Hibridiniai statybos terminijos dūriniai su klasikiniais prepoziciniais sietiniais kamienais

doi.org/10.35321/term26-07 Hybrid Compound Terms in Construction Terminology with Classical Prepositive Bound Stems LINA RUTKIENĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language Vilnius Gediminas Technical University ABSTRACT One of the most prominent tendencies in contemporary construction terminology is the use of international bound stems derived from Greek and Latin, such as aero-, makro-, mikro-, nano-, and so on, to form new terms. However, Lithuanian terminology lacks a single approach to the morphemic status of these international elements. The article discusses the diversity of opinions and proposes not to regard the international elements under consideration as affixoids (prefixoids and suffixoids); in this case, the term bound stem is more appropriate. Drawing on material collected from scientific literature in the field of construction, the article examines the development of hybrid construction terms with classical bound stems, assesses the reasons that had the greatest influence on the spread of these compounds in construction terminology, and analyzes the formation tendencies of these hybrid compounds. KEYWORDS: compound, generic term, classical bound stem, false compound, construction. ABSTRACT One of the most prominent tendencies in the contemporary terminology of construction is the usage of international bound stems coming from Greek and Latin languages, such as aero-, makro-, mikro-, nano-, vibro-, etc., for the formation of neologisms. However, a single approach towards the morphemic status of these international elements is lacking in Lithuanian terminology. Therefore, the article discusses the diversity of opinions and proposes to dissociate affixoids (prefixoids and suffixoids) from bound stems – in this case a term of bound stems is more applicable. Based on the material collected from scientific literature in the field of construction, the article addresses the development of hybrid terms of construction with classical bound stems and evaluates the reasons which had major influence on the spread of these compounds in the terminology of construction. The article analyses the tendencies of for 140 Lina Rutkienė | Hibridiniai statybos terminijos dūriniai su klasikiniais prepoziciniais sietiniais kamienais mation of these hybrid compound terms and discusses the attempts to form compound terms with classical bound stems as proper compounds. KEYWORDS: compound, generic term, classical bound stem, improper compound, construction. INTRODUCTORY NOTES Although Latin has lost its position as an international language of science, its importance for science, and for terminology as well, is attested not only by loanwords that came from it and, through it, from Greek and became international terms, but also by certain word elements, which are abundant in Lithuanian terminology. A considerable number of these international elements are bound prepositional stems, such as audio-, macro-, micro-, nano-, pseudo-, video-, and so on, which form components of compounds. Foreign linguistics has long paid attention to these compounds, also called quasi-compounds, semi-compounds, lexical blends, and the like, but discussion of such compounds and their components continues. The concepts and essential features are debated, as is the need to develop a hierarchical classification of components, clarify their semantic relations to the original morpheme, and investigate their regularity and productivity. The aim of this article is, after discussing linguists’ divergent views on the morphemic status of classical elements (derived from Greek and Latin), to examine hybrid compound terms in construction with classical prepositional bound stems (hereafter, KPSK) from the perspectives of their development and formation. Material for the article was collected from 207 sources: construction textbooks, instructional books, terminology dictionaries, reference works, doctoral dissertations, and publications covering a period of more than 100 years (1910–2018). Given the large number of sources, the list of sources at the end of the article includes only those in which hybrid compound terms in construction with KPSK were found. For example, only two sources from the period 1918–1940 are included, because only these used compounds relevant to this article (48 sources are not included in the bibliography, but data on the hybrid compound terms in construction used in them are employed to establish the quantitative ratio between hybrid compounds with KPSK and compounds with free (independent) stems). This article does not discuss hybrid compound terms in construction with postpositional classical bound stems, because the collected material indicates that such compounds are not relevant to the field of construction (only one such compound was found—įlinkiografas MTS 1981: 321). The main method of the study is analytical-descriptive, complemented by methods of synthesis, word-formation analysis, and morphemic analysis. Terminologija | 2019 | 26 141 CLASSICAL BOUND STEMS IN LINGUISTIC THEORY: DIVERSE APPROACHES In the works of foreign and Lithuanian linguists, classical bound stems are referred to by various terms: semi-affixes (Keinys 1999: 74; Козулина et al. 2009: 3), bound roots or radixoids (Земская 1973: 51–55; Рыженкова 2002; Копелиович 2003), neoclassical constituents (Lasserre 2013; Inčiūraitė–Noreikienė 2015), neoclassical elements (Harastani et al. 2012), and so on. The general term affixoids is perhaps the most established in the work of linguistics specialists (Шанский 1970; Keinys 1999: 74; Гущина 2003; Козулина et al. 2009; Vounchev 2019), and the bound stems under discussion are often classified as affixoids (prefixoids or suffixoids). Such terminological diversity often leads to confusion: some authors use certain terms synonymously (as lexical doublets), considering them to designate the same concepts, while others distinguish the concepts, so that the very same terms, which are synonymous in the works of the former authors, designate entirely different things in the works of the latter. In Dieter Kastovsky’s view, a major problem is that even in the National Dictionary of the English Language these elements are not clearly defined, and no clear criteria have been established for distinguishing one element from another (Kastovsky 2009: 1). One of the more comprehensive studies on distinguishing classical prefixes, prefixoids, and bound stems, known as radixoids¹, was carried out by Galina Ryzhenkova. As can be seen from her classification of classical elements, the author uses the term radixoid (Latin radix ‘root’), which belongs to the microsystem of international terms denoting the morphemic status of word elements. The author primarily relies on the criterion of lexical meaning, that is, the extent to which a borrowed morpheme has retained its lexical meaning. In the scholar’s view, for example, neo- can be considered neither a prefixoid nor a radixoid (bound stem), because the element’s meaning gradually fades; it begins to perform only a derivational, modifying function, specifying the lexical meaning of the root that follows it (i.e. it performs the function of a prefix). By contrast, for example, hydro- is neither a prefix nor a prefixoid—it is a radixoid (bound stem), one of the components of a compound, with a clear lexical meaning; moreover, this bound stem can combine not only with other roots but also with affixes (cf. Russian гидрирование, Lithuanian hidrinimas) (Рыженкова 2002). 1 A literal translation would require using the term bound root, but this term, which is popular in Russian linguistics, was criticized by V. Urbutis (see Urbutis 2009: 144). The term Bound root will not be used in this article, also in order to avoid excessive terminological diversity. 1 4 2 Lina Rutkienė Hibridiniai statybos terminijos dūriniai su klasikiniais prepoziciniais sietiniais kamienais In Lithuanian linguistics, the topic of compounds with classical bound stems was long considered peripheral. Classical bound stems were usually included in dictionaries of international words alongside other international words, but for a long time they were not studied in greater depth. Their position was said to be isolated and peripheral. Recently, however, as formations with classical bound stems have become more numerous and continue to increase rapidly, this topic has attracted considerable attention from Lithuanian linguists as well. The topic has been explored by Adelė Valeckienė (1968), Kazimieras Gaivenis (2014 [1994], [1998], [1995]), Stasys Keinys (2005 [1979]), Vida Rudaitienė (2001), Lina Inčiūraitė-Noreikienė (2015, 2017), Palmira Zemlevičiūtė (2018), Alvydas Umbrasas (2018), and others. In Lithuanian, the morphemic status of classical bound stems is not clear-cut. Even when there is agreement that these stems should be classified as affixoids, two positions emerge: some linguists examine them as components of compounds, while others treat them as morphemes of derived words—discussing prefixoids alongside prefixes and suffixoids alongside suffixes. For example, A. Umbrasas, who studied neologisms in informatics and computer science, some of which are terms containing KPSK, argues that “[s]emantically they [prefixoids—author’s note] are close to the constituents of compound words, but functionally to prefixes, because they are systematically attached to other words and are not used as independent words in Lithuanian (although they are sometimes written as separate words or with a hyphen, following the English example, this is considered a spelling error). <...> Their similarity to affixes encourages discussion of these international elements together with prefixes” (Umbrasas 2018: 136). P. Zemlevičiūtė examines the formations under analysis as compound terms. The terminologist chooses to use the broader term international element rather than prefixoid: in her view, “[t]his term can encompass the concepts of international prefix, international constituent, international prefixoid, and so on” (Zemlevičiūtė 2018: 217). In L. Inčiūraitė’s dissertation, the classical elements under discussion are referred to using the terms (neo)classical constituent and bound stem, and formations with these stems are analysed as compounds (Inčiūraitė 2017). It is worth noting that terminologists K. Gaivenis and St. Keinys, in presenting affixoids (prefixoids and suffixoids) in the Dictionary of Linguistic Terms, rely solely on Lithuanian examples (pusbernis, pusdal yvis, pusmaišis, šunkelis, šundaktaris; maišgalis, vaikigalis) (Gaivenis, Keinys 1990: 13, 155), whereas in their articles they call morphemes from classical languages such as audio-, macro-, micro-, nano-, pseudo-, video-, and the like, international constituents (Gaivenis 2014 [1994]: 392; 2014 [1998]: 401; 2014 [1995]: 636), international Terminologija | 2019 | 26 143 terminų elementais (Keinys 2005 [1979]: 196)2. Tad kyla klausimas: galbūt tarp afiksoidų ir klasikinių kamienų esti tam tikrų skirtumų ir ne visada klasikinius sietinius kamienus reikėtų priskirti afiksoidams? In Lithuanian linguistics, affixoids, according to KTŽ, are understood as components of compounds that have a generalized meaning and are therefore somewhat similar to an affix (Gaivenis, Keinys 1990: 13). Thus, compared with the word from which they originated, the lexical meaning of affixoids has faded and become more generalized and abstract. Bound stems, on the other hand, have a fairly clear lexical meaning. This meaning may be made explicit in a term’s definition, e.g., Microfillers are fine mineral powders obtained from natural mineral rocks and mineral industrial waste StM 2012: 135; sometimes it is conveyed by the context or by the specific component of a synonymous compound term, e.g., vibrosieve BDT 1976: 58 – vibrating beam BDT 1976: 66. Another important difference is that affixoids in a language can (or may still) function as independent words with their own grammatical characteristics. Darius Jarmalavičius, who studied affixoids in German, has drawn attention to this (Jarmalavičius 2014: 31). Geert Evert Booij and Matthias Hüning have written about this: for example, the German adjective frei (Lith. laisvas), like English free and Dutch vrij, is an independent word. In compounds, however, it is an affixoid with a more general, more affix-like meaning: “lacking what is denoted by the base word,” e.g., alcohol-free, sugar-free (Booij, Hüning 2014: 78). The semantic affixoid status of free as a component in the compounds cited by G. E. Booij and M. Hüning is evident from their translation into Lithuanian: bealkoholis, becukris. That the words from which affixoids originated are also used in the language as independent words with a specific lexical meaning is evident from the examples given in KTŽ: šunkelis, maišigalis, vaikigalis, and so on. Bound stems, by contrast, are used in the language only in bound form and lack grammatical features. Accordingly, in this article, international elements originating in Classical Greek and Latin, such as audio-, makro-, mikro-, nano-, pseudo-, video-, and so forth, will be considered bound stems, and compounds containing them will be treated as improper compounds (improper compounds are discussed in greater detail in the section of this article entitled “Word-formation features of compounds with classical bound stems in related construction terms”). Thus, one could agree with the position of G. Ryzhenkova and other authors who hold similar views. 2 It is true that St. Keinys, in Word Formation in Standard Lithuanian, already regards the classical elements under discussion as affixoids (Keinys 1999: 111). 144 Lina Rutkienė Hibridiniai statybos terminijos dūriniai su klasikiniais prepoziciniais sietiniais kamienais position on this sequence of terms denoting morphemic status: prefixes – prefixoids (a subset of affixoids) – bound stems (radixoids) – free (independent) stems. L. Inčiuraitė, drawing on Tvrtko Prćić, has discussed the differences between prefixes and bound stems originating in Classical Greek and Latin (see Inčiuraitė 2017: 43–47). In her dissertation, the scholar classifies the classical elements super-, anti-, kontr(a)-, eks-, meta-, sub-, hiper-, pro-, ultra-, vice-, inter-/intra-, arachi-, infra-, terto-, para-, ekstra-, post-, di-, trans-, bi-, epi- as prefixes, and regards pseudo-, mikro-, auto-, tele-, video-, euro-, bio-, makro-, elektro-, hidro-, kvazi-, moto-, aero-, avia-, termo-, mega-, mono-, polit-, agro-, audio-, techno-, stereo-, nano-, radio-, vibro-, eko-, proto-, kiber-, neo-, multi-, pneumo-, seks-, geo-, kosmo-, mezo-, neuro-, amino-, narko-, nitro-, turbo-, zoo- as bound stems. Most of the international prefixes identified by L. Inčiuraitė are also listed in DLKG, in the section on prefix derivatives (DLKG 2005: 150), although the scholar has added several international prefixes to this group. The so-called classical bound stems are not discussed in DLKG (2005), either among prefixes or among compound components. After systematizing the views expressed by various authors on classical bound stems, the following features of these stems can be identified: 1. Classical bound stems are characteristic of many languages. This is confirmed by many linguists (Gaivenis 2014 [1995]: 636; Клобуков, Гудилова 2001; Земская 2011: 51), while Valentīna Skujiņa discusses the development of terminology internationally and the gradual harmonization of term-formation models to the extent permitted by the various language systems (Skujiņa 1999: 3). 2. Classical bound stems are highly productive. Compounds containing the same classical bound stems are abundant in Lithuanian terminology across various fields. 3. Classical bound stems have a fairly specific lexical meaning; it is claimed that their content is more root-like than affix-like. Evanthia Petropoulou (2009: 41) uses the term semantic density; in the scholar’s view, classical bound stems have greater semantic density than affixes. 4. Usually, the word from which a classical element originates is polysemous, whereas the bound stem inherits not all of its meanings, but only those required for its use (Козулина et al. 2009: 5). Terminologija | 2019 | 26 145 5. Classical bound stems are dependent components of compounds (they do not form coordinate compounds, but only determinative ones); they define the second component and narrow its meaning. 6. Classical bound stems occupying a pre-root position most often end in a vowel (in the International Dictionary of Words by Kazys Boruta et al. (TŽŽ 1936), classical bound stems are also given without a vowel or with a different vowel: aer…, aero…; hydr…, hydro…; fibr…, fibro…; vibr…, vibro…). Some foreign authors consider this vowel to be a linking vowel. Vasilii Nemchenko argues that linking vowels should be regarded as a prominent formal feature bringing classical elements closer to root morphemes. It is precisely on the basis of this feature that affixoids are formally distinguished from affixes, since linking vowels are characteristic only of compounds between roots or stems and do not occur between roots and affixes (Немченко 1994: 65). The following discussion examines the subsystem of hybrid related-term compounds with classical bound stems (KPSK) in one specific field—construction—and analyzes the derivational tendencies of these compounds. THE SUBSYSTEM OF CLASSICAL BOUND STEMS IN COMPOUNDS OF RELATED HYBRID CONSTRUCTION TERMS AND ITS DEVELOPMENT Construction terminology contains numerous hybrid compounds with bound prepositive stems derived from Greek and Latin. As the study shows, the KPSK subsystem of related construction terms consists of 20 members: aero-, auto-, azo-, bio-, eco-, fero-, fibro-, photo-, geo-, hydro-, macro-, meso-, micro-, nano-, nitro-, pneumo-, tenzo-, thermo-, turbo-, vibro-. These KPSK are the same as those found in terminology in many other scientific and technical fields—the KPSK subsystem of construction terminology is simply part of the system of classical bound stems in Lithuanian terminology as a whole. Compounds with the stems under discussion are either neologisms coined in construction terminology or new words that entered construction terminology from other fields. Such compounds were not abundant in construction terminology in every period. Examination of the sources revealed that related construction-term compounds with KPSK began to be used in construction texts during the first period of Lithuanian independence. However, there were only two related terms with auto-: auto-pastogė MT 1929: 11 (written with a hyphen) and autovežimis LPMK 1931: 5, 36, used in textbooks on road construction and bridge building. It should be noted— 146 Lina Rutkienė | Hibridiniai statybos terminijos dūriniai su klasikiniais prepoziciniais sietiniais kamienais that auto was also used as an independent word during that period. For example, in Leonas Tuskenis’s book Lithuanian Highways and Modern Constructions, types of auto are listed: buses, freight vehicles, passenger cars, motorcycles LPMK 1931: 36. In the Technician’s Glossary (TŽ 1920) and TŽŽ 1936, published during this period, auto is likewise given as an independent word meaning ‘automobile’. Incidentally, TŽŽ 1936 also lists micro as an independent word, but no use of this borrowing as an independent word or as a bound stem in construction-related scholarly texts was observed. The way for these stems into Lithuanian terminology (including construction terminology) opened particularly wide during the Soviet period, when Russian became not only the main source of borrowings but also strengthened its position as an intermediary language. St. Keinys draws attention to a historical fact—the fortieth anniversary of the Russian October Revolution, celebrated in 1957: on that occasion, the formation of calques from Russian was officially promoted and an attempt was made to establish it as an important method of creating Lithuanian terms (Keinys 2005 [2003]: 239). Indeed, as the sources cited in the examples below show, almost all compounds with KPSK not used previously are found in construction-related scholarly literature published after this event. A whole group of bound stems new to construction then came into use: aero-, azo-, fero-, fibro-, photo-, hydro-, micro-, nitro-, pneumo-, thermo-, turbo-, vibro-. Numerous related hybrid terms were formed with them for above-ground construction (buildings and other structures, roads, bridges) and underground construction (water supply, sewerage, foundation installation), for example: aeronuotrauka ALKS 1972: 39, azodažalai RLKP 1959: 12, ferolydinys SMG 1974: 58, fibroužpildas MK 1956: 23, fotoapskaita SOV3 1974: 24, hidromazgas RLKP 1959: 68, makrokietumas MMB 1962: 67, mikroputokšlis JTŽ 1982: 15, mikroužpildas MTPM 1976: 141, nitrodažai KSŽ 1988: 84, nitroglaistas SMG 1974: 306, pneumobelenėlis JDŽ 1981: 140, termoįdeklas RLKP 1959: 37. Later, too, hybrid construction compounds continued to be formed with the bound stem auto- (autokelias APKS 1964: 3, autokrautuvas RLKP 1959: 11, autovežimėlis RLKP 1959: 11), but the bound stem vibro- was the most productive: a large set of construction terms was coined with it during the Soviet period: vibrobuožė BDT 1976: 58, vibromaišytuvas SM 1966: 195, vibromalūnas MK 1956: 21, vibroplūkimas SMG 1974: 201, vibropriekrova SMG 1974: 227, vibrosietas JDŽ 1981: 59, vibrosija BDT 1976: 58, vibrosiurblys BDT 1976: 27, vibrostalas SMG 1974: 227, vibrostrypas BDT 1976: 58, vibrovelenas SMG 1974: 201, vibrotanki- Terminologija | 2019 | 26 147 nimas SM 1966: 198. Iš 574 giminingų statybos terminų dūrinių, vartotų sovietmečio statybos srities mokslinėje literatūroje, 61 (10,63 proc.) yra hibridinis dūrinys su KPSK. Bilingual Russian–Lithuanian dictionaries, which copied Russian patterns of term formation, had a major influence on the emergence of such terms. Most terms coined during the Soviet period with KPSK should be considered partial calques, for example: aeronuotrauka – аэроснимок RLKP 1959: 19, ferolydiniai – ферросплавы TRLT 1949: 117, motorvežys – мотовоз RLKP 1959: 204, turbogrąžtas – турбобур RLKP 1959: 445. As Zigmas Zinkevičius observes, during the Soviet period “[1]there was a great increase in compound words, which were also formed by modeling them on Russian equivalents <...>. Compounds with bendra- (обще-, со-), daugia- (много-), sava-, savi- (само-), smulkia- (мелко-), visa- (все-) became especially widespread. <...> However, Latin (Greek) elements were generally used only where Russians used them” (Zinkevičius 1994: 210–211). During the period under consideration, KPSK were readily combined not only with single-stem words, but also with native and hybrid compounds (autobetonmaišė BDT 1976: 23, autocementovežis PSAD 1978: 13, autosavivartis BGD 1978: 25, turboorapūtė RLKP 1959: 445), as well as with compounds already containing a classical bound stem (aerofotovaizdas, aerofotonuotrauka RLKP 1959: 19, mikrofotonuotrauka RLKP 1959: 197, autohidrokeltuvas JDŽ 1981: 127). Thus, during the Soviet period, rather cumbersome three-stem hybrid compounds were used; these had disappeared from construction literature published in 1990–2018. After Lithuania regained independence, the improvement and development of construction began to be linked with advanced Western practices. As the sciences converge, achievements in one field are applied in others, and construction is no exception: for example, nano- and biotechnology began to be applied to improve construction materials. New concepts, often encompassing topics from different scientific and technical fields, and the terms naming them have become relevant to construction terminology. Thus, classical bound stems common to the terminology of various fields remain highly relevant in this period as well. English, as both a source language and an intermediary language, has had considerable influence on their growing popularity. Scholarly literature on construction published in 1990–2018 again contains numerous (76 distinct) compounds of related hybrid construction terms with KPSK: aero- (aeronuotrauka ST 1992: 17, SKAE 2010: 24, aerosija CPK 1992: 178, aerouostas RLSTŽ 1992: 292), auto- (autokelias SKPP 2008: 51, autokrautuvas SBPK 1995: 83, autovilikas ALLA 1993: 349), bio- (biodujos SIS 2011: 11, biointarpas SSMS 1994: 7, 148 Lina Rutkienė Hibridiniai statybos terminijos dūriniai su klasikiniais prepoziciniais sietiniais kamienais biokuras VCKUA 2016: 14), eko- (ekonašumas SIŽ 2004: 822), fero- (ferolydiniai SP 2008: 25), fibro- (fibrosluoksnis ŠSDV 2015: 17), foto- (fototamprumas) RLSTŽ 1992: 456), geo- (geokorys) SIŽ 2004: 124, geotinklas SIŽ 2004: 124, PKSŽ 2009: 156, GAG 2018: 59), hidro- (hidrosąvarta ALLA 1993: 17, hidrostipintuvas ALLA 1993: 40, hidrožerutis PKSŽ 2009: 302, SKTR 1990: 36), makro- (makrolygmuo KABK 2012: 65, makroplaušas KABK 2012: 16, makroplyšys KABK 2012: 41, SP 2008: 22, SK 2002: 26, makrotūris SKKS 1998: 12), mezo- (mezolygmuo KABK 2012: 66, mezoaplinka MLA 2011: 1), mikro-, nano- (nanodalelės RNS 2012: 79, nano vamzdeliai KMMT 2006: 89), tenzo- (tenzodaviklis SKKS 1999: 24, RLSTŽ 1992: 414, SK 1995: 65, SK 1991: 90, ALLA 1993: 159, STŽ 2002: 638, tenzojutiklis S5 2000: 318, tenzotinklas RLSTŽ 1992: 414), termo- (termonuotrauka BG 2002: 74, termopavara ŠVOK 2019: 91), vibro-. Pastarasis sietinis kamienas ir toliau lieka produktyvus ir aktyvus: su juo, kaip ir sovietmečiu, padaryta nemažai statybos terminijos naujadarų: vibroaikštelė SMD 1992: 44, vibrogramzdinimas VLGN 2013: 1, vibrogramzdintuvas VLGN 2013: 6, vibroįkalamumas VLGN 2013: 5, vibroplūktuvas RLSTŽ 1992: 484, vibrotašelis RLSTŽ 1992: 484 ir kt. Tačiau aptariamuoju laikotarpiu didžiausiu produktyvumu ir aktyvumu pasižymi KPSK mikro- – su juo padaryta 20 naujų giminių statybos terminų, pvz.: mikro(su)irimas RLSTŽ 1992: 188, mikroanga PKSŽ 2009: 397, mikroburbulas ŠVOK 2019: 126, mikrodulkės MPPB 2018: 20, BG 2002: 77, mikroįtrūkis VCKUA 2016: 34, mikrokietumas KABK 2012: 67, mikroplaušas KABK 2012: 16, mikroplyšys SP 2008: 22, mikroužpildas GKPE 2007:10, mikrovedinimas SRR 2000: 291. Dūriniai su mikro- iš visų kitų išsiskiria ir didžiausiu vartojamumu statybos srities moksliniuose tekstuose. Be to, greta dažnai vartojamo termino mikroplyšys atsiranda ir makroplyšys SK 2002: 26, SP 2008: 22. Aplinką pradedama skirstyti į mikro-, mezo- ir makroaplinką MLA 2011: 1. Tarp terminų su mikro- ir makro- susiklostė antoniminiai santykiai, susiję su šių klasikinių sietinių kamienų antonimiškumu. As can be seen from the examples, not all bound stems used to form compounds during the Soviet period remained productive and active. Between 1990 and 2018, not a single new term containing KPSK azo-, nitro-, pneumo-, turbo- was coined (or found). However, seven bound stems new to this field were added to the KPSK subsystem of construction terminology and are used to form hybrid terms: bio-, eko-, geo-, makro-, mezo-, nano-, tenzo-. It should be noted that in the most important work on construction terminology from this period—Statybos Terminologija | 2019 | 26 149 terminų žodyne (STŽ 2002) – iš 377 giminių terminų dūrinių tik penki yra hibridiniai dūriniai su KPSK (1, 59 proc.): aerouostas STŽ 2002: 13, hidrosąvarta STŽ 2002: 182, mikroplyšys STŽ 2002: 339, mikroužpildas STŽ 2002: 339, tenzodaviklis STŽ 2002: 638. Be to, greta mikroplyšio teikiamas lietuviškas sudėtinis terminas plaukiškasis plyšys, o greta mikroužpildo – trumpas vienažodis lietuviškas terminas smulkė (tačiau nė viename skaitytame statybos srities moksliniame tekste vartojamų šių lietuviškų terminų nepastebėta). Vadinasi, STŽ 2002 negalėjo turėti didelio poveikio hibridinių statybos terminų dūrinių su KPSK skvarbai į kitus mokslinius tekstus, kaip kad buvo galima pastebėti sovietmečiu leistų žodynų atveju. Peržiūrėjus šaltinius, išleistus 1990–2018 m., pastebėta, kad daugiausia hibridinių giminių statybos terminų dūrinių vartojama vadovėliuose ir disertacijose. Iš šio laikotarpio 598 giminių statybos terminų dūrinių 76 yra su klasikiniais sietiniais kamienais, t. y. 12,71 proc. Giminių statybos terminų dūrinių su KPSK ir su laisvaisiais (savarankiškais) kamienais santykis skirtingais istoriniais laikotarpiais pavaizduotas 1 paveiksle. Fig. 1. Ratio of hybrid construction terms denoting genera, formed as compounds with classical prepositional bound stems and free (independent) stems: 1) 1918–1940, 2) 1941–1989, 3) 1990–2018. As Figure 1 shows, construction terminology exhibits a tendency towards an increase in hybrid compounds with KPSK. Although historically established ties with Russian should be regarded as the principal reason for the emergence and popularity of such compounds in construction terminology, as in other fields of science, there are many other factors contributing to their popularity. As 150 Lina Rutkiene | Hibridiniai statybos terminijos dūriniai su klasikiniais prepoziciniais sietiniais kamienais Valerija Danilenko notes, most such classical international stems are unambiguous, which is particularly important for terminology. Moreover, the meaning of a term containing such a stem is easy to decipher: on seeing, for example, the term геофон (Lith. geofonas), one can infer from the meanings of its constituents that it is a device for recording sounds from the earth, without needing to look up the meaning in a terminology dictionary (Даниленко 1977: 35). Such one-word terms are also economical and convenient to use. A very important factor behind the emergence of new hybrid compounds with classical bound stems in the terminology of a given field is formation by analogy. In Angelė Kaulakienė’s view, “[a]lmost all the formation of neologisms in terminology (derivatives and compounds) is based on derivational analogy” (Kaulakienė 2014 [1988]: 169). Valentina Novodranova draws attention to the interdisciplinary nature of classical bound stems: these elements, which belong to the shared stock of international morphemes of European languages, are used by different sciences and by different disciplines within those sciences; therefore, the scholar argues, they can be said to form a distinct stratum in scientific language, with clearly expressed interscientific and interdisciplinary connections (Новодранова 2008: 277). As the sciences become integrated, units of this stratum are especially useful for coining new terms—as the study of the development of hybrid construction terms denoting genera has also shown. FEATURES OF THE FORMATION OF COMPOUND CONSTRUCTION TERMS DENOTING GENERA WITH CLASSICAL PREPOSITIONAL BOUND STEMS Even after clarifying the morphemic status of classical elements and distinguishing bound stems from other morphemes, a number of problematic questions remain. One concerns the formation of terms containing KPSK. Jevgenij Klobukov and Svetlana Gudilova raise the question of whether words with KPSK (the authors use the previously discussed term radiksoido) can be considered compounds at all. Having assessed the features of such formations, the scholars distinguish true compounds from quasi-compounds. In the view of J. Klobukov and S. Gudilova, the key difference lies in the derivational productivity of root morphemes. The roots of true compounds participate in word formation by occurring in two series of words with the same root but different derivations, for example: лесостепь (Lith. miškastepė): 1) лес, лесник, лесистый (Lith. miškas, miškinis, miškingas); 2) степь, степной, степняк (Lith. stepė, stepiškas, stepinis (“inhabitant of the steppe”)). Morphemes such as makro-, by contrast, remain outside derivation. The scholars consider that compounds with radixoids cannot be regarded as true compounds, but only as quasi-compounds, which “have no place Terminologija | 2019 | 26 151 in the word-formation sections of grammars and textbooks; they are part not of word formation but of morphemics—the study of the morphemic structure of words” (Клобуков, Гудилова, 2001: 18–21). Although in Žodžių darybos teorijoje Vincas Urbutis draws more heavily on Lithuanian bound stems, he likewise maintains that two-stem words in which one stem is bound should not be considered true compounds, because “[s]uch words still lack many of the features characteristic of compounds” (Urbutis 2009: 153). The scholar emphasizes that the derivational opposition, which, like derivational motivation, is an important feature of a formation, is an opposition not between stems but between words (emphasis in original). Moreover, in word formation it is very important to consider the parts of speech of the base words (Urbutis 2009: 104–105). In this case, we are speaking not of words but of stems that lack grammatical characteristics. In V. Urbutis’s theory, as in the observations of J. Klobukov and S. Gudilova, we find the same idea that compounds with bound stems should not be considered true compounds. Thus, on the basis of the observations of the above-mentioned authors, from a word-formation perspective, compounds could be divided into true and non-true compounds; the latter, which lack the features characteristic of compounds, would include compounds with bound stems. In many cases, such non-true hybrid compounds functioning as generic construction terms are characterized by KPSK combining with a whole word—a noun—whose grammatical characteristics remain unchanged; the word to which the classical bound stem is joined also retains its stress and accentual pattern. In addition, the formation of non-true compounds with KPSK also differs according to the derivational divisibility of the Lithuanian base stem. Compounds in standard Lithuanian are usually formed from derivationally indivisible base stems (Jakaitienė et al. 1976: 15). “Constituents whose base words have more conspicuous suffixes <...>, prefixes, or are themselves compounds remain quite rare and should be regarded as exceptions,” writes St. Keinys (1999: 72). Elsewhere, however, discussing terms, the linguist states that “in the formation of terms, base words are quite often more complex in structure than is generally usual in standard language and especially in the formation of folk vocabulary” (Keinys 2005 [1974]: 189), and the terminologist links this to the pursuit of precision in the meaning of terms. With regard to hybrid compound construction terms denoting genera with KPSK, it can be said that these non-true compounds are often formed on the basis of Lithuanian words of even more complex structure3. 3 In this article, when referring to base words, the intended referent is, of course, a Lithuanian word; a word containing a classical bound stem could not be called a word in its own right, let alone a base word. 152 Lina Rutkienė Hibridiniai statybos terminijos dūriniai su klasikiniais prepoziciniais sietiniais kamienais In general, when related construction terms are formed, KPSK are combined with words of any structure. It is characteristic that the second word is not a simplex but a derivative. The base words of the false construction compounds auto-pastogė and autovežimis found in construction texts from as early as Lithuania’s first period of independence are first-degree derivatives (auto + pa-stogė ← stogas, auto + vežimas ← vežė). Most false compounds in Soviet-era construction terminology were also formed by combining a bound stem with first- and second-degree derivatives, most often suffixal derivatives, e.g.: autokrautuvas RLKP 1959: 11 (auto + krautuvas ← krauti), autovežimėlis RLKP 1959: 11 (auto + vežimėlis ← vežimas ← vežė), makrokietumas MMB 1962: 67 (makro + kietumas ← kietas), mikrobandinys MMB 1962: 20 (mikro + bandinys ← bandė), mikrojudesys SOV3 1974: 33 (mikro + judesys ← judėjo), nitrojunginys RLKP 1959: 227 (nitro + junginys ← jungė), turbogrąžtas RLKP 1959: 445 (tur-bo + grąžtas ← gręžti), vibrosiurblys BDT 1976: 27 (vibro + siurblys ← siurbti), vibroplūkimas SMG 1974: 201 (vibro + plūkimas ← plūkė). In some false compounds with KPSK, the base word has a prefix acquired at one or another stage of derivation, while the base word of the false compound is formed by means of inflectional derivation: autoįvykis MTS 1981: 220 (auto + įvykis ← įvyko ← vyko), fibroužpildas GMKP 1969: 39 (fibro + užpildas ← užpildė ← pildė), vibropriekrova SMG 1974: 227 (vibro + priekrova ← prikrovė ← krovė). As already mentioned, KPSK are also combined with compounds (autobetonmaišė BGD 1978: 25, autocementovežis PSAD 1978: 13, autosa-vivartis BGD 1978: 25). In a small proportion of the false compounds, the base word is a simplex, e.g., vibrosija BDT 1976: 58. Analysis of the examples shows that, over time, the derivational structure of the Lithuanian base word becomes more complex. In scientific literature on construction from 1990 to 2018, among neologous compounds (or newly coined words) in construction terminology with KPSK, compounds whose base is a second-degree derivative predominate: fototamprumas RLSTŽ 1992: 456 (foto + tamprumas ← tamprus ← tempti), hidrosąvarta STŽ 2002: 182 (hidro + sąvarta ← suver-tė ← vertė), hidrostiprintuvas ALLA 1993: 40 (hidro + stiprintuvas ← stip-rinti ← stiprus), vibroištraukimas VLGN 2013: 16 (vibro + ištraukimas ← ištraukti ← traukti). Among construction compounds with KPSK recorded during this period, there are far fewer whose base word is based on a first-degree derivative: makroplyšys KABK 2012: 41 (makro + plyšys ← plyšo), mi- Terminologija | 2019 | 26 153 krotrūkis SGY 2012: 81 (mikro + trūkis ← trūko). Taip pat nedaug kalbamųjų dūrinių, kurių pamatinis sandas yra paprastasis žodis: biodujos SIS 2011: 11, geokorys SIŽ 2004: 124, mikroanga PKSŽ 2009: 397. Not all hybrid compounds with KPSK used in construction texts over the past century are false compounds. The study shows that there were attempts to form true compounds with KPSK, adapting classical bound stems more closely to the Lithuanian language system. One of the first compounds used in a construction publication, autovežimis LPMK 1931: 36, was formed as a true compound: the ending was changed, and the stress most likely falls on the long linking vowel o, which replaced the borrowed short o. It is possible that the systematic formation of the term autovežimis was due to the fact that, as already mentioned, auto was also used in the period under discussion as an independent word with a specific meaning—that of ‘automobile’. Autovežimis is also recorded in later construction texts, and in 1956 K. Ulvydas proposed that the loanword auto be grammaticalized, arguing that the word is very easy to decline: áutas, áuto, áutui, etc. (Ulvydas 1967). Thus, such auto could not be regarded as a bound stem—it is an independent word, a noun, albeit one lacking certain grammatical features (there are still many such ungrammaticalized words in Lithuanian), participating in word formation and forming a true compound. On the other hand, however, this type of formation, in which an ungrammaticalized loanword is taken as the base word, is also atypical of Lithuanian. Further attempts were made to form terms with KPSK that were close to true compounds. Although classical bound stems are generally combined with nouns when related terms are formed, during the Soviet period, following Russian compounding tendencies, attempts were also made to combine them with verbs, e.g., motovežys – мотовоз RLKP 1959: 204. In 1979, St. Keinys, discussing terms of the autolėkis, autoskrydis, fleksorašis, motovežys type, raised the idea of “the beginnings of yet another new type of term formation” and stated that it was not yet clear “[w]hether it will become productive” (Keinys 2005 [1979]: 2000). Half a century later, it can be said that this type of formation was not productive, at least in the construction field, and these terms were not used in later publications that were examined. A Soviet-era textbook also yielded two hybrid verbs with KPSK: vibrovalcuoti SMG 1974: 184 and vibroštampuoti SMG 1974: 184. It is unclear whether the bases of these verbs were the two-stem loanwords vibrovalcas and vibroštampas, or whether the bound stem vibro- was attached to the hybrid verbs valcuoti and štampuoti. In any case, these are wholly atypical examples. 154 Lina Rutkienė │ Hibridiniai statybos terminijos dūriniai su klasikiniais prepoziciniais sietiniais kamienais It is clear that KPSK did not enter Lithuanian on their own: the word-formation model was borrowed along with them, whereby a bound stem is simply attached to another complete word without any attempt to integrate it morphophonologically into the Lithuanian language system. Vytautas Pranciškus Būda was particularly critical of the formation of terms with KPSK on the model of foreign languages. The linguist proposed revising false hybrid construction-term derivatives—which, as noted, began to appear in Lithuanian terminology without restraint during the Soviet period—not only because, in his view, they do not conform to the Lithuanian word-formation system, but also because by following this type of word formation we yield to foreign influence and “forget what was done in the past, before the ambitions of the ‘science’ of language theory and practice of ‘great’ Stalin and, more generally, the Bolshevik era took hold in Lithuania” (Būda 1994: 33). The scholar proposed replacing false derivatives with KPSK either with derivatives he considered correct: benzōdažiai (not benzodažai), mikrōplyšis (not mikroplyšys), mikrōkietis (not mikrokietumas), mikrōnuotraukė (not mikronuotrauka), or with phrases: žemės ūkio gamyba (not agrogamyba), motorinis įrankis (not motoįrankis), automobilizmo mėgėjas (not automėgėjas) (Būda 1994: 33–34). In current terminology, such generic terms with KPSK, proposed by V. P. Būda, are not considered standard. On the contrary, the standard method of word formation is to attach KPSK to Lithuanian words without changing their grammatical characteristics. Many such terms are provided in the Bank of Terms of the Republic of Lithuania (LRTB), e.g.: microformation, micropropagation, microassessment, microcausation. However, not all linguistic sources endorse such formations. For example, the publication Current Issues in Administrative Language (AKA) states that micro- should not be attached to Lithuanian words at all, e.g.: microenterprise (– a very small enterprise), while the formation micropayment, whose Lithuanian base word is a deverbal noun, is considered incorrect: micropayment (= small payment) (AKA 2014). Of course, when codifying terms formed by combining KSPK with Lithuanian words, various requirements for terms are taken into account. For example, it is doubtful whether the fairly recent term econashumas SIŽ 2004: 822 could be codified, since it is first and foremost ambiguous: it is unclear whether it refers to ecological or economic performance. St. Keinys points out that moderation must be observed when forming terms with KPSK (Keinys 2005 [1967]: 211), while K. Gaivenis emphasizes that unnecessary neologisms with KPSK should not displace words and phrases already established and widely used (Gaivenis 2014 [1991]: 624). Terminologija | 2019 | 26 155 CONCLUSIONS 1. Classical prepositional bound stems derived from Greek and Latin, such as audio-, makro-, mikro-, nano-, pseudo-, video-, etc., are actively used to form new terms and remain a subject of discussion among linguists. Although some linguists classify them as affixoids (regarding them as prefixoids), it seems that, for the sake of precision, the concepts of affixoids and bound stems could be distinguished. Bound stems are not used as independent words and lack grammatical characteristics, but most have a fairly specific lexical meaning; affixoids, however, can be used as independent words in a language, although the lexical meaning of those independent words no longer corresponds to that of the affixoid as a component of a compound (it is more abstract), and the affixoid performs a more modifying function. 2. Assessing the development of classical bound stems in hybrid generic construction compound terms, it can be stated that it not only expresses the latest trends in scientific achievements and the integration of disciplines, but also reflects the connections between Lithuanian terminology and the terminology of other languages with which contact has been historically determined. The borrowing of classical bound stems was not an isolated, sporadic phenomenon: along with these stems, the term-formation model was also adopted. 3. The subsystem of classical prepositional bound stems in construction terminology comprises 20 stems under discussion (aero-, auto-, azo-, bio-, eko-, fero-, fibro-, foto-, geo-, hidro-, makro-, mezo-, mikro-, nano-, nitro-, pneumo-, tenzo-, termo-, turbo-, vibro-), of which mikro- and vibro- are the most productive and active. Quantitative data show that hybrid generic construction compound terms with classical prepositional bound stems no longer occupy an isolated, peripheral position in construction terminology, but constitute an important part of it. 4. Only two hybrid generic construction compound terms with classical prepositional bound stems were found in construction-related scholarly texts from the first period of Lithuania’s independence, accounting for 0.78 percent of all generic construction compound terms recorded for that period. In Soviet-era sources, hybrid compounds with classical prepositional bound stems account for 10.63 percent of all related construction compound terms, while in construction-related scholarly literature from 1990–2018 such compounds already account for 12.71 percent of all compounds. The study shows that the increase in hybrid compounds with classical prepositional bound stems is a fairly pronounced trend in construction terminology from the second half of the 20th century to the 21st century. 156 Lina Rutkienė Hibridiniai statybos terminijos dūriniai su klasikiniais prepoziciniais sietiniais kamienais 5. From the perspective of word formation, compounds with classical bound stems should be considered non-genuine compounds, since they lack a feature characteristic of genuine compounds. The first component of the compound is based not on a word existing synchronically in the language, but only on a stem that has no grammatical characteristics. Most hybrid generic construction compound terms with classical prepositional bound stems are formed by combining a bound stem with a whole word (a noun), without changing that word’s ending, stress position, or stress pattern. The second, Lithuanian, word to which the classical bound stem is attached is most often a first- or second-degree derivative. The study shows that there have been attempts to adapt classical bound stems more closely to the Lithuanian language system by changing the ending and stress of the base word—a noun—and by combining bound stems with verbs. However, such word formation is not productive in construction terminology. ŠALTINIAI AKA 2014: Administracinės kalbos aktualijos. Sudarė L. Murinienė, R. Vladarskienė. Prieiga per internetą: http://administracinek.alba.lki.lt/index.php?meniu=pradinis. ALLA 1993: Anglų–lietuvių kalbų statybos terminų žodynas. Atsak. red. A. Kudzys, Vilnius: Technika. ALKS 1972: Anglų–lietuvių kalbos statybos terminų žodynėlis. Sudarė J. Stonys, Vilnius: VISI. APKS 1964: Vilčinskas P., Bružas A. Asfaltbetonis ir jo panaudojimas kelių statyboje, Kaunas: Raidė. BDT 1976: Betonavimo darbų technologija. Parengė V. Rimvydienė, Vilnius: „Orgtechstatybos“ tresto spaustuvė. BG 2002: Betonas ir gelžbetonis. Konferencijos pranešimų medžiaga. Atsak. red. G. Skripkiūnas, Kaunas: Technologija. BGD 1978: Mažeika V. Betono ir gelžbetonio darbai, Vilnius: Pergalė. CPK 1992: Nakas A., Gajauskas J., Prikšaitis M. Civilinių pastatų konstrukcijos. Vadovėlis, Vilnius: Mokslas. CPŽŪ 1969: Krasenskis V., Fedorovskis L. Civiliniai, pramoniniai ir žemės ūkio pastatai. D. 1: Civiliniai pastatai, Vilnius: Mintis. DLKG 2005: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika. Sudarė V. Ambrazas, K. Garšva, A. Girdenis, E. Jakaitienė, P. Kniūkšta, S. Krinickaitė, V. Labutis, A. Laigonaitė, E. Oginskienė, J. Pikčilingis, A. Ruzė, N. Sližienė, K. Ulvydas, V. Urbutis, A. Valeckienė, E. Valiulytė, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. GAG 2018: Skuodis Š., Dirgėlienė N. Grunto, armuoto geotinklais, kerpamojo stiprio tyrimai. – Geologija. Geografija 4(2). GKPE 2007: Marčiukaitis G., Jonaitis B., Papinigis V., Valivonis J. Gelžbetoninių konstrukcijų projektavimas pagal euronormas. Vadovėlis, Vilnius: Technika. GMKP 1969: Rozenbliumas A., Jokūbaitis V. Gelžbetoninių ir mūrinių konstrukcijų pagrindai, Vilnius: VISI. JDŽ 1981: Movčianas F. Jaunojo dažytojo žinynas. Vertė M. Staskevičienė, Vilnius: Mokslas. JTŽ 1982: Goriačevas V. I. Jaunojo tinkuotojo žinynas. Vertė A. Zimanienė, Vilnius: Mokslas. KABK 2012: Kaklauskas G., Bačinskas D., Gribniak V. Kompozitais armuotos betoninės konstrukcijos. Vadovėlis, Vilnius: Technika. KMMT 2006: Smolskas P. K. Konstrukcinių medžiagų ir medžiagotyros terminų žodynas, Vilnius: Ciklonas. KSŽ 1988: Jacinavičius J., Matkevičius V. Kaimo statybininko žinynas, Vilnius: Mokslas. KTŽ 1990: Gaivenis K., Keinys St. Kalbotyros terminų žodynas, Kaunas: Šviesa. LPMK 1931: Tuskenis L. Lietuvos plentai ir moderniškosios konstrukcijos. D. 1, Kaunas: Spindulys. LRTB – Lietuvos Respublikos terminų bankas. Prieiga per internetą: http://terminai.vlkk.lt/. MK 1956: Rozenbliumas A. Mūrinės konstrukcijos, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. MLA 2011: 14-osios Lietuvos jaunųjų mokslininkų konferencijos „Mokslas – Lietuvos ateitis“ 2011 metų teminės konferencijos „Statyba“ straipsnių rinkinys, Vilnius: Technika. Terminologija | 2019 | 26 157 MMB 1962: Vasauskas S. Mechaniniai medžiagų bandymai, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. MPPB 2018: Rutkauskas A. Mineralinių priedų poveikis betono atsparumui šarminei korozijai. Daktaro disertacija, Vilnius: Technika. MT 1929: Grinkevičius S. Mediniai tiltai, Kaunas: Spindulys. MTPM 1976: Aleksandrovskis A. V. Medžiagotyra tinkuotojams plytelių ir mozaikos klodėjams. Vadovėlis, Vilnius: Mokslas. MTS 1981: Kivilša J., Kamaitis Z., Stepanavičius A. Miesto transporto statiniai. Vadovėlis, Vilnius: Mokslas. PIM 2012: Valiulis A. V. Pažangios inžinerinės medžiagos: savybės, gamyba ir taikymas. Vadovėlis, Vilnius: Technika. PKSŽ 2009: Pastatų konstruktoriaus ir statybininko žinynas. Sudarė J. Gajauskas, Kaunas: Naujasis lankas. PSAD 1978: Kitinas V. Pagrindinės statybos apdailos darbų technologijos ir mechanizavimo tobulinimo kryptys, Vilnius: Informacinių paslaugų firmos spaustuvė. RLKP 1959: Rusų–lietuvių kalbų politechninis žodynas. Red. kolegijos pirmininkas A. Novodorskis, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. RLSTŽ 1992: Kivilša J., Kudzys A., Rosinas A. Rusų–lietuvių kalbų statybos terminų žodynas, Vilnius: Lietuvos ūkis. RNS 2012: Raštinio namo statyba. Žinynas. Straipsnių ir nuotraukų autoriai R. Bortkūnas, T. V. Čiekauskas, R. Daraškevičius, T. Gecas, T. Lapinskas, E. Norvaišas, M. Sakaitis, A. Sirvydis, T. Šlivinskas, G. Unikas, V. Uosaitis, Vilnius: BALTO print. S5 2000: Statyba 6(5). Vyr. red. E. K. Zavadskas, Vilnius: Technika. SBPK 1995: Kudzys A., Vaitkevičius V. Suvirintų ir besiūlių plieninių konstrukcijų saugos ir ilgalaikiškumo įvertinimas, Vilnius: Vilniaus technikos universitetas. SGY 2012: Prūšinskienė S. Smėlio gruntų ypatumai ir jų tyrimo metodai. Mokomoji knyga, Vilnius: Technika. SIS 2011: Bilinskienė R., Graudinyte J. Statinių inžinerinės sistemos. D. 3: Dujų tiekimas. Mokomoji knyga, Klaipėda: Klaipėdos banga. SIŽ 2004: Statybos inžinieriaus žinynas. Sudarė J. Gajauskas, Vilnius: Technika. SK 2002: Statybinės konstrukcijos. Konferencijos, skirtos prof. A. Rozenbliubo 100-osioms gimimo metinėms paminėti, įvykusios Vilniuje 2002 m. birželio 5–6 d., pranešimų medžiaga, Vilnius: Technika. SKAE 2010: Marina V. 2010. Statybinių konstrukcijų atsparumas ekstremaliems poveikiams: aiškinamasis anglų–lietuvių kalbų terminų žodynas, Vilnius: Technika. SKKS 1998: Statybinės konstrukcijos: kūrimas, projektavimas ir stiprinimas. Konferencijos, įvykusios Vilniuje 1998 m. lapkričio 20 d., pranešimų medžiaga, Vilnius: Technika. SKPP 2008: Parasonis J. Statinių konstrukcijų projektavimo pagrindai. Vadovėlis, Vilnius: Technika. SKTR 1990: Statybinių konstrukcijų tyrimo rezultatų įdiegimas, naujos statybinės medžiagos ir nauji pamatai Lietuvoje. Respublikinės mokslinės techninės konferencijos „Statybos mokslo laimėjimai ir jų rezultatų įdiegimas į gamybą“, įvykusios 1990 m. sausio 31 d.–vasario 2 d., pranešimų tezės, Vilnius: VISI. SM 1966: Ščesnulevičius S. Statybinės medžiagos. Vadovėlis, Vilnius: Mintis. SMG 1974: Grigaliūnas B. Statybinės medžiagos ir gaminiai. Vadovėlis, Vilnius: Mintis. SMD 1992: Peliksa M., Rumševičius A. Statybinės medžiagos ir dirbiniai, Kaunas: Technologija, 97. SP 2008: Ramukevičius D. Statybos pagrindai, Kaunas: Ardiva. SRR 2000: Venckevičius V., Žilinskas R. Statinių rekonstrukcija ir remontas. Vadovėlis, Kaunas: Technologija. SSMS 1994: Marčiukaitis G. Sluoksniuotųjų sienų iš mažagabaričių dirbinių skaičiavimas, Vilnius: Technika. StM 2012: Žurauskienė R., Naujokaitis A. P., Mačiulaitis R., Žurauskas R. Statybinės medžiagos. Vadovėlis, Vilnius: Technika. STŽ – Statybos terminų žodynas. Parengė A. Kudzys, A. Rosinas, B. Kudzienė, Vilnius: Lietuvos mokslas. ŠSDV 2015: Šlaitinio stogo dengimas vienetine ir lakštine danga. Parengė J. Burokienė, Vilnius: Arx Reklama. ŠVOK 2019: Šildymas, vėdinimas, oro kondicionavimas: teorija ir praktika. Parengė J. Čiuprinskienė, K. Čiuprinskas, V. Motuzienė, Vilnius: Super namai. TRLT 1949: Novodvorskis A. Trumpas rusiškai–lietuviškas techninis žodynas, Kaunas: Spindulys. TŽ 1920: Techniko žodynėlis. Sudarė A. Macijauskas, Kaunas: Valstybės spaustuvė. TŽŽ 1936: Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas. Sudarė K. Boruta, P. Čepėnas, A. Sirutytė-Čepėnienė, Kaunas: Sakalas. VCKUA 2016: Boris R. Vidutinio cemento kiekio ugniai atsparaus betono su klinkeriniu užpildu struktūros ir savybių tyrimai. Daktaro disertacija, Vilnius: Technika. VLGN 2013: Kelevičius K. Vibropolio laikomosios galios nustatymas pagal įrengimo metu išmatuotus parametrus. Daktaro disertacija, Vilnius: Technika. 158 Lina Rutkienė Hibridiniai statybos terminijos dūriniai su klasikiniais prepoziciniais sietiniais kamienais LITERATŪRA Booij G., Hüning M. 2014: Affixoids and constructional idioms. – Extending the scope of Construction Grammar, Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 77–106. Būda V. P. 1994: Sudurtiniai ir priešdėlinės darybos žodžiai su tarptautiniais dėmenimis, Vilnius: Technika. Gaivenis K. 2014 [1991]: Technikos terminai su kai kuriais tarptautiniais dėmenimis. – Kazimieras Gaivenis. Rinktiniai raštai, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 623–624. Gaivenis K. 2014 [1994]: Technikos terminijos norminimo mažmožiai. – Kazimieras Gaivenis. Rinktiniai raštai, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 390–396. Gaivenis K. 2014 [1995]: Terminai su dėmenimis auto- ir elektro-. – Kazimieras Gaivenis. Rinktiniai raštai, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 636–638. Gaivenis K. 2014 [1998]: Fizikos terminijos antonimai. – Kazimieras Gaivenis. Rinktiniai raštai, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 401. Jakaitienė E., Laigonaitė A., Paulauskienė A. 1976: Lietuvių kalbos morfologija, Vilnius: Mokslas. Harastani R., Daille B., Morin E. 2012: Neoclassical Compound Alignments from Com-parable Corpora. – Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing. 13th International Conference, 72–82. Inčiūraite L. 2017: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos vardažodžių su (neo)klasikiniais elementais morfeminė sandara ir daryba. Daktaro disertacija, Vilniaus universitetas. Inčiūraitė-Noreikienė L. 2015: Lietuvių kalbos dūriniai su neoklasikiniais dėmenimis. – Baltistica 50(2), 245–259. Jarmalavičius D. 2014: Vokiečių kalbos dūrinių daryba XV–XVIII a. rankraštiniuose dvikalbiuose baltų kalbų žodynuose. Daktaro disertacija, Vilniaus universitetas. Kastovsky D. 2008: Astronaut, astrology, astrophysics: about combining forms, classical compounds and affixoids. – Selected Proceedings of the 2008 Symposium on New Approaches in English Historical Lexis (HEL-LEX 2), 1–13. Kaulakienė A. 2014 [1988]: Terminų daryba pagal analogijos principą. – Terminologija. Terminografija. Terminija, Vilnius: Technika, 164–170. Keinys St. 2005 [1967]: Dėl sudurtinių terminų darybos. – Dabartinė lietuvių terminologija, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 209–211. Keinys St. 2005 [1979]: Tarptautiniai elementai lietuvių terminologijoje. – Dabartinė lietuvių terminologija, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 193–201. Keinys St. 1999: Bendrinės lietuvių kalbos žodžių daryba, Šiauliai: Šiaulių universiteto leidykla. Keinys St. 2005 [2003]: Tautinis terminologijos savitumas. – Dabartinė lietuvių terminologija, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 234–242. Lassere M. 2013: Neoclassical compounds and language registers. – Journées d’Études Toulousaines(JéTou), May, 98–107. Prieiga per internetą: https://hal-univ-tlse2.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00966824/document. Petropoulou E. 2009: On the parallel between neoclassical compounds in English and Modern Greek. – Patras Working Papers in Linguistics 1, 40–58. Rudaitienė V. 2001: Žodžiai su prepoziciniais nelietuviškos kilmės dėmenimis. – Lituanistika 2(46), 94–107. Skujinā V. 1999: Latīņu un grieķu cilmes vārddaļu vārdnīca, Rīga: Kamene. Umbrasas A. 2018: Informatikos ir kompiuterijos terminai naujadarai. – A. Auksoriūtė, J. Gaivenytė-Butler, S. Labanauskienė, A. Mitkevičienė, R. Stunžinas, A. Umbrasas, P. Zemlevičiūtė. Lietuviškos informatikos ir kompiuterijos terminijos tyrimai. Kolektyvinė monografija, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 94–149. Ul vydas K. 1967: Dabartinės lietuvių literatūrinės kalbos leksikos normalizacijos klausimai. – Lietuvių kalba tarybiniais metais. Straipsnių rinkinys, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos ir literatūros institutas, 36–101. Urbutis V. 2009: Žodžių darybos teorija, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Valeckienė A. 1968: Kitų kalbų kilmės sudurtiniai žodžiai. – Kalbos kultūra 15, 16–25. Vounchev B. 2019: The affixoids in the Greek gay argot Kaliardà. – Orbis Linguarum 17(1), 50–58. Zemlevičiūtė P. 2018: Kitų kalbų poveikis lietuviškai informatikos ir kompiuterijos terminijai. – A. Auksoriūtė, J. Gaivenytė-Butler, S. Labanauskienė, A. Mitkevičienė, R. Stunžinas, A. Umbrasas, P. Zemlevičiūtė. Lietuviškos informatikos ir kompiuterijos terminijos tyrimai. Kolektyvinė monografija, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 150–246. Zinkevičius Z. 1994: Lietuvių kalbos istorija. VI. Lietuvių kalba naujaisiais laikais, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Гущина Н. Н. 2003: К вопросу об аффиксоидах. – Журнал Гродненского государственного медицинского университета 2, 19–24. Доступ через интернет: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/k-voprosu-ob-affiksoidah. Terminologija | 2019 | 26 159 Даниленко В. П. 1977: Русская терминология. Опыт лингвистического описания, Москва: Наука. Земская Е. А. 2011: Современный русский язык. Словообразование, Москва: Флинта. Клобуков Е. В., Гудилова С. В. 2014: Языковая специфика непроизводных сложных слов квазикомпозитов. – Язык, сознание, коммуникация 20, 12–25. Козулина Н. А., Левашов Е. А., Шагалова Е. Н. 2009: Аффиксоиды русского языка. Опыт словаря-справочника, Санкт-Петербург: Нестор-История. Копелевич А. Б. 2003: К вопросу о правомерности термина «радиксоид». – Русское слово: синхронический и диахронический аспекты. Матер. междунар. науч. конференции, посвященной 130-летию со дня рождения Д. Н. Ушакова, 127—128. Немченко В. Н. 1994: Современный русский язык. Морфемика и словообразование, Нижний Новгород: НГУ. Новодранова В. Ф. 2008: Именное словообразование в латинском языке и его отражение в терминологии латинской культуры. Laterculi vocum Latinarum et terminorum. Монография, Москва: Языки славянской культуры. Рыженкова Г. 2002: О морфемном статусе некоторых элементов греческого происхождения. Проза.ру. Доступ через интернет: https://proza.ru/2002/10/05-10. Шанский Н. М. 1970: Аффиксоиды в словообразовательной системе современного русского литературного языка: Исследования по современному русскому языку, Москва: МГУ. HYBRID COMPOUNDS WITH CLASSICAL PREPOSITIVE BOUND STEMS IN THE TERMINOLOGY OF CONSTRUCTION Summary The major theoretical problem addressed in the article is the ambiguous approach of Lithuanian and foreign linguists to the morphemic status of classical elements. Though some linguists attribute them to affixoids, for the sake of accuracy, the present article proposes to distinguish between the concepts of affixoids and bound stems. Bound stems, as the classical elements under analysis are called, are not used as independent words; they do not have grammatical characteristics, but most of them have a rather specific lexical meaning. By contrast, affixoids can be used as independent words in the language, but the lexical meaning of those independent words does not match the meaning of the affixoid comprising the component of the compound (it is more abstract); the affixoid plays a more modifying function. The sub-system of classical bound stems in the terminology of construction is made of 20 members: aero-, auto-, azo-, bio-, eco-, fero-, fibro-, foto-, geo-, hidro-, makro-, mezo-, mikro-, nano-, nitro-, pneumo-, tenzo-, termo-, turbo-, vibro-. The terminology of the field in question demonstrates the gradual growth in hybrid compounds with classical prepositive bound stems. During the first period of Lithuania’s independence very few compounds with classical bound stems were used in the terminology of construction. The road for classical bound stems to the terminology of construction was widely opened during the Soviet period when Russian did not only become the major source of loanwords but its role as the intermediary language increased. After Lithuania’s independence was restored, the improvement and development of construction were already associated with the progressive experience of the West. The integration of sciences takes place; the innovations coming from other scientific fields are applied in construction; they determine the origin of new classical bound stems in the terminology of construction. Concerning the formation of the compounds with classical bound stems in the terminology of construction, it should be noted that a bound stem is combined with a 160 Lina Rutkienė Hibridiniai statybos terminijos dūriniai su klasikiniais prepoziciniais sietiniais kamienais full word, i.e. a noun, and the grammatical characteristics of this word are not changed; the stress and accentual paradigm are also retained by the word which is combined with a classical bound stem. It is also typical that the Lithuanian base word is not a simple word but a formation. Most of the compounds which can be found in the Soviet terminology of construction were formed by combining a bound stem and the formations of the first and second degree; they are usually formed with suffixes. As time is passing by, the structure of the Lithuanian base word is becoming more complex. In the period of 1991–2018, the terminology of construction was dominated by the compounds with the formations of the second degree used as the base word. The research shows that attempts have been made to make classical bound stems more adapted to the system of the Lithuanian language, to combine bound stems with verbs, as well as to change the ending and stress of the noun used as the base word. Gauta 2019-11-05 Lina Rutkienė Lietuvių kalbos institutas P. Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius Vilniaus Gedimino technikos universitetas Saulėtekio al. 11, LT-03227 Vilnius E. paštas [email protected] Terminologija | 2019 | 26 161