types of migration: temporary, circulatory, permanent, tourist and seasonal (VPA 2014 1(13): 154). However, there are also frequent cases of use of NF, e.g. : These derinimui: vietinio lygmens (vadinamasis „horizontalus koordinavimas“) ir vyriausybinio tools are used at the level of stakeholder visions on two levels (‘vertical coordination’) (GPA junginiais įvardytų sąvokų pavadinimai yra sudaryti daiktų ypatybių priešinimo pagrindu, 2013 4(12): 596). Therefore, based on the criterion of representation of the kind, their adjective elements should be used 3 Iliustracinių sakinių kalba netaisyta. Ramune Vaskelaite. The non-use of noun forms in terminology and its challenge to the norm |23 IF. The BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 criteria for the expression of the kind would encourage the use of the adjectives emphasized in the sentences The aim of regional policy is to develop the tangible and intangible assets and potential of the regions (VPA 2013 1(12): 65), This is formal and informal entrepreneurship education, training, as well as other business management training programs (VPA 2012 2(11): 223), especially to indicate the kind in the sentence Migration is also differentiated according to its organizational nature into organized and institutionalized, independent, etc. (VPA 2014 1(13): 153), because here the verb differentiate is used, which makes it possible to name the kind units. However, if the criterion is applied precisely to the designation of the species, and not to the unconditional use of the DF in terms, then this may be the case of neutralization associated with the designation of the species or with the use of the DF in general, when the DF is not used because the objects are sufficiently distinguished by the specific meanings of the designating words, the species contradictions, and finally the semantic context and syntactic circumstances that do not allow for ambiguity between the simple and the distinctive feature designation. Using another criterion mentioned in normative works – the contradiction of temporary concept features and permanent species features, in these cases, too, NF would probably become fully justified. After all, the characteristics of concepts can be understood not as permanent species, but as temporary. And in fact, in the usage pattern, there is a tendency to use the FF more regularly when dividing objects into already known, established types of objects, such as movable and immovable property, and to use it more variedly when distinguishing new types, which are presented only in one or another article. Often the NF is used, and even the verbs to assign, divide, differentiate, sort, group, as shown in the examples, do not prevent it from being used. Thus, all the population can be treated as human resources, only by dividing them into real (working age, economically active) and potential (until working age, unemployed, pensioners, who can be included in various jobs) (T 2008 3(44): 2), Therefore, it is appropriate to divide all investors into three groups: conservative, rational and aggressive (EVAP 2007 1(8) 52). Thus, the discussed uncertainties may arise from the criterion applicable in terminology raised in A. Kaulakienė's article and provided in many normative works of neapibrėžtumo ar kelių kriterijų netiesioginio numatymo, tačiau net ir vadovaujantis unconditional termino žymėjimo kriterijumi, pagal kurį ĮF tekste terminai turi būti žymimi visada, šiais atvejais tokių neaiškumų kiltų. And in other cases, the texts create circumstances that give rise to ambiguities, kriterijaus klausimą ir net atskleidžiančių tam tikrą kriterijų prieštarą. Pavyzdžiui, tekste apie Ramune Vaskelaite. The non-use of noun forms in terminology and its challenge to the norm |24 The BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 concept of sustainable development is first discussed, and the adjective accent of the term denoting it is consistently used in the IF, e.g. : But if we consider sustainable development as a policy, then its implementation depends on the importance and significance of institutions, their competence; It is clear that sustainable development is linked to democracy, human rights, good governance practices (Dumitrache 2013) (MLA 2015 2(7): 190). However, this consistency is not maintained in certain sentences, e.g. : Sustainable development cannot be achieved without the involvement of businesses; The sustainable development of enterprises can be achieved using several models (MLA 2015 2(7): 192). In these cases, the use of the IF is probably not permitted by the meaning of the verb in the semantic 4 part of the summary adverb – definiteness is not characteristic of the intended object. The designation of the species characteristic according to the classification presented in the works of grammar should by itself determine the definition, and the definiteness is not characteristic of the created thing, probably that is why, even if the term is chosen in LF and this principle is followed quite consistently, in such cases an exception is made – the verbs create, create, exist, arise, implement, vartojama NF. Tos išimtys, iš dalies lemiamos žodžių junginio pagrindinio dėmens sąsajos su strive, etc., are also made in other publications, e.g. : The fundamental question – how can we create a harmonious society or sustainable development? (TE 2008 1(2): 37); Globalists (hyperglobalists) define globalization as a new epoch in human history, in which a single global market with global competition as the engine of progress appears (VSE 2011 3(12): 205); The administrative man <...>, although he cannot achieve absolute rationality, nevertheless strives for it (VPA 2012 2(11): 324). The choice of NF is probably encouraged by the verbs use, measure, because they are used not with a constant word combination, but with a combination denoting an object with a certain characteristic, e.g. : Sets of indicators of this nature <...> are difficult to apply to measure sustainable development in the enterprise (MLA 2015 2(7): 193); Kitaip tariant, nematerialaus turto naudojimas nemažina paties turto kiekio ir dydžio (VSE 2014 2(4): 214). However, the adjective elements of the NF word combination are used not only in such exceptional cases, but also when they can only be a component part of the term, because the junginiu įvardijama sąvoka arba jis tiesiogiai susijęs su samprata, pvz.: Tai leidžia daryti words “sustainable” and “development” are used as adjectives. The concept of sustainable enterprise is closely related to the concept of sustainable development can be interpreted (MLA 2015 2(7): 192). Klasifikuojamus objektus įvardijančių žodžių junginių NF dar būtų as the result of the application of the criterion of temporary and permanent character of the concept, some cases may even be considered as a statement of characteristics, but when classified 4 The DLKG considers such conjunctions as connective word combinations (DLKG 1997: 508–509). Ramune Vaskelaite. The non-use of nominative forms in terminology and its challenge to the norm |25 BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 objects are defined, it is already obvious that the property is attributed to them both as permanent and as essential, as well as as distinguishing the object from other objects, that the designated object is known, that a certain species is designated and that the word combination names a concept, thus is a term. Thus, whatever criteria were applied, they would all coincide, and the IW should be used. However, this form is not always chosen, for example. : According to the term of operation, funds are divided into open and closed types of funds. Open-ended investment funds do not have a fixed term of operation. <...> closed-end investment funds have a fixed term of operation (VSE 2011 1(1): 118); Active investment management is a type of investment management where investment decisions are made based on forecasting future trends. Passive investment management is a type of investment management that aims to ensure that the return and risk characteristics of investments match the return and risk of a particular market segment or index (VSE 2011 1(1): 118); In the scientific literature, current business groups are divided into having vertical and horizontal organizational structures. Business groups with a vertical organizational structure are characterized by the fact that they are oriented towards supplier-producer relationships, i.e., “a set of enterprises linked by supplier-producer relationships”, while horizontal groups are “related companies in different industries, similar in structure to conglomerates” (Lamin, 2007) (VSE 2012 2(2): 68). In some cases, it seems that there is an attempt to make a distinction, i.e., the adjective accent of the word combination designating the concept is used in NF, and when naming an object, especially one that depends on such verbs as measure, NF is chosen, e.g. : In order to achieve the objective, the problem of the concept of sustainable development, the treatment of dimensions and the details of implementation were first investigated, because only after clarifying the uždavinius ir numatyti jų įgyvendinimo priemones (MLA 2015 2(7): 190); Nagrinėdami nematerialųjį turtą, mokslininkai susiduria su nematerialaus turto identifikavimo, essence of the concept itself, it is possible to raise specific problems of measuring and evaluating sustainable development (VSE 2014 2(4): 214–215). Here it would be possible to assume that a distinction is made between a combination of words of objective meaning and a term denoting a produktyvumo padidėjimas XX a. antroje pusėje laikytinas nematerialaus turto tyrimų srities pradžia. Vis dėlto ženkliai padidėjęs produktyvumas tuo metu buvo aiškinamas kokybiškesniais concept, but in the same texts there are also reverse cases, e.g. : Difficult to explain by human resources and technological progress, specifically not yet linked to intangible assets (VSE 2014 2(4): 214–215). And such cases would show not lawful exceptions, but the fact that probably none of the criteria mentioned in normative works is known or there is no clear boundary between the distinctive and simple designation of features, permanent and temporary designation of features, especially the case and term of designation of a species feature. Probably that's why Ramune Vaskelaite. The non-use of nominative forms in terminology and its challenge to the norm |32 is BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 attributed to the IF in normative works, i.e. to mark the term. On the other hand, international words usually have a specific lexical meaning. There is no possibility of ambiguity when there is a small difference in meaning between NF and IF. As the cases discussed show, there are circumstances when it is possible to mark both simple and distinctive characteristics of the object, both temporary and permanent. And if a word combination with such a dependent element is constantly repeated and (or) the term marked by it is defined or classified in that text, then the morphological indicator – DF – determined in normative works may simply be redundant in scientific texts. 3.3. Non-use of nominative forms of participants In the usage under consideration there is a marked tendency not to use not only adjectives, but also the participants of the IF, especially those made from international words. It is apparent that they are not used when the participant, especially in the past tense, shows a characteristic resulting from a passive action, summarized as a characteristic of the object (discounted cash flows, fixed interest rate, consolidated budget, skilled work, skilled employee, skilled labor force, monopolized market, covered bonds, balanced growth, balanced budget, interested party, fixed-term contract, etc.), e.g. : The structure of the consolidated budget is shown in Figure 1 (MLA 2014 1(6): 51); The most widely used incentive measure in the European Union is flat rates (GPA 2014 2(13): 260); Another factor determining foreign direct investment is skilled labour (MLA 2(8): 215); The fifth dimension is the contribution of stakeholders (VPA 2007 22: 12); Studies have shown that even employees with fixed-term contracts are more likely to be promoted if they work full-time (VPA 2013 4(12): 546). In the present tense, passive participles are not used, but they indicate characteristics related to the generalized action, e.g. : Researches showed that the capital structure of listed companies in the Baltic States differs from that of companies in developed countries (EV 2010 15: 177); Disposable income is one of the most influential factors on private consumption (EVAP 2012 3(27): 13). When obvious species antagonisms are expressed, the FPs of the participants of the affected species are sometimes also not used, e.g. : Orders required to ensure the efficient operation of the parent company enabled the successful operation of subsidiaries that satisfied the needs of the parent company, and the coverage of fixed costs by the parent company RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai |33 BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 orders made it possible to provide services at competitive prices to external users (VSE 2012 2(2): 75). Participants with Lithuanian roots also do not acquire LF, although such a tendency is rarer, e.g. : According to researchers, the learning economy is an economy in which the success of individuals, companies and regions is reflected in the ability to learn (and forget old habits) (VPA 2014 3(13): 635); A learning organisation creates a learning environment in which new insights are constantly acquired at both the individual and collective level (VPA 2014 3(13): 636); The concept of profit is understood as the sum of the product of equity and the effective interest rate with the borrowed capital and the product of the difference between the effective interest rate and the cost rate of borrowed capital (EVAP 2008 4(13): 74); Income is tax-exempt if its amount does not exceed the threshold for the application of the annual tax-exempt minimum (VPA 2006 15: 48). Only in NF are the terms developing country (economy, market) and developed country (economy, market) in force, e.g. : Business groups exist in both developed and developing economies (VSE 2012 2(2): 65); The interaction between emerging and developed capital markets is also examined (GPA 2012 2(11): 142). In NF there are also necessary participles, but they are not so common in the terminology of this field, e.g. : The main liquidity variables affecting the size of the enterprise’s value are: stocks, cash and its equivalents, receivables (current assets) and provisions, amounts payable and loans and other liabilities (current liabilities) (MLA 2016 2(8): 194). Thus, all the participants used in NF – both Lithuanian and non-Lithuanian words – have quite typical meanings, i.e. they tell about the constant, generalized, characteristic features of the object related to the action that is taking place in the present or that took place in the past. Their meaning differs extremely little from that of the IF, and the noun analogue, as determined by the norm of the morphological indicator of the necessary term, could most likely only indicate that the word combination has the status of a term. Probably, the blurring of the semantic boundary, the resulting ambiguities and finally the uniformization of the form lead to the use of NF not only in the sentence Chaeboal – it is a family-controlled, diversified business group, which has been both praised and criticized in the scientific literature (VSE 2012 2(2): 72), where the assertion of a simple feature is determined by syntactic circumstances, but also in the sentence In summary, it can be kontroliuojamos diversifikuotos verslo grupės, chaebol jungia šeimos nuosavybės ir kontrolės said, as with other families, the advantages and disadvantages (VSE 2012 2(2): 78), where the reikšmę ar rūšį nurodanti ĮF. Vienodos formos dėl minėtų priežasčių veikiausiai distinguishing pronoun could already be used in the sentences Distribution of narcotic substances RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai |34 BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 by an organized group – it is widespread crime, supported by economic and operational resources, su tarptautiniais ryšiais ir Todėl narkotinių medžiagų platinimas veikiant kaip organizuota and very often a group associated can spread so that it will pose a direct threat to the peace and physical safety of all the population or a large part of it (VPA 2013 1(12): 143–144), although in the first sentence the word combination organized group is mentioned in the text for the first time and may not acquire NF as a case of assertion of a feature, while in the second sentence it could already be named a known type of thing and therefore use NF. However, it seems that not only these ambiguities are responsible. The form of the participle itself can indicate a characteristic feature of the object and often the word has a specific lexical meaning, so the FF as an indicator becomes unnecessary, especially because it makes the word longer and uncomfortable to use, and the difference in meaning is basically not given by the FF. Not only as a species, but also as a term indicator in a scientific text, such a form often becomes non-functional, because the status of the term, as revealed, in such a text is indicated by many other means, such as the connection of the word combination with the definition, its frequent repetition, specific meaning. When the participle is a word of non-Lithuanian origin, the indicator of the term is also this, which is probably why the IF of active or passive participles of non-Lithuanian origin are not used. The peculiarities of the usage under consideration can contribute considerably – there are extremely common terms, the dependent or main focus of which is a word of non-Lithuanian origin. Of course, this tendency in usage, like the other tendencies discussed, is not a universal principle. It can be used in both intertextual and textual contexts, as well as in the context of word combinations. : The first case analyses the distribution of market-generated income […] and the second case analyses disposable income, after taxes and social benefits (EVAP 2015 1(36): 20); The managers of these new companies became some of the managers and shareholders of the controlling company (VSE 2012 2(2): 75); The most important aspect of the external environment in the context of social business organization are stakeholders. Stakeholders are those segments of society that may not be directly affected by the organization, but its activities may affect them (VSE 2013 2(3): 217). Nevertheless, a certain group of participants is distinguished by their usage tendencies: participants of Lithuanian origin with various atypical meaning shades (means of action, place or time of action, etc.) are used only in the UF, e.g. : The largest share of public einamosios išlaidos (EVAP 2015 2(37): 9); Lietuva neišsiskiria iš kitų pereinamosios expenditure (about 30%) is made up of economic countries (VSE 2012 2(2): 82); Pension reforms in EU countries must promote kaupiamuoju principu veikiančias papildomas savanoriškų pensijų schemas (VPA 2006 17: 67); Tam būtina vadovautis valiutų portfelio strategija, maksimizuojančia portfelio perkamąją Ramune Vaskelaite. The non-use of nominative forms in terminology and its challenge to the norm of |35 BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 power at a certain point in the future or allowing the choice of maximum purchasing power reikšmę tam tikrą laikotarpį (VTP 2006 1(7): 56). 3.4. Distinctive function The use of FF in terms varies considerably, but in certain terms only FF is used. In the usage under consideration, the adjective used by NF is not found in the word combination humaniškasis kapitalas, although the DLKG indicates the usage tendency of the suffix -iškas, -a to not denote the derivative ĮF. It is clear from the texts that this adjective does not have such an exception, e.g. : Other differences in the attitude of citizens of the new and old EU countries to human capital have also emerged (T 2012 3(60): 215); Various studies have shown that human capital is the main source of income and well-being fluctuations in different countries (VSE 2014 1(4): 90). In any syntactic context, NF is not used as an adjective of the compound term human resources, e.g. : Human resources have always been important for the development of states and nations (T 2011 1(54): 11); The lack of financial and human resources in public organizations is considered by respondents as the biggest barrier in the process of innovation implementation and development (EVAP 2013 3(31): 29). Other suffixes -iškas, -a derivatives, as provided for by the exception of the type notation of the IF, often aspects of vartojami NF, pvz.: Savarankiškas mokymasis – mokymosi sistema, kurios daugelis the learning process are controlled by the learner (VPA 2008 26: 100); Volunteering as an unremunerated activity for society is an area of growing interest (OJ 2012 64: 106). The adjective pure, -a, e.g. : Net investment indicators show the state of a country’s economy in a particular economic cycle (MLA 2016 2(8): 167); The economic evaluation of projects, where possible, aims to determine the economic internal rate of return and the net present value (MFA 2013 1(20): 65). And the adjective is public, -a almost always takes the noun form, e.g. : Modern public management is an extremely complex phenomenon, caused by global changes, which presuppose public investors lent the capital flows necessary for the development of business valdymo reformų, viešųjų institucijų modernizavimo būtinumą (EVAP 2013 3(31): 22); Laikydami komunalinių paslaugų ir viešųjų gėrybių teikimo sektorių itin saugiu, finansiniai groups for a lower than the accepted risk premium in the market (VSE 2012 2(2): 77). Nors būdvardis bendras, -a dažnai pavartojamas ir NF, tačiau tokiuose junginiuose as gross domestic product, gross national product, gross supply, gross Ramune Vaskelaite. The non-use of nominative forms in terminology and its challenge to the norm |36 BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 demand, total cost, etc. in the texts examined was found only in the IF, e.g. : The basis of this system of accounts is gross domestic product (GDP), which describes the real annual economic performance of a country and shows the rate of economic growth (EAPC 2009 1(14): 167); A. Okun (1962), having analyzed the data of the unemployment rate and the change of the gross national product (GNP) in the United States in the period 1953-60, empirically determined that there is a regular negative natural ryšys tarp faktiško BNP ir potencialaus PNP procentinio santykio bei skirtumo tarp faktiško ir unemployment rate (EV 209 14: 140); Thus, the interest rate has the greatest influence on the overall cost (MLA 2012 3(4): 255). In addition, the word is used in the form of a third person singular noun, e.g. : Restrictions may apply to exports or imports in trade with third countries (T 2011 4(57): 97); This was partly influenced by the change in the trade regime with third countries following Lithuania’s accession to the EU (MFA 2009 3–4 (16): 187). In one article, the word combinations "smart economy" and "smart city" are used only as a dependent accent, e.g. : In the latest scientific and applied literature and strategic documents, the concept of smart economy is increasingly found, which is used in various contexts: creating a smart city, developing the economy, carrying out strategic planning, emphasizing (advertising) the uniqueness of cities. The smart economy is one of the components of the smart city, so it is natural that the focus of the scientific and applied literature is on the concept of the smart city (VPA 2014 3(13): 270). The adjective elements of other terms used in this article, whose main focus is also economics, are not acquired by the IF, even if those terms are defined or interpreted, e.g. : In the scientific literature, the economics is usually associated with the spread of the Internet and its use in economic processes and everyday life; The innovative economy is based on direct and feedback links between science, production and personnel training (VPA 2014 3(13): 473). As can be seen from the examples, the non-nominative equivalents of terms used only in the IF would have a completely different meaning or would even be semantically meaningless. Therefore, from the unnamed analog with an obvious difference in meaning. And such a tendency would be understandable, because in the scientific text the status of the term is indicated by many other įvairuojančios vartosenos išsiskiriantis nuoseklumas rodo, kad joje, kitaip, nei nustato kodifikuotoji norma, ĮF linkstama suteikti funkciją skirti terminą ne nuo kiekvieno, o tik discussed indicators. On the other hand, in subsection 2.2 it is mentioned that one of the arguments cited in the provision of the rule is the desire to avoid ambiguity, so in this respect the rule is not contradicted, but only interpreted in a specific way. RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai |37 BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 The distinctive function could also be used to explain the fairly consistent usage of NF in Lithuanian expressions of passive type, which have shades of means of action, manner, time or other meanings, e.g. : Distributive justice (see distributive justice) was the first component of justice to be addressed by researchers (OJ 2012 64: 42); Therefore, regulatory and socialinį – ekonominį mokesčių vaidmenį atlieka žemiau apibūdintos svarbiausios funkcijos: redistributive (see redistributive) (MLA 2015 2(7): 247); The food and beverage production industry is one of the largest branches of the manufacturing industry (see manufacturing industry) in Lithuania (MoA 2009 1–2(16): 77); A fixed rate and a long promotional period (see promotional period) reduce financial risk (GPA 2014 2(13): 261); The annual reports of investment fund management companies publish two indicators that are linked to benchmarks (see benchmark) (MLA 2011 4(3): 6); As in previous periods, the relatively worst quality indicators were for the consumer loan portfolio (VSE 2012 2(2): 86). In these cases, the NF of the participants would give the combinations of words a strong objective meaning and in the scientific text such combinations would be semantically meaningless. Typical participants of the IF do not perform such an important distinguishing function, so it varies more, and often as a general choice is NF. There is no obvious distinctive meaning of Lithuanian adjectives, especially those of non-Lithuanian origin, in ĮF. This, in addition to a whole complex of other factors, apparently also leads to its more free use and frequent change in the simple form. From those adjectives, the group of use tends to distinguish the general, -a; net, -a and public, -a, but this would also be explained by the distinctive function: in economic texts, word combinations that refer directly to sums, such as total sum, total indicator, total profit, total value, etc., are often used, e.g. : Small amounts of money are expensive and difficult to invest, but the total amount of money that people put into the fund is large enough (VSE 2011 1(1): 116); It is important to assess not only the state of the individual factors, but also their importance for overall competitiveness and the impact of financial resources on the individual factor (VSE 2013 2(3): 268). Thus, the same form chosen for both the word combination designating the amount and the term would create a risk of ambiguity. The ambiguity in this area could often be created by not using the adjectives verejas, -a and grynas, -a in the IF. RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai |38 BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 4. CONTEXT-FREE USE It would be difficult to verify the extent to which dictionaries influence the usage under consideration, especially since not only dictionaries, but also various term bases are widely available. However, given the specificity of the economic field, it could be assumed that the interaction is reciprocal. After the transformation of economic science in Lithuania only relatively recently, a large part of the terminology had to be re-created and, as can be seen from the dictionaries published in that period, the need for terms was mainly met by dictionaries of terms translated from English. In the absence of terminology, translation dictionaries had to be used. On the other hand, they show a certain change in terms, which leads to the assumption that usage in turn corrects the terminology presented in the dictionaries, especially since there is a high turnover of terms. In modern terms management conditions, the use is also affected by various term bases. A particularly important source of terms is the legislation of the European Union and the Republic of Lithuania. Thus, the following examines what tendencies are developed in sources of this kind. In order to assess the compliance with the established norm, five dictionaries of economic terms are selected: the 1994 Economic Terms Dictionary by Christopher Pass, Bryan Lowes and Leslie Davies (hereinafter referred to as ETZ1), the 1997 revised and supplemented edition of this dictionary (hereinafter referred to as ETZ2), the 1999 educational dictionary Economic Terms and Concepts (hereinafter referred to as ETS) published by Vilnius Pedagogical University, the 2005 Economic Terms Dictionary by Rūta Vainiene (hereinafter referred to as EŽ) and the 2006 Explanatory English-Lithuanian Dictionary of Economics by David W. Pearce (hereinafter referred to as AŽ). All of them have been translated, edited or reviewed by specialists in economic science, but the linguistic preparation is not uniform: some have been edited by the language editor (ETŽ1, EŽ), elsewhere the name of the language editor is not specified (ETŽ2, ETS), and in the AŽ not only the name of the editor is entered, but also the Terminology Department of the Lithuanian Language Institute is mentioned among the translators, editors and consultants of the dictionary. However, no dictionary has been approved by the State Lithuanian Language Commission, so it represents not so much the norm as the usage. From the five dictionaries of the last twenty years, the obligatory notation of the term principas pritaikytas tik viename – EEŽ1, ir tai jame esama 8 dvižodžių ĮF neįgijusių Ramune Vaskelaite. The non-use of nominative forms in terminology and its challenge to the norm |39 BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 terms (developing country, developing region, expensive money, developed country, industry, discount neišsivysčiusi šalis, paskutinis kreditorius, prastas gaminys, taupus žmogus) ir 8 daugiadėmenių: besivystančių šalių ekonomika, ekonomiškiausias užsakymo dydis, jauna store, best cost curve, paper stamps with a price) are used in this glossary. paskelbta verte, teisingas ir nešališkas požiūris, didžiausio palankumo šalių išlyga. 5 It is understood that such an indicator has been given to both adjectives (open economy, total profit, future integration, double taxation, black market, hot money, free market, mixed economy, cheap loan, hard currency), as well as participants (taxable income, accounts payable, increasing income, convertible bonds, invisible hand, free shares, unsecured currency, borrowed capital), as well as a term with a digit (first-come, first-served). No exceptions are made for international words (absolute advantage, holding company, consolidated rent, nominal price, positive economic theory, private company, preferred share, specialised store, balanced budget multiplier, term loan), although terms with such dependent elements are not many in this dictionary (42 out of 264 acquired IF). The term indicator is given both to the adjectives of the highest degree (lowest level, lowest economic impact, lowest loan interest rate), and to the derivatives of the suffix izkas, -a (predatory pricing, conditional distribution, full employment equilibrium). It denotes both three-word terms (open market operation, double-entry accounts, free trade zone, natural unemployment rate, negative economic impact) and terms consisting of four or more words (the law of decreasing marginal profit, the market for issuing new securities, fixed interest rate securities, paying share capital share, temporary unemployment due to switching to another job). 5 One term – the market that produces many goods – is among those that the Language Advice considers to be a non-presentable case. Ramune Vaskelaite. The non-use of noun forms in terminology and its challenge to the norm |40 BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 Different tendencies in the use of NF are evident in the second edition of this dictionary – ETŽ2. This is terminų rinkinyje ĮF neturi 24,8 procento jame apibrėžtų terminų, kurie tokią formą galėtų turėti, t. y. 64 terminai (194 yra ją įgiję, žr. 1 lentelę) 6 . Išimtys daromos tiek būdvardžiams, tiek ir dalyviams, tik jos nėra dėsningos, plg.: a flexible monopoly policy, but a flexible exchange rate system; new industry, but income tax; additional naujosios industrializacijos šalis; neigiamos investicijos, neigiamos santaupos, bet neigiamasis benefit, but additional import duty; hidden stocks, hidden unemployment, hidden taxes, but hidden price reductions, hidden price increases; constant income, but the hypothesis of constant income; the private sector, but private expenditure, private products; short-term, but average short-term costs, etc. As if an attempt is being made not to denote the adjectives of the highest degree (most-favoured-country clause, best linear impartial estimates) in LF, but in other terms such adjectives are presented in LF (lowest effective production volume, lowest level). TABLE 1. Relationship of substantive and non-substantive forms in the dictionaries of terms Relationship of substantive and non-substantive forms in the dictionaries of terms ETZ1 ETZ2 ETS EŽ AŽ Substantive subject: 264 194 67 149 385 adjective 140 119 48 99 220 participant 123 75 18 46 160 participant 8 34 13 29 49 tarptautinis žodis 42 43 19 42 87 Unnountve 8 31 35 tarptautinis žodis ed 37 65 0 subject: 16 16 64 49 66 20 114 39 adjecti12 The adjective NF cannot be interpreted by its position (flexible exchange rate system, non-transparent exchange rate, rapid liquidity indicator) by analogous terms, the adjective accent of which in the same position is acquired by the adjective F (free trade zone, flexible production budget, floating fixed exchange rate system). The non-significant 6 data of the IW 16 International Words Dictionary includes only those terms for which definitions are provided. Corrective terms or terms otherwise linked to the main terms by reference are excluded. RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai |41 BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 (discounted cash flows, efficient markets hypothesis, fixed exchange rate system, fictitious variable, licensed depository institution, listed company, etc.), but this exclusion is not value, dėsninga, nes į kitų terminų sudėtį įeinantys tarptautiniai žodžiai ĮF įgyja, pvz.: absoliučioji effective demand, horizontal integration, consolidated debt, tangible assets, minimum wage rate. Dalyvio ĮF vartojimas irgi įvairus, pvz.: listinguojama bendrovė, bet kotiruotoji the company; a redeemable security but not a redeemable security; a non-term security but a non-term bond (console); available income, but earned income, etc. Thus, there are no statutory exceptions in the ETR2, except that exceptions are made for individual terms. They may have arisen because the language of the dictionary is not sufficiently organized, but for this reason it may also be that this dictionary is simply NF, in this form included in the dictionary. In fact, the IFs have not labiau atspindi to meto vartosenos polinkius, t. y. tie atskiri terminai, kuriuose paplitusios acquired many new terms compared to the ETS1, such as: bypass indicators, paid-up capital, fixed exchange rate system, non-listed securities market, optimal combination of factors, restrictive pricing, hidden stocks, hidden income. However, the ETS (1999) also includes 49 terms that do not have an IF, and they make up 42.2 per cent of all IF-eligible terms in this glossary. 29 Lithuanian words did not acquire this form, including three terms in which one of the two words that could have acquired it (refundable lease-back, part-time visible employment of employees and part-time hidden employment of employees) did not acquire this form, e.g.: joint venture, double taxation, long period, unemployed persons, illegal activity, sufficient competition, additional tax burden, employed population. 20 of the international words have not been acquired, e.g.: disposable income, elastic demand, liquid assets, natural oligopoly, optimal consumption; active job search, effective employment of the population, minimum living standard, natural unemployment rate, rational employment of the population. However, the dictionary’s exception is not consistent, as international words are also included in the DF, e.g.: opportunity costs, centralized economy, horizontal integration, preferred share; fixed tangible assets, categories of undeclared work, informal labour market, potential labour demand, real interest rate. There are also cases of obvious inconsistency, for example: absolute poverty, but absolute advantage; an open economy, but open market operations; opportunity costs, but alternative wages; a joint venture, but Ramune Vaskelaite. The non-use of nominative forms in terminology and its challenge to the norm |48 BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 susijusi išimtis, ji aiškinama tuo pačiu veiksniu kaip ir apibrėžtumo ir neapibrėžtumo neutralization of contradiction. The relationship between the designation of the species and the term, between the use of UF in the specific meaning and the use of UF in terminology is not specified and the difference is not emphasized, which creates conditions for the interpretation of the usage that such darbų aiškėtų, kad tokio skirtumo nė nedaroma. Susidarant tokiam normos dvilypumui, įvairuojama ir vartosenoje. Išnagrinėtoji – a difference does not exist. From some normative economic science articles, dictionaries of terms and legislation – reveal that it is characterized by a particularly high diversity. There is an attempt to mark terms with the necessary symbol prescribed by the codified norm, but some tendencies of usage reveal that the contradictions of definiteness and uncertainty provided for in normative works or the exceptions to the use of IF in general are more applied. Firstly, from the usage of the binding character it becomes clear that the IF tends to not denote terminų, kurių priklausomuoju dėmeniu eina tarptautinis būdvardis ar dalyvis. Daug those international words have a specific lexical meaning, and the specificity of the lexical meaning in the research and normative literature is revealed as one of the factors and cases of the non-definition of the IF. In the terminology of the economics field, a large number of terms are formed and used with international words, and the mere expression of the dependent pronoun with a word of non-Lithuanian origin in a scientific text can be a characteristic of the term. Thus, the additional indicator of the term – the DF – becomes irrelevant. In texts of this type, the term is also marked by other indicators – the presentation of the definition, interpretation, use of the word combination to name a concept, theory, concept, method or model, classification of the object or phenomenon marked by it, frequent repetition of the word combination in the text. In particular, the function of the FF as a term indicator is weakened in such texts as legislation, where the term or concept is defined and according to the nature of the text not only semantic but also formal variation is not possible. Secondly, the investigated usage reveals that there is often no significant difference between the ordinary and the FF, especially between the present and past participle active and passive participants with typical meanings and their named counterparts. Such participants sufficiently describe the objects and distinguish them from the rest of the objects, therefore, in this case, the EI becomes essentially redundant. Because of her, the participant only lengthens. When other indicators revealing the status of the term – specific meaning, frequent repetition of the word combination in the text, contextual circumstances revealing its direct connection with the concept or concept, definitions or interpretation – it becomes inappropriate to mark the participant even in the LF. A small difference in meaning, as revealed by scientific texts, also distinguishes when RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai |49 BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 which Lithuanian and non-Lithuanian adjectives and their noun equivalents. Thus, the ambiguity between a word combination designating a simple characteristic and a word combination or term designating a species, the threat of which is considered one of the grounds for providing the UF to the terminology, does not arise in most cases. It is precisely the semantic boundary that is so blurred that it is convenient to use a universal, one-form word combination in usage, with which various shades of meaning could be generalized. The investigated coherent and non-contextual usage reveals not only the factors of the word’s specific lexical meaning and the difference of small meaning, foreseen as an incentive to neutralize the contradiction of definiteness and uncertainty, but also more possible exceptions to the UF. Although irregularly, there is also a tendency not to use FF when the subject of the term is an adjective of the highest degree, a suffix -iškas, a -a derivative, when the word combination has a figurative meaning. Thus, in essence, it is not the mandatory term marking that is reflected, but the general rate of use of the UF, which provides for comparatively optional use of the UF. On the other hand, usage also shows that the two normative directions are as if attempted to be harmonized, and a peculiar interpretation of the codified norm is found: while the coherent text provides various other indicators of the term, the FF is given the function of not marking every word, but only the combination of words characterized by an obvious difference in meaning from the unnamed analogue. However, this creates a special diversity, which contradicts the principle of systematicity that is relevant to terminology. Especially from the contextless use – dictionaries of terms, glossaries presented in legislative acts – it becomes clear that the use, contrary to the established norm, becomes exceptionally unsystematic, exceptions are applied to almost every word combination separately. At the same time, the use of NF in dictionaries and legislation reveals a development that shows that NF is increasingly competing with NF and even the latter is gaining an advantage. Such tendencies would correspond to the tendencies of the use of NF in other meanings, recognized both in normative publications, and in the tendency of the use of NF in general: NF in common language increasingly replaces NF, NF in general is disappearing, although the normative direction would show that it is precisely in terminology that the main perspective of the opposition between NF and NF, which is already characterized ir termino vartojimo įvertinimas ir nustatymas. Tokio apibrėžtumo nesant, vartosena iš by increasing signs of nivelation, is seen. The prospect of such a direction is essentially denied Visa tai kelia būtinybę išgryninti kodifikacijos kriterijų. Viena galima išeitis – by the insufficient relationship between the species designation and the substance of the text. RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai |50 BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 In accordance with the requirement of systematicity applied in terminology, to give preference žymėjimo dėsningumus ir jo numatomas išimtis. Iš atliktos vartosenos analizės būtų galima to the criterion of the necessary nominative form of the term, secondly – to consider the type as the basis of the norm to decide that the application of the first criterion would probably increase the systematicity of the use of terms, but when adopting codification decisions, it would probably be necessary to adequately assess the possible influence of the nature of the text: for texts of a scientific or administrative nature, the function of the LF as a term indicator may not be as relevant as for free styles, since in such texts the status of the term is indicated by other indicators. On the other hand, when choosing the criteria for designating a species, it would be necessary to acknowledge the continued irregularity of the use of LF, the general tendencies of LF use and the important factors, and, accordingly, the weakening of the LF function in terminology. Such a direction would probably remain even if the usage was left completely unchanged. Of course, the conclusions drawn here about the usage tendencies and possible further direction of the use of UF in terminology would be significantly supplemented by the usage studies of various other functional styles, and not only in the economic field. There are still a lot of sources of economic usage – both scientific and administrative style – to be studied, for example, monographic works on economic theory and practice, higher education textbooks, various reviews, reports, translations from other languages, primarily from English, which does not have the IPA, etc. CONCLUSIONS 1. The use of language in publications does not comply with the norms set by IF as a necessary indicator of the term. 2. The tendency of usage reveals the lack of definiteness of codification, but highlights its fundamental problems. 3. The problem of the criterion is raised, i.e. it is revealed that, when asserting the mandatory designation of the term in the UF, the criterion of the designation of the species, which provides for a much more optional use, is essentially followed. 4. The optional nature of the criterion is determined by the classification of IF values. 5. The omission of the relationship between the designation of the species and the term also leads to ambiguity in the codification. 6.The study of the usage pattern shows that it is not based on terminology determined funkcija, o apibrėžiamajai reikšmei ir jos pogrupiams numatomomis ĮF vartojimo išimtimis. Ramune Vaskelaite. The non-use of noun forms in terminology and its challenge to the norm |51 BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 7. Išimtys terminijoje interpretuojamos savitai: termino rodikliu dažnai tampa international word or participle form. 8. Svarbus ĮF ir NF opozicijos neutralizavimo terminijoje veiksnys yra kontekstas: in the UF coherent scientific text word combination as a term can be recognized without morfologinio rodiklio. 9. The practice of attempting to harmonise the criteria is rather unsystematic, assuming that exceptions apply to each word combination separately. 10. This situation presents the possibility of a choice for codification: to formulate more clearly the principle of the universal designation of the term UF and to seek consistency and systematicity of the terminology or to give preference to the criterion of the expression of a specific characteristic and thus essentially lead to further weakening of the function of UF as a designator of the term. This is probably the direction in which consumption would go if it were to be left unchanged. ŠALTINIAI Mokslo žurnalai EV – Ekonomika ir vadyba / Economics and management. Prieiga internete: http://internet.ktu.lt/en/science/journals/manage/frames1_1.html. EVAP – Ekonomika ir vadyba: aktualijos ir perspektyvos. Prieiga internete: http://su.lt/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=599&Itemid=17344&l ang=lt. MLA – Mokslas – Lietuvos ateitis / Science – future of Lithuania. Prieiga internete: http://www.mla.vgtu.lt/index.php/mla/index. MTS – Management theory and studies for rural business and infrastructure development / Vadybos mokslas ir studijos – kaimo verslų ir jų infrastruktūros plėtrai. Prieiga internete: http://mts.asu.lt/mtsrbid/index. OV – Organizacijų vadyba: sisteminiai tyrimai / Management of organizations: Systematic research. Prieiga internete: https://ejournals.vdu.lt/index.php/managementorganizations/index. T – Tiltai. Prieiga internete: https://www.ku.lt/leidykla/turinys/leidiniai/moksliniaizurnalai/tiltai. TE – Taikomoji ekonomika: sisteminiai tyrimai / Applied economics: Systematic research. Prieiga internete: https://ejournals.vdu.lt/index.php/applied-economics/index. RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai |52 BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 VPA – Viešoji politika ir administravimas / Public policy and administration. Prieiga internete: https://www.mruni.eu/lt/mokslo_darbai/vpa/apie_leidini. VSE – Verslo sistemos ir ekonomika / Busines systems & Economic. Prieiga internete: https://www.mruni.eu/lt/mokslo_darbai/vse/apie_leidini. VTP – Verslas: teorija ir praktika / Business: theory and practice: http://www.btp.vgtu.lt/index.php/btp/index. ŽŪM – Žemės ūkio mokslai. Prieiga internete: http://www.lmaleidykla.lt/ojs/index.php/zemesukiomokslai. Terminų žodynai AŽ 2006 – Aiškinamasis ekonomikos anglų–lietuvių kalbų žodynas. Sudarė D. W. Pearce, Vilnius: Tyto alba. ETŽ1 – Pass Ch., Lowes B., Davies L. 1994: Ekonomikos terminų žodynas. Red. A. Pupkis, ekonomikos terminijos red. konsultantas St. Vaitkevičius, Vilnius: Baltijos biznis. ETŽ2 – Pass Ch., Lowes B., Davies L. 1997: Ekonomikos terminų žodynas. Antrasis papildytas ir pataisytas leidimas. Redagavo ir tikslino A. V. Rutkauskas, St. Vaitkevičius, Vilnius: Baltijos biznis. ETS 1999 – Ekonomikos terminai ir sąvokos. Mokomasis žodynas. Sud.: J. Bagdanavičius, P. Stankevičius, L. Lukoševičius. Vilnius: Vilniaus pedagoginis universitetas. EŽ 2005: Vainienė R. Ekonomikos terminų žodynas, Vilnius: Tyto alba. Lietuvos Respublikos teisės aktai Draudimo įstatymas (2003 09 18, Nr. IX-1737). – Valstybės žinios, 2003 10 08, Nr. 944246. Elektros energetikos įstatymas (2000 07 20, Nr. VIII-1881). – Valstybės žinios, 2000 08 04, Nr. 66-1984. Finansinių priemonių rinkų įstatymas (2007 01 18, Nr. X-1024). – Valstybės žinios, 2007 02 08, Nr. 17-627. Finansų įstaigų įstatymas (2002 09 10, Nr. IX-1068). – Valstybės žinios 2002 09 18, Nr. 913891. Gyventojų pajamų mokesčio įstatymas (2002 07 02, Nr. IX-1077). – Valstybės žinios 2002 07 19, Nr. 73-3085. RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai |53 BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 Indėlių ir įsipareigojimų investuotojams draudimo įstatymas (2002 06 20, Nr. IX-975). – Valstybės žinios, 2002, Nr. 65-2635. Informuotiesiems vartotojams skirtų kolektyvinio investavimo subjektų įstatymas (2013 06 18, Nr. XII-376). – Valstybės žinios, 2013 06 28, Nr. 68-3410. Įmonių, priklausančių finansų konglomeratui, papildomos priežiūros įstatymas (2004 07 15, Nr. IX-2387). – Valstybės žinios, 2004 08 03, Nr. 120-4433. Kolektyvinio investavimo subjektų įstatymas (2003 07 04, Nr. IX-09). – Valstybės žinios, 2003 07 25, Nr.74-3424. Konkurencijos įstatymas (1999 03 23, Nr. VIII-1099). – Valstybės žinios 1999 04 02, Nr. 30856. Kontroliuojančiųjų investicinių bendrovių įstatymas (2003 07 04, Nr. I-1710). – Valstybės žinios, 2003 07 25, Nr. 74-3425. Pelno mokesčio įstatymas (2001 12 20, Nr. IX-675). – Valstybės žinios, 2001 12 29, Nr. 110-3992. Pinigų plovimo ir teroristų finansavimo prevencijos įstatymas (1997 06 19, VIII-275).– Valstybės žinios 1997 07 04, Nr. 64-1502. Pridėtinės vertės mokesčio įstatymas (2002 03 05, IX-751). – Valstybės žinios, 2002 04 05, Nr. 35-1271. Profesinių pensijų kaupimo įstatymas (2006 07 04, Nr. X-745). – Valstybės žinios, 2006 07 27, Nr. 82-3248. Smulkiojo ir vidutinio verslo plėtros įstatymas (1998 11 24 d., Nr. VIII-935). – Valstybės žinios, 1998 12 11, Nr. 109-2993. Vartojimo kredito įstatymas (2010 12 23, Nr. XI-1253). – Valstybės žinios, 2011 01 04, Nr. 1-1. Vertybinių popierių įstatymas (2007 01 18, Nr. X-1023). – Valstybės žinios, 2007 02-08, Nr. 17 626. Viešojo administravimo įstatymas (2006 06 27, Nr. X-736). – Valstybės žinios, 1999 07 09, Nr. 60-1945. Viešųjų pirkimų įstatymas (1996 08 13, Nr. I-1491). – Valstybės žinios, 1996-09-06, Nr. 842000. RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai |54 BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 Europos Sąjungos teisės aktai 2005 m. spalio 26 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos direktyva 2005/60/EB dėl finansų sistemos apsaugos nuo jos panaudojimo pinigų plovimui ir teroristų finansavimui. 2005 m. lapkričio 16 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos direktyva 2005/68/EB dėl perdraudimo ir iš dalies keičianti Tarybos direktyvas 73/239/EEB, 92/49/EEB ir Direktyvas 98/78/EB bei 2002/83/EB. 2007 m. lapkričio 13 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos direktyva 2007/64/EB dėl mokėjimo paslaugų vidaus rinkoje, iš dalies keičianti direktyvas 97/7/EB, 2002/65/EB, 2005/60/EB ir 2006/48/EB ir panaikinanti Direktyvą 97/5/EB. 2009 m. lapkričio 25 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos direktyva 2009/138/EB dėl draudimo ir perdraudimo veiklos pradėjimo ir jos vykdymo. 2013 m. birželio 26 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos direktyva 2013/36/ES dėl galimybės verstis kredito įstaigų veikla ir dėl riziką ribojančios kredito įstaigų ir investicinių įmonių priežiūros, kuria iš dalies keičiama Direktyva 2002/87/EB ir panaikinamos direktyvos 2006/48/EB bei 2006/49/EB. 2013 m. birželio 26 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos direktyva 2013/34/ES dėl tam tikrų rūšių įmonių metinių finansinių ataskaitų, konsoliduotųjų finansinių ataskaitų ir susijusių pranešimų, kuria iš dalies keičiama Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos direktyva 2006/43/EB ir panaikinamos Tarybos direktyvos 78/660/EEB ir 83/349/EEB. 2013 m. birželio 26 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos reglamentas (ES) Nr. 575/2013 dėl prudencinių reikalavimų kredito įstaigoms ir investicinėms įmonėms ir kuriuo iš dalies keičiamas Reglamentas (ES) Nr. 648/2012. 2013 m. spalio 15 d. Tarybos reglamentas (ES) Nr. 1024/2013, kuriuo Europos Centriniam Bankui pavedami specialūs uždaviniai, susiję su rizikos ribojimu pagrįstos kredito įstaigų priežiūros politika. 2014 m. vasario 4 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos direktyva 2014/17/ES dėl vartojimo kredito sutarčių dėl gyvenamosios paskirties nekilnojamojo turto, kuria iš dalies keičiamos direktyvos 2008/48/EB ir 2013/36/ES bei Reglamentas (ES) Nr. 1093/2010. 2014 m. balandžio 16 d. Europos Centrinio Banko reglamentas (ES) Nr. 468/2014, kuriuo sukuriama Europos Centrinio Banko, nacionalinių kompetentingų institucijų ir nacionalinių paskirtųjų institucijų bendradarbiavimo Bendrame priežiūros mechanizme struktūra. RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai |55 BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 2014 m. balandžio 16 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos direktyva 2014/49/ES dėl indėlių garantijų sistemų. 2014 m. balandžio 16 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos reglamentas (ES) Nr. 596/2014 dėl piktnaudžiavimo rinka (Piktnaudžiavimo rinka reglamentas) ir kuriuo panaikinama Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos direktyva 2003/6/EB ir Komisijos direktyvos 2003/124/EB, 2003/125/EB ir 2004/72/EB. 2014 m. gegužės 15 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos reglamentas (ES) Nr. 600/2014 dėl finansinių priemonių rinkų, kuriuo iš dalies keičiamas Reglamentas (ES) Nr. 648/2012. 2014 m. gegužės 15 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos direktyva 2014/59/ES, kuria nustatoma kredito įstaigų ir investicinių įmonių gaivinimo ir pertvarkymo sistema ir iš dalies keičiamos Tarybos direktyva 82/891/EEB, direktyvos 2001/24/EB, 2002/47/EB, 2004/25/EB, 2005/56/EB, 2007/36/EB, 2011/35/ES, 2012/30/ES bei 2013/36/ES ir Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos reglamentai (ES) Nr. 1093/2010 bei (ES) Nr. 648/2012. 2014 m. gegužės 15 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos direktyva 2014/65/ES dėl finansinių priemonių rinkų, kuria iš dalies keičiamos Direktyva 2002/92/EB ir Direktyva 2011/61/ES. 2014 m. liepos 15 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos reglamentas (ES) Nr. 806/2014 kuriuo nustatomos kredito įstaigų ir tam tikrų investicinių įmonių pertvarkymo, vienodos taisyklės ir vienoda procedūra, kiek tai susiję su bendru pertvarkymo mechanizmu ir Bendru pertvarkymo fondu, ir iš dalies keičiamas Reglamentas (ES) Nr. 1093/2010. 2014 m. liepos 23 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos reglamentas (ES) Nr. 909/2014 dėl atsiskaitymo už vertybinius popierius gerinimo Europos Sąjungoje ir centrinių vertybinių popierių depozitoriumų, kuriuo iš dalies keičiamos direktyvos 98/26/EB ir 2014/65/ES bei Reglamentas (ES) Nr. 236/2012. 2014 m. gruodžio 19 d. Europos Centrinio Banko gairės (ES) 2015/510 dėl Eurosistemos pinigų politikos sistemos įgyvendinimo (ECB/2014/60). 2015 m. balandžio 29 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos reglamentas (ES) 2015/760 dėl Europos ilgalaikių investicijų fondų. 2016 m. gegužės 11 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos reglamentas (ES) 2016/792 dėl suderintų vartotojų kainų indeksų ir būsto kainų indekso, kuriuo panaikinamas Tarybos reglamentas (EB) Nr. 2494/95. Ramune Vaskelaite. The Non-Use of Nominal Forms in Terminology and its Challenge to the Norm |56 BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 LITTERACY AKA 2014: Administracinės kalbos aktualijos. Sudarė L. Murinienė, R. Vladarskienė. Prieiga per internetą <http://administracinekalba.lki.lt>. Ambrazas 1964: Esamojo laiko neveikiamųjų dalyvių būdvardinė vartosena. – Kalbos kultūra 7, 30–36. Brūzgienė R., Čekmonienė I. E., Žemienė A. 2013: Specialty language. 2006. Theory and Practice of Psychology and Sociology. DLKG 1997: Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian Language. Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopedias, 2002. Gaivenis K. 1975: Two-word compound terms in contemporary Lithuanian language. – Lithuanian Linguistics Questions 16, 57–89. Gaivenis K. 1995: Some thoughts on the standardization of terms. – Terminology 2, 6-10. Gedzevičienė D., Gedzevičius I. 2011: On some cases of incorrect use in welding work. – Science – the future of Lithuania 3(6), 67–70. studies. Red. A. Holvoet and R. Holvoet A., Tamulionienė A. 2006: Apibrėžtumo kategorija. – Daiktavardinio junginio Mikulskas. Vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute, 11–32. Jakaitienė E., Laigonaitė A., Paulauskienė A. 1976: Morphology of Lithuanian language, Vilnius: Mokslas. Judžentis A. 2012: Grammatical categories of Lithuanian language, Vilnius: Vilnius University Press. Kaulakienė A. 1973: Use of nominative adjectives in compound terms. – Language Culture 25, 27-31. Keinys S. 2004: Development, state, role and challenges of terminology at the beginning of the 21st century. – Development of Lithuanian Terminology, 74–88. Keinys S. 2005: Ekonomistų diplominių darbų kalba. – Dabartinė lietuvių terminologija, 296–303. 1971. pp. 11. "Adjectives and Pronouns". – Use and management of language, 421–430. Kunevičienė A., Pečkuvienė L., Žilinskienė V. 2003: Specialybės kalbos kultūra. Vilnius: Lithuanian University of Law. Ramune Vaskelaite. The non-use of noun forms in terminology and its challenge to the norm |57 KKP 1998: BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 Kanceliarinės kalbos patarimai. Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopedia Publishing. KP 2002: Language Tips. Volume 1: Grammatical forms and their use. South. R. Miliūnaitė, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopedia Publishing. KPP 1976: Language Practice Advice. South. A. Paulauskienė, Vilnius: Mokslas. Mikulskas R. 2006: Perspective on the LKG 1965: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 1. Ats. red. K. Ulvydas, Vilnius: Mintis. description of defining adjectives. – Research of noun compounds. Red. A. Holvoet, R. Mikulskas, 33–66. Vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute, 33–66. Miliūnaitė R. 2003: Basics of Lithuanian Grammar Standardization. Opera linguistica Lithuanica 3, Vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute. Oginskienė E. 1993: Noun forms in the office language. – Language Culture 64, Paulauskienė A. 1983: Outline of the Morphology of 34–42. Lithuanian Language, Kaunas: Šviesa. 1994: Morphology of the Lithuanian language: lectures for Lithuanianists, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Paulauskienė A. 2001: Lithuanian Language Culture, Kaunas: Technologija. Paulauskienė A. 2004: Lawyers' language and common norms, Vilnius: Justitia. Paulauskienė A., Tarvydaitė D. 1986: Grammar norms and current use, Kaunas: Šviesa. Piročkinas J. 1990: Administrative Language Culture, Vilnius: Mintis. Pupkis A. 1980: Language Culture and Language Policy, Vilnius: Mokslas. 1975. pp. 19. "Is it a white man or a white woman?".  ī-, ʻōkamienai were relative. – Baltistica 11(2), 163–170. Spraunienė B. 2008a: The category of definiteness and its research in Lithuanian linguistics. – Lithuanian language 2. Spraunienė B. 2008b: Opposition of ordinary and nominative adjectives in Lithuanian kaip apibrėžtumo sistema. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 59, 109–139. Spraunienė B. 2011: Apibrėžtumo žymėjimas lietuvių kalboje lyginant su danų ir kitomis articled languages. Doctoral dissertation. Vilnius. Stunžinas R. 2005: Synonymy of Construction Terminology. – Terminology 12, 7–26. Šukys J. 2003: Language culture for all, Kaunas: Šviesa.