Knowledge Structures and Ways of Their Description in Cognitive Terminology Research

4 7Terminologija | 2019 | 26 doi.org/10.35321/term26-03 Knowledge Structures and Ways of Their Description in Cognitive Terminology Research Larissa Manerko Lomonosov Moscow State University AbSTRACT Cognitive Terminology appeared as a continuation of previous stages of terminological studies and is based on the anthropocentric principle, attention to cognition and communication. This interdisciplinary and comprehensive approach brings forth new objectives, foundations, methodology and procedures. They present a terminological meaning in relation to personal thoughts reflecting social, pragmatic and other extra-linguistic factors in knowledge structures according to cognitive mechanisms and categorization in the on-going interaction in specialized discourse. In discourse of modern technology, telecommunication, legal court communication and discourse of clinical psychiatry nominative terminological units dominate. They are shown in the paper on the basis of various cognitive models – propositions as part of cognitive-onomasiological modelling, image schemas, conceptual metonymy and metaphor, frames representing terminological systems as dynamic models of human cognition. The variability of concepts and the specificity of common and special knowledge conceptualization in terminological units functioning in professional discourse is biased with the answer to intricate questions of the perceptual and conceptual sources of term formation in interaction and terminological systems. KEYWORDS: terminological studies, a term, Cognitive Terminology study, special discourse, categorization, conceptualization, knowledge structures. AnoTACIjA Kognityvinė terminologija, atsiradusi kaip ankstesnių terminologijos tyrimų tąsa, grindžiama antropocentriniu principu ir yra sutelkta į pažinimą bei komunikaciją. Toks daugiapusis tarpdalykinis požiūris iškelia naujus tikslus, teikia naujus pagrindus, metodologiją ir procedūras. Terminologinė reikšmė siejama su mąstymu, atspindinčiu socialinius, pragmatinius ir kitus ekstralingvistinius žinių struktūrų veiksnius, kaip tai numato kognityviniai mechanizmai ir specializuoto diskurso sąveikos kategorizavimas. 4 8 Larissa Manerko Knowledge Structures and Ways of Their Description in Cognitive Terminology Research Šiuolaikinių technologijų diskurse vyrauja telekomunikacijų, teisinės teismams būdingos komunikacijos ir klinikinės psichiatrijos diskurso nominatyviniai terminologiniai vienetai. Straipsnyje jie atskleidžiami remiantis skirtingais kognityviniais modeliais – teiginiais kaip kognityvinio-onomasiologinio modeliavimo dalimi, vaizdinių schemomis, konceptualiosiomis metaforomis ir metonimijomis, terminų sistemas kaip dinaminius žmogiško pažinimo modelius perteikiančiais freimais. Su sąvokų įvairove, bendrųjų ir specialiųjų žinių konceptualizavimo teikiant terminologinius profesinio diskurso vienetus ypatumais susijęs atsakymas į keblius klausimus dėl suvokimo ir konceptualizacijos kuriant terminus ir terminų sistemas šaltinių. ESMINIAI ŽODŽIAI: terminologijos tyrimai, terminas, kognityvinės terminologijos tyrimai, specialusis diskursas, kategorizavimas, konceptualizavimas, žinių struktūros. InTRoDUCTIon Terminology shaped its object of study in various ways, being the focal point of a considerable number of contributions that have departed from a variety of disciplines, including philosophy, logics, theoretical and applied linguistics, information science, computational linguistics, sociology and pragmatics. Each of these disciplines widened and deepened the scope of terminology studies reflecting the prevalent ideas on term and its semantics. They contributed the theoretical foundations, research purpose, a set of exploited notions and methods. Each new stage contributing to Terminology development still allowed to retain much of the previous stages. Modern Terminology as a more complex domain of investigation is based on the results of previous approaches and new perspectives in understanding of cognition and communication. nowadays, it is a mega interdisciplinary approach incompatible to previous goals, which tries to represent term semantics and terminological systems more precisely in the cognitive and functional perspective. It fundamentally takes into account different spheres of human knowledge in dynamic mental processes accompanying special communication. Here we provide an overview on different spheres of terminology studies and particularly those brought by the shift to cognitive and functional perspective of linguistic and nonlinguistic knowledge shaping terminology work. This perspective has changed the terminology research, because it reveals human knowledge through cognitive processes in interlocutors’ mind in understanding the reality and functional mechanisms in language use. It is aimed at revealing socio-cultural conditioning of special discourse and human thinking in communication. 4 9Terminologija | 2019 | 26 The paper does not intend to give an exhaustive overview of terminology development with regard to all works published; the major focus is to review how the novel developments in linguistics influenced terminology studies in Russia and vice versa – how some advances in terminology influenced the linguistic enterprise in general. At the beginning of this article I outline the major stages of its evolution and postulate the objective of terminology research following research principles and methodology of Cognitive Terminology. 1. THE DEVELoPMEnT oF TERMInoLoGICAL STUDIES The following paragraph proposes in synopsis the terminology development in the most general scope starting with the traditional approaches and proceeding with the recent advances in linguistics. In the early days of terminology studies a term was described as a unit characterized by a strict definition, one-to-one correspondence between the term and its reference, avoiding polysemy and ambiguity of a term, imitating the pertinent tendencies in formal sciences – logics, mathematics, and relatively “true knowledge” in philosophy. Moreover, the language of science with the terms embedded was aptly defined as “a formalized and codified variety of language” (Picht, Draskau 1985: 9). Within this context terminology science was reflecting certain principles and methods, which were connected with “standardizing and optimizing specialized communication” (Schubert 2011: 27) codified in principles and methods of TC 37, which claimed justification for terminology standardisation. This research strategy stressed the concept in the traditional sense as a key element of thought and a starting point of terminological analysis. The logico-philosophical approach in terminology came to the foreground a bit later through information studies of text analysis and computer engineering approach, where various models linked with social knowledge became relevant for many applications in special vocabulary, particularly in “qualitative reasoning” and “knowledge-level” or AI interpretations as a “sequence of behaviors” of experts in socio-technical systems (See Clancey 1993: 39). The next is the structural or systematic stage of terminology development. It brought new theoretical principles as well as novel methods of research. These studies were aimed to explain the relationships between the form and meaning, equalizing a terminological unit to word characteristics. The 5 0 Larissa Manerko Knowledge Structures and Ways of Their Description in Cognitive Terminology Research understanding of a term as “a word in its specific function” (Vinokur 1939) deepened the understanding of a term. besides that it was interpreted as a sign realised in language. The characteristics of terminological vocabulary were analysed on the basis of a comparative, typological, semasiological and onomasiological methods. Each of them seemed to be useful for term and its concept understanding, but these methods advocated the simplification of the data analysis, because they were performed as formal procedures representing terminology in statics (Manerko 2016). Identifying terminological concepts and relations between them became the object of terminological work in the middle of the 20th century, which had “to address communication hinders among the domain experts and to meet their terminology needs” (nuopponen 2018: 10). Another large terminology user group are translators, whose claim is the “’non-literary’ translation on the basis of terminology” (Rogers 2015: 4). The 70s of the 20th century enriched terminology studies with the new attitudes towards vocabulary of special communication, where the inventory of certain notions was applied to the fundamental basis employed in linguistic research. These changes are not numerous, but they are gaining relative strength in connection to terms and their context in special communication. 1) one of these essential changes dates back to 1972, when the discipline started to be called Terminology science (“terminovedeniye”) (Leitchik 1983) in Russian terminological school. It was shaped by a more careful observation of theoretical foundations of the discipline, methodological apparatus, and research procedures in particular spheres of human activity called terminologies. In European terminology this distinction is reflected in different spelling between Terminology (“the upper case”) indicating the discipline and terminology (“the lower case”) resulting from the vocabulary of special language (see Temmermann 2000: xiii). besides this distinction “alternative designations” concerning the theoretical basis of the terminological field are added, including terminology work, terminology management and terminology engineering (nuopponen 2018). 2) The second achievement of Terminology science was the widening of the research object, which was associated with languages for special purposes defined as “the linguistic means in communicative settings within a speciality” (Hoffmann 1976: 170; cited from Schubert 2011: 28). The development of LSP as “a unit of a metalanguage” of Terminology strengthened the attention not only to the world of technical and scientific concepts, 5 1Terminologija | 2019 | 26 to which specialised terms refer, but also to ways terminological systems are expressed in written texts. Special terms comprising lexical and morphological means are the “key to successful LSP communication” (Rogers 2015: 3). They are used in oral and written interaction. E.g., LSP texts of natural disciplines present “the independence from the context, neutral use of language means, less degree of item motivation” (Gvishiani 1986 (2008): 22), while in texts on history, philosophy and linguistics term semantics is influenced by the “sign or semiotic situation” or pragmatic factors. Special concepts are in constant evolution, in texts they “can’t be torn out of the context” and should be explained on the basis of “the semiotics of interlinguistically based texts” (nazarova 1994: 160–161). The functional perspective describes “permanently dynamic” special concepts referring to terms (Cabré 1995: 3), performing the communicative and semiological functions according to the purport of the text writer. 3) The third important step further in terminology science is that a term is defined as “a language unit fulfilling the nominative function and possessing the general notion in the system of corresponding notions” (Leitchik 1987: 141). Geeraerts considers the process of naming to be very important in understanding dynamic processes of human thinking, while the onomasiological analysis is useful in representing the way “the item in question entertains with other items in the same lexical field” (2006: 413). Crucial for the understanding of this analysis is how the phenomena in reality are acquired by human mind and the motivation of the created unit is associated with persons’ ability to produce new items according to the needs of communicative settings in the utterance. nominative units expressed by different forms of derivative words can be investigated on the basis of a “word-formation meaning”, which corresponds to “the linking pattern between two categorical meanings, it is a kind of relations between things, processes and features in reality and the notions corresponding to them” (Koubriakova 1978: 57). This kind of analysis may be also applied to substantive constructions. The importance of the onomasiological approach is undeniable, because it revealed “the gnoseological basis of the nominative activity, its link with the cognitive processes, characterizing semiotic aspects of nomination and etc.” (Koubriakova 2004: 323). As we can see onomasiological studies both in linguistic and particularly terminological sphere of human activity became the early and extremely fruitful experience of human cognition understanding, anticipating ideas of the future cognitive science. 5 2 Larissa Manerko Knowledge Structures and Ways of Their Description in Cognitive Terminology Research 4) The last outcome of linguistic and terminological research is “the defining of the way a human being influences language” (The role of human factor in language 1988: 9). It appeared not as a declarative statement as it was in previous periods, when scholars spoke about the concept even not reaching it by the formal kinds of analysis, though they tried to do it in a proper way according to the existing research principles and methods. but it is becoming one of the most fundamental principles of cognitive exploration of language coming to the foreground at the end of the 20th century. This principle is called an anthropocentric principle. The encouraging thing is that this principle is the basis of understanding human thinking and discursive activity, associated with the influence of cognitive research that “holds that language is a part of a cognitive system” of an individual, whose mental abilities “interact with language and are influenced by language” (Dirven, Vespoor 1998: xi). Cognitive linguistics takes into account agents’ mental and communicative activities incorporating social, psychological, pragmatic and other sides of human interaction (Manerko 2016: 129). This perspective shows a turn from structurally oriented research in language as an autonomous system to the paradigmatic shift mirrored in cognitive and functional perspective of linguistic knowledge description and a new shape of the Terminology science also concerned with cognition, cognitive processing and communication processes. Cognitive (Cognitive-communicative) Terminology has become one of the main branches of cognitive linguistic study. It represents the research, which is cognitively grounded, speaker oriented, interwoven with interlocutors’ understanding of the world and functionally fulfilling conceptual and discursive mechanisms in language use. Terminological studies are becoming closer to human realization of cognition and goals of communication. The objective of research in Cognitive Terminology studies is to reveal the semantic peculiarities of terminological units on the basis of familiar, new and transferred conceptual elements representing the general (usual) and special character of human experience in knowledge structures shown through a spectrum of various simple and complex mental constructs depending on sense polyfunctionality transferred in specialised communication. In this paper I follow this objective in revealing the results of terminological research. In the next part of the paper Cognitive Terminology is discussed altogether with the methodologically important terms for the discipline analysis. 5 3Terminologija | 2019 | 26 2. THE ATTEnTIon To CoGnITIon AnD CoMMUnICATIon In CoGnITIVE TERMInoLoGY STUDIES Cognitive or Cognitive-communicative Terminology is a new stage in Terminology development, which started to develop at the end of the 90s of the 20th century. It departed from the previous stages of the development of terminological discipline, though is characterized by new objectives, foundations, methodology, and research procedures. It is mirrored in presenting the cognitive and communicative functions. The central concern of terminological investigations is to describe the cognitive function of language ultimately leading to the term formation. The level and depth of its description is different from those ideas, which cover only “reasoning abilities” of a human being and conceptions of “specificity domains” as “distributed devices” (Hirschfeld, Gelman 1994: 4, 22). The thing is that the cognitive function is understood as a wider phenomenon than it was considered before the cognitive linguistic theory. The investigation doesn’t regard the linguistic system and its structures as an autonomous whole, but rather takes into account the language means explored on the basis of sensory, physical, social, historical, cultural peculiarities revealed on the basis of linguistic features. It seeks to understand how knowledge is constructed by a human being with the help of language means used for purposes of communication. As Temmermann points out, the concept observation is fundamentally supported by experiential epistemology “…embedded in rich cognitive models” (2000: 29). The cognitive function is linked with human perception of objects in the outer world and a real situation in some sphere of human activity. The terms expressed by single words are rather rare in professional communication. Even in a dictionary article, we can find lexemes linked with the other ones in representing different, but interrelated phenomena, e.g.: an airplane – a powered heavier-than-air aircraft with fixed wings from which it derives most of its lift (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/airplane); a detector is a device used for finding particular substances or things, or measuring their level: a lie detector, a smoke detector, a metal detectorˮ (Cambridge 1995: 375). Thus, the first level that should be taken into account is the hierarchical structure of conceptual domains within the body of knowledge. The term-creation always depends on the stage of discipline development at some certain period. Starting the analysis with the term definition and 5 4 Larissa Manerko Knowledge Structures and Ways of Their Description in Cognitive Terminology Research in some cases its etymology is a common thing, but even this information tells us about the LSP as “a system of linguistic means of the national language” and an important metalanguage unit of modern terminological studies (Zyablova 2005: 17). Let us look at one of the examples belonging to the sphere of clinical psychiatry on the basis of the term schizophrenia. The dictionary provides the information about the word schizophrenia and its origin. It appeared from two Greek roots skhizein “to splitˮ and phrēn (genitive phrenos) “mind, heart” (https://www.etymonline.com/word/ schizophrenia). This terminological unit was coined in 1910 by Swiss psychiatrist Eugen bleuler (1857–1939), who wanted to explicate the state of people’s mind characterized by the dysfunction of associations, childish silliness, hysterics and hallucinations as the non-adequate affect to reality, and other symptoms of this disease. This was the period of the development in the medical domain specialization with the careful observation of diagnosis, prevention and treatment of mental disorders. The nominative unit of schizophrenia is defined as “a mental disorder characterised by abnormal behavior and misinterpretation of reality” (https://www.etymonline.com/ word/schizophrenia), where the hyperonym “a mental disorder” corresponds to a certain class of diseases in the medical sphere. but previously, at the early stage of this scientific field in the 80s of the 19th century, there existed the other term – dementia praecox “premature dementia”. Expressed in Latin it pointed at the age discrepancy of the person with this syndrome, besides that the Latin expression was rather vague in its denotation still pointing at one of the most typical features of the disease. So the term and its immediate context point at many other layers of human experience, including the perceptual, physical, social and other spheres. Some scholars think that cognitive processes may be revealed by ontological knowledge based on entities, activities, characteristics, and relations (Sager 1990: 27) resembling the part of speech meaning. other scholars widen this list to “conceptual entities” including Thing, Event, State, Place, Path, Action, Property, and Amount, though quite obviously they are “all quite different in the kind of reference” (jackendoff 1996: 9, 34). These entities are thought to represent mental operations of categorization and conceptualization, representing the world understanding in a concept as “an operative unit of consciousness” corresponding to a particular sign in the on-going process of interaction in human activity. Langacker describes the meaning as “conceptualization”, which “resides in cognitive processing” and is able to “characterize the types of cognitive 5 5Terminologija | 2019 | 26 events whose occurrence constitutes a given mental experience” (Langacker 1991: 2). Showing how the cognitive processing works, the author discusses the notion of hypotenuse, which posits a hierarchy referring to “the prior conception of a right triangle” and this triangle “functions as the cognitive domain for hypotenuse” (Langacker 1991: 3). He also mentions a kind of implication appearing in human consciousness, when a person compares these two notions – a hypotenuse and a right triangle. In real meaningful descriptions, including usual and of course special notions, these implications may be of various kinds corresponding to sensory, kinesthetic, spatial, emotional, and rational. Langacker states that people usually remember “basic domains”, which are “irreducible representational spaces or fields of conceptual potential” (Langacker 1991: 4). The definition helps to find out the higher level identifier or a word of the same level in conceptual organization of certain classes of words in the explanatory dictionary, e.g. in the example with an airplane our mind switches to the cognitive domain of a powered heavier-than-air aircraft (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/airplane) and in a detector the prominent characteristic is a device. The term becomes an integral part of certain domains of human knowledge, as in our examples corresponding to means of transport or devices. Linguistic units included into the transport domain are quite different in their morphological structure, but they are organized into one subject area according to a result of human cognition and categorisation. As any other conceptual category it is characterized by the hierarchical structure of its members revealing the relationship between the language items. The thematic concept of TRAnSPoRT organises human knowledge about the entire category of objects integrating a number of different means of transportation. It is included into the wider concept ARTIFACT represented by the highest level of categorization, which is the most abstract phenomenon in this taxonymic system. At the same time it’s easy to trace the hierarchical path through this sphere of knowledge, because TRAnSPoRT bears a relationship of schematicity to such notions as AIRCRAFT, VESSEL and VEHICLE representing their use according to various ways of movement in the air, in water and on the land surface. Simple, derivative, compound words and nominative phrases belong to the superodinate, basic and subcategorial levels (Manerko 2000). All these units describe different kinds of transportation (see Figure 1). 6 2 Larissa Manerko Knowledge Structures and Ways of Their Description in Cognitive Terminology Research The analysis in the language of modern terminology and telecommunication sphere confirmed that the main aim of terminological research in Cognitive-communicative Terminology is to focus on the variability of term conceptual structures in discourse specified further in LSP and terminological systems’ construal. This analysis is based on the anthropocentric coordinate in understanding professional discourse and the corresponding terminological system. besides the linguistic analysis it includes the description of knowledge structures. It starts with the representation of the categorizing potential of all the terminological units belonging to certain levels in knowledge domains, proposition as a part of the cognitive-onomasiological modeling, which is the sufficient reference to conceptual entities in nominal complexes, sometimes where it is necessary image schemas, the analysis on the basis of conceptual metaphor and metonymy is used. The construction of the relationship between certain domains in the investigated subject fields ends with the creation of the framework, which elaborates the schematic substructures of LSP organization of human professional activity. The methodological principles and procedures became the object of cognitive and communicative research in other papers in terminological spheres of English. 4. CoGnITIVE RESEARCH In LEGAL DISCoURSE AnD PSYCHIATRY one of the most interesting kinds of special discourse is legal discourse. Here we address some peculiarities of term formation in legal discourse based on special courtroom communication in the Supreme Court of the USA (2011–2018) (Manerko 2018; 2019; Vorobjova 2018). our understanding of legal courtroom discourse is also associated with the prominence of special and common knowledge occurring in mediation between the interlocutors, whose professional and linguistic activity is influenced by personal, socio-cultural, and pragmatic factors as well as conflict interests and court roles in communication. Legal discourse includes language structures of special law and everyday types of knowledge in professionally oriented picture of the world. The professional speech represents the already existing strict terms and their semantics in terminological system of law. our analysis started with the language information represented in oral and rebuttal arguments of court proceedings of the Supreme Court of 6 3Terminologija | 2019 | 26 the USA. We get the data about the conflict between two groups of people (wrongdoers, on the one hand, and victims, on the other) and the reason of the conflict situation. Analysing the existing conflict in real EVEnT we paid attention to the interests of these people and the matter specified by the extra-linguistic situation and the circumstances of the EVEnT (see Figure 3). Then, from the texts of the oral arguments we get to know about the legal conflict, explain participants’ social roles and values sometimes unintentionally causing harm to other subjects of law. It is conceptually revealed as a PRoCESS. In the court the enhanced salience is given to the law breakers and victims, who become legal persons or entities – either petitioners or respondents, while defendants, solicitors, witnesses, experts and different ranks of judges contribute the civil action steadily leading to the RESULT reflected in the court decision on each case. Figure 3. Conflict EVENT in real life and in Legal action as a PROCESS ⇧ ⇧ ⇧ SoCIETY and LAW (System of norms and values in American culture and law) EVENT (PLACE and TIME + CIRCUMSTAnCES) one group of people MATTER The other group of people (Agent) (Patient) Interest Conflict of interests Interest Legal person / entity Legal action Legal person / entity (PRoCESS) Civil action and decision 6 4 Larissa Manerko Knowledge Structures and Ways of Their Description in Cognitive Terminology Research names of the participants are organized into conceptual categories expressed by derivative units of native or borrowed (French) origin. They become the conceptual scaffold of knowledge structures included in more complicated cognitive mechanisms in legal discourse. The conceptual model of the conflict event is determined by the relations between the EVEnT and PRoCESS participants, their functions revealed in communicative blocks of the conflict study. The function description corresponding to the participants in court discourse is based on the links with conceptual categories of SPACE, TIME, MATTER referring to the common worldview, and those specified by LAW, kinds of CRIME, HARM and EVIDEnCE. The knowledge construal of terms and relations between them becomes obvious in conceptual modelling of the scientific area based on human experience and dynamic framework of each oral argument in the Supreme Court of the USA. In the special discourse of medicine, particularly in clinical psychiatry (Voron-Kovalskaya 2016) language units represent the category of “a human brain”, which also refers to the subordinate level of categorisation. The greater part of these units are expressed by word-combinations (brain circuit, cortical gray matter, Broca’s area), others are words of Latin origin (amyglada, thalamus, etc.). In addition to this category other spheres of knowledge also acquire the relative prominence including domains of human experience starting from neurophysiology and genetics, profiling functions of the neural system and its structural units – neurons, and of course concepts of the social sphere. In the dissertation it is shown (Voron-Kovalskaya 2016) that every discipline develops with the evolution of human knowledge. The most important constituents of the conceptual modelling represent stages of the disease development, diagnostics, variability of symptoms, peculiar features of a remission and relapse, and of course the treatment of patients. Terms representing new domains of knowledge become more complicated and detailed. Clinical psychiatry discourse is a very anthropocentric kind of communication represented by terms characterised by imagery semantics, construed on the basis of conceptual metaphor and metonymy. In legal discourse and discourse of clinical psychiatry as kinds of special communication performed by language personalities certain terminological units are organized into central conceptual categories focusing immediate attention to them. Represented by certain knowledge structures 6 5Terminologija | 2019 | 26 they influence other categories in texts. In legal discourse, which reveals the relations between the people in society, the system is construed on the basis of names of participants and the state of affairs at a concrete moment, closely related to matters, interests and social roles of individuals in the community, designating sets of interconnected special entities corresponding to law and rules of behaviour. In discourse of clinical psychiatry the dominating conceptual category points at a human brain, the conceptual understanding of which is construed according to its characteristics and functions specified by terminological units. In general, the dominating category provides the structuring between the categories, brings forth the symbolization of conceptual content expressed by nominative units inside certain terminological systems. ConCLUSIon Cognitive-communicative Terminology science as it has been demonstrated in this article follows the development of previous stages of terminological studies. but this stage constitutes not a departure from formal types of analysis, but a new viewpoint on the objectives, foundations, methodology, and research procedures influenced by the interdisciplinary approach. This approach is drawn from human knowledge dynamics in its representation of the cognitive context of terminological meaning creation, in which mental processes of communicators are part and parcel of specialized discourse. The investigation of special discourse, LSP and terminological systems from this new perspective is based on cognitive and communicative functions reflected in the anthropocentric principle of language use description. This perspective takes into account human knowledge construction on the basis of language and cognitive processes in interlocutors’ understanding of the reality and functional mechanisms in language use conditioned by socio-cultural and other factors in special mediation. Special discourses of modern technology and telecommunication reveal the dominant role of artifact categories corresponding to the conceptual entity of THInG and providing certain links to SPACE, PRoCESS, FEATURE, STATE and others categories. In legal court argumentation and clinical psychiatry the terminology depends on social and pragmatic factors influencing communication of a particular language personality in written or oral interaction. In legal discourse names of participants involved 6 6 Larissa Manerko Knowledge Structures and Ways of Their Description in Cognitive Terminology Research in concrete episodes of events dominate, while in psychiatry academic texts the main conceptual sphere corresponds to human brain characteristics, stages of the disease, diagnostics and treatment. So, knowledge structures in concrete special discourse are able to illuminate the peculiarities of human attention to in some particular domains of knowledge. The construal of knowledge structures is organised around the central conceptual categories usually expressed by nominative units. Linguistically they belong to simple, derived, complex units and nominal combinations, which point at the deepening of human experience in cognizing the outer world. nominative units associated with common, special and professional activity mostly belong to the subcategorial level of the analysed categories. The constructive potential of various types of special discourse and terminological systems is realised by the diversity of cognitive methods. Various formats of knowledge fruitfully employed in Cognitive Terminology research reveal the concept organisation based on categorization and conceptualization in the human mind involved in professionally oriented mediation. These formats include cognitive-onomasiological modelling based on propositions, image schemas, conceptual metonymy and metaphor. They illuminate the on-going character of human thinking, mental experience and ways of term creation. besides that, these kinds of analysis help to describe dynamic processes in terminological naming through their semantics and relations with other items in professional discourse inhibiting the intricate questions of the perceptual and conceptual sources of term formation and their organization in terminological systems. Simple mental constructs are included into cognitive frameworks of terminological system domains in special discourse, which represent the link between common and special kinds of knowledge structures influenced by linguistic and mental processing. The cognitive-communicative Terminology tries not only to describe terminological means and their peculiarities in special discourse, but it also focuses on extra-linguistic contexts that achieve substantial cognitive salience in interlocutors’ mutual “dialogue of consciousnesses” (bakhtin 1996: 159) in the conceived situation. The investigation of the nominative sphere in special communication greatly depends on the construal of terminological semantics inside terminological systems that brings forth mental mechanisms revealed through knowledge structures based on cat- 6 7Terminologija | 2019 | 26 egorization and conceptualization. The analysis of the material demonstrates some degree of predictability in understanding of cognitive processes in the global context of specialised discourse and terminological systems in a certain domain of knowledge. REFERENCES Bakhtin M. 1996: Бахтин М. Проблема речевых жанров. – Собрание сочинений. Т. 5: Работы 1940– 1960 гг, Мocквa: Русские словари, 159–206. Cabré M. T. 1995: on Diversity and Terminology. – Terminology 2(1), 1–16. Cambridge International Dictionary of English 1995: Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Clancey W. j. 1993: The Knowledge Level Reinterpreted: Modeling Socio-Technical Systems. – Knowledge Acquisition as Modelling. K. M. Ford, j. M. bradshaw (eds.), new York: john Wiley & Sons, 33–50. Concept – Etymology-on-line Dictionary. Available at: https://www.etymonline.com/word/concept. Dirven R., Vespoor M. (eds.) 1998: Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: john benjamins. Engberg j. 2007: Specialised Knowledge as an Evolving Entity: The Case of Concepts from Consumer Credit Law of the EU. – The XVIth European Symposium on Language for Special Purposes (LSP) “Specialised Language in Global Communication”. book of Abstracts, Hamburg, 34–35. Geeraerts D. 2006: Words and Other Wonders: Papers on Lexical and Semantic Topics, berlin, new York: Mouton de Gruyter. (Cognitive linguistics research; 33). Gvishiani N. 1986 (2008): Гвишиани Н. Б. Язык научного общения: вопросы методологии, Москва: УРСС. Hirschfeld L. A., Gelman S. A. 1994: Toward a Topography of Mind: An Introduction to Domain Specificity. – Mapping the Mind: Domain Specificity in Cognition and Culture. Ed. by Cambridge University Press, 3–36. Hoffmann L. 1976: Kommunikationsmittel Fachsprache, berlin: Akademie-Verlag. jackendoff R. 1996: Languages of the Mind: Essays on Mental Representation, Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England: A bradford book; the MIT Press. Koubriakova H. 1978: Кубрякова Е. С. Части речи в ономасиологическом освещении, Москва: Наука. Koubriakova H. 2004: Кубрякова Е. С. Язык и знание. На пути получения знаний о языке. Части речи с когнитивной точки зрения. Роль языка в познании мира, Москва: Языки славянской культуры. Langacker R. W. 1991: Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar, berlin, new York: Mouton de Gruyter. Leitchik V. 1983: Лейчик В. М. Особенности терминологии общественных наук и сферы ее использования. – Язык и стиль научного изложения: Лингвометодические исследования, Москва, 70–87. Leitchik V. 1987: Лейчик В. М. Термин и его определение. – Терминоведение и терминография в индоевропейских языках, Владивосток: Изд-во ДВО АР СССР, 135–145. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. Available at: https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/ airplane. Manerko L. 2000: Манерко Л. А. Язык современной техники: Ядро и периферия, Рязань: Изд-во Рязанского государственного ун-та имени С. А. Есенина. Manerko L. 2014: Concept Understanding in Cognitive Linguistics and Cognitive Terminology Science. – Languages for Special Purposes in a Multilingual, Transcultural World. Proceedings of the 19th European Symposium on Languages for Special Purposes, 8–10 July 2013. G. Budin, V. Luŝicky (eds.), Vienna, Austria: University of Vienna, 471–482. Available at: http://lsp2013.univie.ac.at/proceedings. Manerko L. 2016: Towards Understanding of Conceptualisation in Cognitive Terminology. – Lege Artis. Language Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow Vol. 1, issue 2, 129–170. Available at: https://www.degruyter.com/ view/j/lart.2016.1.issue-2/lart-2016-0012/lart-2016-0012.xml?format=InT. Manerko L. 2018: Манерко Л. А. Когнитивное терминоведение как отражение антропоцентрического и конструирующего взгляда на терминосистемы и специальный дискурс. – Когнитивные исследования языка. Вып. 34: Cognitio и Communicatio в современном глобальном мире. Материалы VIII международного конгресса по когнитивной лингвистике 10–12 октября 2018 года. Отв. ред. вып. Л. А. Манерко, Москва: МГУ имени М. В. Ломоносова; Неолит, 720–725. 6 8 Larissa Manerko Knowledge Structures and Ways of Their Description in Cognitive Terminology Research Manerko L. 2019: Knowledge Construal of Term Semantics as the basis of Terminological System and Special Discourse. – 22nd Conference on Languages for Special Purposes: Mediating Specialised Knowledge: Challenges and Opportunities for LSP Communication, Translation and Research. book of abstracts, Padova: Padova University, 81–82. Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Available at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/airplane. Nazarova T. 1994: Назарова Т. Б. Филология и семиотика: Современный английский язык. Монография, Москва: Высшая школа. novodranova V. 2000: Новодранова В. Ф. Терминологический взрыв в 90-е годы ХХ века. – Научнотехническая терминология: научно-технический реферативный сборник, Москва: BНИИКИ, 1, 4–9. nuopponen A. 2018: Dimensions of Terminology Work. – Terminologija 25, 6–22. Orel T. 2005: Орёл Т. И. Структура и номинативно-образовательные характеристики английской терминосистемы телекоммуникации. Дис. …канд. филол. наук, Москва. Orel T. 2007: Методика описания терминосистем посредством образных схем (на материале английской терминосистемы телекоммуникации). – Когнитивная лингвистика: новые проблемы познания: сборник научных трудов, Москва: Институт языкознания РАН, Рязань: РГУ имени С. А. Есенина, 141–148. Picht H., Draskau j. 1985: Terminology: An Introduction, England: University of Surrey. Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary 1983: Философский энциклопедический словарь. А. Я. Горский (ред.), Москва : Сов. Энциклопедия. Доступ через интернет: https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enc_philosophy/952/Понятие. Rogers M. 2015: Specialised Translation: Shedding the ‘Non-literary’ Tag. Palgrave Macmillan (Palgrave Studies in Translating and Interpreting). The Role of Human Factor in Language 1988: Роль человеческого фактора в языке: язык и картина мира. Отв. ред. Б. А. Серебренников, Москва: Наука. Schizophrenia – Etymology on-line Dictionary. Available at: https://www.etymonline.com/word/schizophrenia. Schubert K. 2011: Specialized Communication Studies: and Expanding Discipline. – Current Trends in LSP Research: Aims and Methods. M. Petersen, j. Engberg (eds.), bern, berlin: Peter Lang, 19–58. Temmerman R. 2000: Towards New Ways of Terminology Description: The Sociocognitive Approach, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: john benjamins Publishing Company. Vinokur G. O. 1939: Винокур Г. О. О некоторых явлениях словообразования в русской технической терминологии. – Труды Московского института истории, философии и литературы: cборник статей по языковедению, Москва, 3–54. Vorobjova M. 2018: Воробьева М. П. Языковые, концептуальные и функциональные характеристики судебных прений верховного суда США как типа судебного дискурса. Дис. …канд. филол. наук, Москва. Voron-Kovalskaya V. E. 2016: Ворон-Ковальская В. Е. Языковые особенности описания феномена шизофрении в художественном и специальном англоязычном дискурсе. Дис. …кандидата филол. наук, Москва. Sager j. C. 1990: A Practical Course in Terminology Processing, Amsterdam: john benjamins. Zyablova Olga. 2005: Зяблова О. А. Принципы исследования языка для специальных целей (на примере языка экономики). Дис. …доктора филол. наук, Москва. СТРУКТУРЫ ЗНАНИЯ И СПОСОБЫ ИХ ОПИСАНИЯ В ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯХ ПО КОГНИТИВНОМУ ТЕРМИНОВЕДЕНИЮ Резюме Когнитивное или когнитивно-коммуникативное терминоведение появилось как продолжение предыдущих этапов развития терминоведческой науки, вобрав много ценного из прошлого опыта из смежных дисциплин, таких как философия, логика, теоретическая и прикладная лингвистика, информатика и т.д. На основе логико-философского и структурного подходов стали использоваться различные виды анализа в терминологических исследованиях. В 70-ые годы ХХ века изучение терминологических единиц начинает связываться с изучением 6 9Terminologija | 2019 | 26 свойств знака в рамках специальных текстов. Антропоцентрический принцип и внимание к ономасиологическому анализу привели к формированию новых тенденций в исследовании термина, позволившему обратить внимание на когницию и коммуникацию. Когнитивное терминоведение ввело новые цели, основания, методологию и процедуры анализа. Становится очевидным, что термин является важной составляющей когнитивной и функциональной перспективы профессионального дискурса и представления языков для специальных целей и терминологических систем как динамических моделей человеческого сознания. Для цели этого междисциплинарного комплексного подхода внимание отдается терминологическому значению и экстралингвистической информации, оказывающей влияние на процесс коммуникации. Формирование значения в терминологических единицах описывается на основе наиболее важных концептов и когнитивных механизмов, категоризации и концептуализации в протекающем взаимодействии, выражая личностные смыслы в специальном дискурсе. Автор представляет своеобразный отчет об изучении разнообразных видов специального дискурса, в рамках которых изучены терминологические единицы и терминологические системы. В дискурсах современной техники и телекоммуникации, представляющих точные сферы человеческого знания, основную семантическую нагрузку несут номинативные и синтаксические единицы. В дискурсе современной техники мы наблюдаем превалирование терминологических единиц, обозначающих артефакты. Из этих единиц строятся категории: наименования транспортных средств, видов оружия, машинам, инструментам, устройствам, и т.д. Каждый класс единиц организован иерархически в соотвествии с пятью уровнями категоризации. В статье представлена категория наименований транспортных средств, в которой большинство номинативных единиц имеют отношение к субкатегориальному уровню. В дискурсе современной техники от 70 до 95 процентов текстового пространства выражено номинативными фразами. Считается, что концепты представляют ментальные операции категоризации и концептуализации, представляя действительность. Концепт ВЕЩЬ, доминирующий в технической сфере, способен описать наименования артефактов. Эта концептуальная сущность характеризуется связями с другими, такими как ПРОСТРАНСТВО, ПРОЦЕСС, СВОЙСТВО, СОСТОЯНИЕ и т.д. Эти сущности используются в пропозициях – основного этапа в когнитивно-ономасиологическом моделировании номинативных словосочетаний. Модель состоит из ономасиологического признака и ономасиологического базиса, последний представлен простым, сложным и составным видами. Ономасиологический базис и ономасиологический признак связаны друг с другом предикативными отношениями. Наиболее частотными и прототипическими в терминологических конструкциях, обозначающих артефакты, являются [THING1 (whole) – composed of – THInG2 (part)], [THInG – have – QUALITY], [THInG – is used for (performing) – FUNCTION (activity)]. Описание концептуальной категории ВЕЩЬ указывает на восприятие объекта человеком на основе абсолютных и относительных свойств, отраженных в словосочетаниях. 7 0 Larissa Manerko Knowledge Structures and Ways of Their Description in Cognitive Terminology Research В дискурсе телекоммуникации представлены категории ВЕЩЬ, ПРОСТРАНСТВО, ПРОЦЕСС, СВОЙСТВО, СОСТОЯНИЕ, ПРОБЛЕМА в телекоммуникационных системах, ПАРАМЕТР, ИЗМЕРИТЕЛЬНАЯ ЕДИНИЦА и т.д. Пропозиции и образные схемы как простые когнитивные конструкты используются для объяснения особенностей семантики терминологических единиц. В сфере телекоммуникации концептуальные категории, отношения между ними и образные схемы далее организуются в разновидности фреймов, представляющих систему телекоммуникации в сознании создателя компьютерных технологий или ВЕЩЬ ее потребителя. В судебных прениях и дискурсе клинической психиатрии терминология зависит от социальных и прагматических факторов, влияющих на коммуникацию отдельной языковой личности. Данные виды языка для специальных целей становятся более сложным с развитием научного знания и человеческого опыта. В юридической коммуникации в Верховном суде США доминируют наименования участников, которые вовлечены в различные эпизоды событий. В устных прениях в суде конфликт между людьми в реальной жизни описан посредством языковых единиц, указывающих на специальные юридические и каждодневные виды знания при отражении обстоятельств СОБЫТИЯ, индивидуальных интересов и причин конфликтной ситуации. Профессионально-ориентированная картина мира представляет юридический конфликт, социальные роли участников, иногда наносящих непредумышленно вред другим субъектам права, в конфликта как СОБЫТИИ. Структуры знания раскрывают то, как рассмотрение дела приводит к РЕЗУЛЬТАТУ, что находит отражение в решении суда по каждому делу. В научных текстах в области психиатрии основной концептуальной сущностью является человеческий мозг и его свойства, стадии болезни, диагностика и лечение. Анализ семантики термина включает обыденные слова с переосмысленным значением в специальном дискурсе. В статье была сделана попытка представить различные типы терминов, функционирующих в дискурсе и соотносимых с разновидностями концептов. Свидетельство о концептуальной сфере человеческого опыта получено на основе различных форматов знания: пропозиций как части когнитивно-ономасиологического моделирования, образных схем, концептуальной метафоры и метонимии, фреймов, представляющих структуру терминологических систем. Они помогают описать концептуализацию терминологических единиц в профессиональном дискурсе и ответить на запутанные вопросы по поводу истоков восприятия и концептуализации при формировании термина в процессе общения и при построении терминологических систем. ŽINIŲ STRUKTŪROS IR JŲ APRAŠYMO BŪDAI KOGNITYVINĖS TERMINOLOGIJOS TYRIMUOSE Santrauka Kognityvinė, arba kognityvinė-komunikacinė, terminologija atsirado kaip ankstesnių terminologijos tyrimų tąsa ir perėmė vertingiausią tarpusavyje susijusių sričių – filosofijos, logikos, teorinės ir taikomosios kalbotyros, informatikos ir kt. – patirtį. Remiantis šiais loginiu-filosofiniu ir struktūriniu pagrindais, terminologijos moksle buvo tai- 7 1Terminologija | 2019 | 26 koma įvairių rūšių analizė. XX a. aštuntajame dešimtmetyje terminologijos vienetų tyrimai imti sieti su ženklo ypatumais specialiuosiuose tekstuose. Antropocentrinis principas ir dėmesys onomasiologiniams tyrimams lėmė naujus terminijos tyrimų pokrypius, taip atkreiptas dėmesys į pažinimą ir komunikaciją. Kognityvinė terminologija iškėlė naujus tikslus, numatė naujus pagrindus, metodologiją ir procedūras. Tampa akivaizdu, kad terminas yra svarbi profesiniam diskursui būdingo kognityvinio ir funkcinio požiūrio dalis, reikšminga specialios paskirties kalbų ir terminijos sistemų kaip dinaminių žmogiško pažinimo modelių dedamoji. Taikant tokį daugiapusį tarpdalykinį požiūrį, dėmesys sutelkiamas į terminologinę reikšmę ir komunikacijai įtakos turinčią ekstralingvistinę informaciją. Terminologijos vienetų reikšmės aprašomos remiantis svarbiausiais konceptais ir pažinimo mechanizmais, bendraujant taikomu kategorizavimu ir konceptualizavimu, taip perteikiant specialiajame diskurse asmens teikiamą prasmę. Autorė pateikia tam tikrą specialiųjų diskursų, kurių pagrindu nagrinėti terminologiniai vienetai ir terminologinės sistemos, tyrimų ataskaitą. Šiuolaikinių technologijų ir telekomunikacijų diskursuose, atstovaujančiuose tiksliosioms žmogaus pažinimo sritims, pagrindinis semantinis krūvis tenka nominatyviniams ir sintaksiniams vienetams. Šiuolaikinių technologijų diskurse vyrauja terminologijos vienetai, žymintys artefaktus. Vienetai sudaro kategorijas: transporto priemonės, ginklų rūšys, mechanizmai, mašinos, įrankiai, prietaisai ir t. t. Kiekviena terminų klasė yra hierarchinė, apimanti penkis kategorizavimo lygmenis. Straipsnyje aptariama transporto priemonių pavadinimų kategorija ir atskleidžiama, kad dauguma nominatyvinių vienetų sudaro subkategorijas. Šiuolaikinių technologijų diskurse nominatyviniais žodžių junginiais perteikiama nuo 70 iki 95 procentų teksto. Manoma, kad konceptai perteikia mentalinius kategorizavimo ir konceptualizavimo veiksmus, taip jie atspindi tikrovę. Technikos srityje vyraujančia DAIKTO sąvoka galima aprašyti artefaktų pavadinimus. Šis konceptas apibūdinamas pagal ryšius su kitais konceptais, tokiais kaip ERDVĖ, PROCESAS, SAVYBĖ, BŪKLĖ ir kt. Tokie vienetai įtraukiami į teiginius, kurie yra kognityvinio-onomasiologinio nominatyvinių žodžių junginių modeliavimo dalis. Modelius sudaro onomasiologinis požymis ir onomasiologinis pagrindas, pastarajam atstovauja paprasti, sudurtiniai ir sudėtiniai tipai. Onomasiologinis pagrindas ir onomasiologinis požymis susiję predikatiniais ryšiais. Artefaktus žyminčiose terminologinėse konstrukcijose dažniausi yra prototipiniai [DAIKTAS1 (visuma), sudarytas iš DAIKTAS2 (dalis)], [DAIKTAS turi SAVYBĖ], [DAIKTAS naudojamas (atliekant) FUNKCIJĄ (vykdant veiklą)]. Konceptualiosios DAIKTO kategorijos aprašymas rodo objekto suvokimą per absoliučiąsias ar santykines ypatybes, reiškiamas žodžių junginiais. Telekomunikacijų diskurse ryškėja DAIKTO, ERDVĖS, PROCESO, SAVYBĖS, VALSTYBĖS, telekomunikacijų sistemos PROBLEMŲ, PARAMETRO, MATAVIMO VIENETO ir kt. kategorijos. Terminologijos vienetų semantikos ypatumams paaiškinti naudojami teiginiai ir vaizdinių schemos – paprasti pažintiniai konstruktai. Telekomunikacijų srityje konceptualiosios kategorijos, jų santykiai ir vaizdinių schemos virsta struktūrų įvairove, kuri perteikia telekomunikacijų sistemą kompiuterinių technologijų kūrėjo arba kliento suvokimu.