Analysis of Term Formation in Lithuanian, Russian and English Terminology Works

5 2 Liudmila Mockienė Analysis of Term Formation in Lithuanian, Sigita Rackevičienė Russian and English Terminology Works Analysis of Term Formation in Lithuanian, Russian and English Terminology Works LIUDMILA MOCKIENĖ Mykolas Romeris University SIGITA RACKEVIČIENĖ Mykolas Romeris University KEYWORDS: terminology, term-formation, ways of term formation, means of term formation, sources of terms, contrastive analysis INTRODUCTION The article presents a contrastive research of approaches to the analysis of ways and means of term formation as discussed in Lithuanian, Russian and English terminology works. The research focuses on an overview of various classifications of typical linguistic means of term formation presented in terminology works in Lithuanian (Keinys 1980, 2005a; Gaive nis 2002, 2014), Russian (Даниленко 1977; Лейчик 2009; Суперанская, Подольская, Васильева 2005, 2012; Гринев-Гриневич 2008) and English (Sager 1990, 1997, 2004; ISO 704:2009 (E)). Term formation as a process is usually consistent with the processes of word formation used in a particular language. Nonetheless, term formation differs from word formation in the sense that, as a rule, it is a deliberate and conscious activity rather than a spontaneous process. Moreover, term formation is a broader notion as it encompasses formation of both words and phrases. The result of the former process is one-word terms, while the latter results in multi-word terms. The Lithuanian terminologist Stasys Keinys claims that terms are created and standardised consciously (Keinys 1980: 60). According to St. Keinys, terminology is a part of the standard language, however, it is in some aspects distinct and independent of it. On the one hand, terminology is consistent with the general trends in the language development; on the other hand, it is characterised by specific features, certain requirements and development (Keinys 2005g: 231). 5 3Terminologija | 2016 | 23 The idea that term formation is a regulated, controlled and conscious activity is also discussed by Russian linguists, such as Valerija Danilenko (Даниленко 1977: 91, 93), Vladimir Leitchik (Лейчик 2009: 62), Aleksandra Superanskaja, Natalija Podolskaja, and Natalija Vasiljeva (Суперанская et al. 2012: 194). According to V. Danilenko, term formation in the domain of the language of science relies on the system of word-building of the Russian standard language. Nevertheless, there is a number of features that distinguish term formation in the language of science and word-building in the standard language and the fact that terms are created purposefully and consciously is one of those features (Даниленко 1977: 90–97). Juan C. Sager also shares the view that term formation is a “conscious human activity and differs from the arbitrariness of general word formation processes by its greater awareness of pre-existing patterns and models <…>” (Sager 1997: 25). This process not only relies on the existing lexical elements and combines them in particular ways, but can also be described in terms of patterns according to which these elements are combined, which in turn can be used for subsequent term formation (ibid). Since term formation is a deliberate, conscious, controlled and regulated process, it is necessary to be aware of the typical patterns and models of formation of new words in a particular language to be able to create new terms and evaluate their systematicity and correctness. Thus the aim of the research is to review the major approaches to the analysis of ways and means of term formation in Lithuanian, Russian and English and to conduct a contrastive analysis thereof. By the term ways of term formation we mean the use or modification of internal/external sources of term formation while the term means of term formation in the article refers to specific types of term formation, e.g., terminologization, transterminologization, affixation, compounding, conversion, direct borrowing, loan translation, etc. The article analyses and compares the main criteria applied by terminologists for classification of term formation patterns with the aim to reveal similarities and differences of term formation analysis in different languages. CLASSIFICATION OF WAYS AND MEANS OF TERM FORMATION IN SOME WORKS OF LITHUANIAN TERMINOLOGISTS This section presents analysis of the works of two most prominent Lithuanian terminologists Stasys Keinys and Kazimieras Gaivenis who founded the basis of modern Lithuanian terminology. It also presents 5 4 Liudmila Mockienė Analysis of Term Formation in Lithuanian, Sigita Rackevičienė Russian and English Terminology Works some ideas from the works by Alvydas Umbrasas who investigated the Lithuanian legal terminology and its historical development. The Lithuanian terminologists distinguish three ways of term formation: 1) using the existing vocabulary of standard language and dialects, 2) creating new words (neologisms), and 3) borrowing terms from other languages (Gaivenis 2002, 2014; Keinys 2005a). It is noteworthy that the first two ways of term formation are based on internal sources, meanwhile the third one relies on the use of external sources. Using the existing vocabulary of standard language and dialects as a way of term formation is based on the use of vocabulary of native origin. It means that either a word which has already existed in the language or its dialect is terminologized, or a term which has already existed in another terminological field is transterminologized (Keinys 2005g: 231). Terminologization of a word from the general language or its dialect can be achieved in two ways: its lexical meaning is either extended or narrowed (Gaivenis 2002: 52–53). In this case the content, use and valency of terminologized words is usually changed. When words of the general language or its dialect are used as terms, they usually acquire new elements of meaning, which they do not have in the general language (ibid), e.g. banga ‘wave’ (‘waves of a sea/a lake’ → ‘radio waves’). The majority of terms which consist of a single word and are simple in structure, in fact have been terminologized words of the general language or its dialect. Moreover, the mere fact that a term is complex in structure does not mean it has been created as such by means of word-building. As K. Gaivenis claims, there are cases when terms with a complex structure (i.e. they are formations) cannot be attributed to the category of terms created by means of word-building, because in fact they were terminologized, i.e. the word as such was formed in general language (or its dialect) and then it was used as a term (Gaivenis 2002: 56). Thus it might be quite difficult to establish whether a term has been formed as a result of the process of word formation or is a terminologized or transterminologized word. One of the criteria which could help here is taking into consideration the field of science and the history of development of terminology of that particular field. Nonetheless this criterion of ‘newness’ of a term is not quite reliable, because the same means can be used to create a new word in different locations where the language is spoken and at different periods. Even the fact that a word existed in the past and was 5 5Terminologija | 2016 | 23 used in some historic document does not signify that the word was taken from that old source and not created as a new entity (Keinys 2005d). St. Keinys suggests that all terms that can be synchronically viewed as formations should be treated as a result of word formation rather than terminologization (Keinys 2005d: 22). He gives two arguments for this position: 1) in many cases it is impossible to establish whether a term was created as a neologism, or was taken from the general language; 2) terms which were formed on the basis of ordinary words nevertheless reflect certain word formation types, thus it would be inaccurate not to consider them as representatives of those types of word formation (Keinys 2005d: 22; Keinys 2005e: 113). Alvydas Umbrasas, who analysed Lithuanian legal terminology used in the period from 1918 to 1940, also shares this view and does not distinguish between terms of complex structure as terminologized words and terms of complex structure formed for specific purposes; his approach is formal and he attributes all terms of complex structure (derivatives and compounds) to the same category (Umbrasas 2010: 67-68). Therefore, in the works of St. Keinys and K. Gaive nis words of complex structure are most often ascribed to the second cat egory of term formation – creating new words (neologisms). Creating new words (neologisms) on the basis of the existing words in accordance with all main types of word formation is another productive way of creating new terms in Lithuanian. There are four main means of term formation in Lithuanian: prefixation, suffixation, flexional derivation and word compounding (Gaivenis 2002: 54; Keinys 2005g: 232; EC 2006). According to St. Keinys, who conducted an extensive analysis of term formation means in different fields of science, the majority of terms are formed by means of suffixation, most of which are deverbal. There are several characteristic features of terms formed by means of suffixation, namely, they are usually abstract nouns, they lack emotional connotation, and quite a lot of them are hybrids (Keinys 2005d). Hybrids, which are terms that consist of a foreign base and native suffix, are analysed as derivatives and attributed to the same group as formations of native origin (Keinys 2005d: 75). However, A. Umbrasas, who applies the etymological criterion as a starting point, distinguishes hybrids as a separate category, which are distinct from terms of native origin formed by means of suffixation (e.g. kontrabandininkas ‘smuggler’ (← kontrabanda ‘smuggling’ + a native suffix -ininkas), and discusses such means of term formation as a subtype of term formation based on elements of foreign origin (Umbrasas 2010: 132-133). 5 6 Liudmila Mockienė Analysis of Term Formation in Lithuanian, Sigita Rackevičienė Russian and English Terminology Works One more means of formation which is very often used to create new terms in Lithuanian is compounding. St. Keinys claims that compounding is the second most productive means of term formation after suffixation and is quite popular in certain areas of professional language (Keinys 2005c: 129). The fact that compounding is so productive in term formation can be accounted for by the necessity to refer to a complex concept. Moreover, compounds comply with such vitally important requirements for terms as accuracy, clarity and conciseness. Although these requirements for terms can be met by using a multi-word term, one-word terms are more convenient to use and can be created as relatively short generic names without using attributives. The most usual parts of speech used to create compounds in terminology are a combination of two nouns, a combination of a noun and a verb, and a combination of an adjective and a noun (Gaive nis 2002; Keinys 2005c), e.g. medsraigtis ‘screwnail’ (medis ‘wood’ + sraigtas ‘screw’), vandentiekis ‘water-supply line’ (vanduo ‘water’ + tiekti ‘to supply’). Another quite productive means of term formation, which is peculiar to Lithuanian, is flexional derivation. In contrast to English, where flexion serves only as a functional affix, in Lithuanian it can be used for derivation. As a means of word formation, flexional derivation is very similar to suffixation in nature, derivational meaning and form (Keinys 2005b). Terms formed by means of flexional derivation are very convenient to use because of their simple structure. Thus flexional derivation could be used more extensively as a means of term formation (Keinys 2005b). The majority of terms formed by flexional derivation are deverbal and deadjectival, whereas nouns, pronouns and numerals are very rarely used as the derivation basis, e.g. sąnaudos ‘consumption, expenditure’ (← sunaudojo ‘used’). A relatively less productive means of term formation in Lithuanian is prefixation, because it is used to form denominal nouns only (Keinys 2005e); in contrast, suffixation and flexional derivation are used to form deverbal, deadjectival and denominal nouns. Nonetheless, the role of prefixation in term formation is rather significant (Keinys 2005e), e.g. įtėvis ‘adoptive father’ (← į + tėvas ‘father’), nedarbas ‘unemployment’ (← ne ‘no’ + darbas ‘work’). The last way of term formation discussed in the works of the Lithuanian terminologists is borrowing of terms from other languages. The process of borrowing of a concept together with the term which signifies that concept is quite usual in language in general and in terminology science 5 7Terminologija | 2016 | 23 specifically (Keinys 2005g). As K. Gaivenis claims, it is rather hard to avoid borrowings in terminology, besides it is not always necessary to do that (Gaivenis 2002: 57). What is necessary is to prevent overuse of borrowings in cases when they may supersede the existing terms of native origin, and, in addition, borrowings should conform to the rules of phonology, morphology and spelling of the Lithuanian language. Borrowed terms can be classified according to the degree of their assimilation into three groups: 1) old borrowings; 2) international words; and 3) barbarisms. Old borrowings have been absolutely assimilated and adapted to the language system, e.g. stiklas ‘glass’ (Gaivenis 2002: 58). In terminology they are not considered as real borrowings, in fact they are terminologized words of general vocabulary. Another category, international words, serve as terms of different fields of science. They have been borrowed into Lithuanian mainly from classical languages, such as Greek and Latin, either directly or through intermediary languages, e.g. hipoteka ‘mortgage’ (from Greek), respublika ‘republic’ (from Latin). The last category, barbarisms, are words which do not comply with the norms of the language (Gaivenis 2002: 57). Barbarisms never become part of standardized lexis. It was also observed that the distribution of borrowings in different fields of terminology is uneven. It is argued that the amount of borrowings in the latest scientific and technical branches of terminology is higher than in fields which have long traditions and rely largely on the indigenous vocabulary (Keinys 2005f). St. Keinys also discusses loan translations/calques (Keinys 1980: 92-96). Most of such terms do not comply with the norms of the Lithuanian language and are not recommended for usage. Those which conform to the norms of the language and are formed on the basis of a productive model of word-formation are also often problematic as it is often difficult to determine whether a term is a loan translation or a native formation. Similarity of the structure of a word in several languages does not necessarily indicate an instance of loan translation. Most often such terms are perceived as native formations (Umbrasas 2010: 134). The Lithuanian terminologists classify terms according to their formal structure into one-word terms and multi-word terms. One-word terms may be further classified according to their structure into simple and formations, whereas multi-word terms are grouped according to the number of constituent words (Keinys 1980: 16-17; Gaivenis 2002: 17) and are analysed according to their origin and the syntactic relation of words within the term (Umbrasas 2010). 5 8 Liudmila Mockienė Analysis of Term Formation in Lithuanian, Sigita Rackevičienė Russian and English Terminology Works Both one-word terms and constituents of multi-word terms are formed according to the same principles (using internal or external sources and various means of term formation) which are summarized in Scheme 1. Scheme 1. Classification of the main ways and means of term formation in Lithuanian (based on works of K. Gaivenis and St. Keinys) Term formation in Lithuanian (based on works of K. Gaivenis and St. Keinys) Internal sources External sources Using existing Creating Borrowings Loan sources of standard new words translations/ language and dialects (neologisms) calques Terminologization Derivation Borrowing of terms Transterminologization Compounding Terminologization of borrowed words To sum up, Lithuanian scholars, such as K. Gaivenis and St. Keinys, support the view that the main source of terms should be internal: either the native language, i.e. the general vocabulary or its dialects, or the native means of word-building. Thus the basis of term formation in Lithuanian is semantic means (terminologization of words of the native language and old borrowings), morphological means (word-formation) and syntactic means (multi-word terms). CLASSIFICATION OF WAYS AND MEANS OF TERM FORMATION IN SOME WORKS OF RUSSIAN TERMINOLOGISTS This section presents analysis of the works of the Russian terminologists V. Danilenko, М. Leitchik, A. Superanskaja, N. Podolskaja, N. Vasiljeva, and Siergiej Grinev-Griniewicz. Russian terminologists, like the Lithuanian terminologists, usually distinguish three main ways of term formation. The first two rely on the use of internal sources, namely, the use of an existing word of the language (i.e. either terminologization of a word of the general vocabulary or trans- 5 9Terminologija | 2016 | 23 terminologization of a ready-made term from one field to another) and term formation by word-building means and syntactic means; whereas the last one is based on the use of external sources, namely, borrowing a term from another language by adapting it phonetically and morphologically to the norms of the language (Лейчик 2009: 81–84; Суперанская et al. 2012: 194, 203). A. Superanskaja, N. Podolskaja and N. Vasiljeva claim that although there is a more extensive use of terminologization of words of the general language in certain fields, the dominant means of term formation is word-building (Суперанская et al. 2012: 201). They suggest to combine two parameters when designing a classification of ways terms are formed, namely, the source language (native vs. foreign) and the lexical principle which is used as the basis to form a term (a ready-made word vs. an intentionally created word) (Суперанская et al. 2012: 196). This would result in a scheme of ways of term formation, which, as the authors claim, is of a very general character, as it does not include transterminologization (see Scheme 2). Scheme 2. Classification of the main ways and means of term formation in Russian (based on works of A. Superanskaja et al.) Term formation in Russian (based on works of A. Superanskaja et al.) Resources of native language Resources of other (standard language and dialects) languages Terminologization Word-building Borrowing Term formation of ready-made on the basis terms of borrowed elements Similarly, V. Leitchik also distinguishes three ways of term formation, namely, formation of terms on the basis of resources of the native language by word-building and syntactic means; terminologization of words of non-special (standard language and dialects) and special vocabulary; and borrowing of terms from other languages where they were created as terms or borrowing words and terminologizing them (Лейчик 2009: 81–84). 6 0 Liudmila Mockienė Analysis of Term Formation in Lithuanian, Sigita Rackevičienė Russian and English Terminology Works As V. Leitchik notes, although the models of term formation are the same as the means of word-building of the general language, some of them are more productive, whereas others are less. When classifying terms, first, he distinguishes one-word and multi-word terms. Although productivity of composition as a means of word-building is not that high in Russian, V. Leitchik observes a general trend of using two-word and three-word term phrases (especially in the domain of informatics) and even fouror five-word terms (especially in the domain of philosophy). The constituents of the majority of multi-word terms in Russian are nouns and adjectives. A combination of several nouns can be used with or without prepositions, thus nouns can be dependent on other nouns (Лейчик 2009: 48–62). Scheme 3. Classification of the main ways and means of term formation in Russian (based on works of V. Leitchik) Term formation in Russian (based on works of V. Leitchik) Resources of the native language Resources of other (standard language and dialects) languages TerminoWordSyntactic Borrowing Terminologization logization building means of terms of borrowed words The two previously discussed classifications differ in the approach to borrowings. Alongside the process of borrowing ready-made words, A. Superanskaja et al. also distinguish term formation on the basis of borrowed elements. The position of the latter is not clear in V. Leitchik’s classification. However, alongside the process of borrowing terms he distinguishes the process of terminologization of borrowed words of foreign general vocabulary, which means, that those borrowed words were not used as terms in the source language and became such only in the target language. Another distinguished Russian linguist, V. Danilenko argues that in essence terms are formed on the basis of words of general and special vocabulary in accordance with all structural types of words that are characteristic of a particular national language (simple words, derivatives and compound words). She distinguishes the same means of naming concepts 6 7Terminologija | 2016 | 23 new entities, because new terms have to reflect the relationships of new concepts with the existing ones, that is the process of creation of new terms has to be systematic, which can be easily achieved by means of affixation and compounding. At this point J. C. Sager notes that in English it is often problematic to make a distinction between the creation of genuine neologisms by means of derivation using Latin or Greek word elements and borrowing of terms as ready-made words from Latin, Greek and French. Moreover, it is not always possible to determine the source of borrowings, because English has had “such a long tradition of borrowing from all three languages that it is very often impossible to say whether a word has come into English via French or whether it has been taken directly from one of the classical languages” (Sager 1990: 38). In contrast, in modern English borrowing from other languages is quite rare. It is usually modern English which becomes the source of borrowing of new terminology into other languages. Alongside direct borrowing, J. C. Sager discusses loan translation, or calque, which is the result of literal translation, word-for-word substitution of the lexical components of compounds. J. C. Sager claims that ‘loan translation is preferred to direct borrowing, but neither form of term creation is acceptable if it violates the natural word formation techniques of a linguistic community’ (Sager 1990: 87). This means that both direct borrowings and loan translations have to conform to the requirements of the target language. The Scheme 6 summarizes the ways and means of term formation described by J. C. Sager in his works in 1990, 1997 and 2004: Scheme 6. Classification of the main ways and means of term formation in English (based on works of J. C. Sager) Term formation in English (based on works of J. C. Sager) Use of existing Modification Creation of new sources of existing sources linguistic entities (neologisms) Extension of meaning Derivation Totally new creations Simile Compounding Interlingual borrowing Metaphor Creating phrasal terms Loan translation/calques Terminologization Conversion Interdisciplinary borrowing Compression 6 8 Liudmila Mockienė Analysis of Term Formation in Lithuanian, Sigita Rackevičienė Russian and English Terminology Works Another universal classification of ways and means of term formation is presented in the International Standard ISO 704 (Terminology work – Principles and methods) of the International Organization of Standardization (ISO 704:2009 (E)). The main ways of term formation presented in ISO 704, which apply to the English language, are: • creating new forms, • using existing forms, • translingual borrowing (see Scheme 7). Creating new forms covers such means of term formation as derivation (adding one or more morphological elements, or affixes, to a root or a word), compounding (resulting in complex terms, phrases or blends) and abbreviated forms (short forms, clipped terms, abbreviations, initialisms, and acronyms). Using existing forms includes such means of term formation as conversion (i.e. change in part-of-speech), terminologization (assigning new, frequently analogous or metaphoric meanings to existing terms in related fields or general language words), semantic transfer within a special language, and trans-disciplinary borrowing (metaphors). Finally, translingual borrowing is of two types: direct loans and loan translations. Scheme 7. Classification of the main ways and means of term formation in English (based on ISO 704:2009 (E)) Term formation in English (based on International Standard ISO 704) Creating new forms Using Translingual (Neoterms) existing forms borrowing Derivation Conversion Direct loan Compounding Terminologization Loan translation Abbreviation Semantic transfer within a special language Transdisciplinary borrowing The comparison of the two classifications above shows that categorisation of the main ways and means of term formation in English is quite 6 9Terminologija | 2016 | 23 similar. The classifications rely on the following opposition: the use or modification of existing (internal) sources to create new terms is opposed to the use of external sources (translingual borrowing). Still, the classifications have some differences. First, the status of such means of term formation as conversion is different. J. C. Sager attributes conversion to modification of existing sources, alongside affixation and compounding; meanwhile, in ISO 704:2009 (E) standard conversion is attributed to the use of existing forms, alongside terminologization and transterminologization. The different approach to the position of conversion in these classifications is quite congruous with the different conceptions of conversion in the theory of word-building. Conversion is viewed by some linguists as a subtype of derivation (Plag 2003: 17); other linguists discuss it as a separate category distinct from derivation and compounding (Jackson & Zé Amvela 2012: 100; Šeškauskienė 2013: 123). One more difference lies in the interpretation of neologisms and their place in the classification. J. C. Sager treats borrowings from other languages as neologisms (Sager 1997: 38), meanwhile, the new definition of the term neologism by ISO/TC37 [1087-1:2009] states that only newly coined terms, either simple or complex, which appear in a language for the first time and have been created by means of linguistic mechanisms such as derivation, compounding or blending, can be considered neologisms (Valeontis, Mantzari 2006). Thus, borrowing from foreign languages should not be attributed to the means of creating neologisms. In this vein, the distinction between native and foreign sources used for term formation is crucial. It should be noted that the above classifications of the Lithuanian, Russian and English ways and means of term formation are applicable to special languages in general, i.e. they present ways and means of term formation to be followed when forming terms in any domain of science and technology. Unequivocally, they may differ depending on the domain and the structure of a particular language. CONCLUSIONS The analysis of the descriptions and classifications of ways and means of term formation in the works on terminology in Lithuanian, Russian and English allows to draw the following conclusions: 1. In the works of the Lithuanian terminologists (St. Keinys, K. Gaive nis), the main criterion for classification of ways and means of term formation 7 0 Liudmila Mockienė Analysis of Term Formation in Lithuanian, Sigita Rackevičienė Russian and English Terminology Works is the opposition of internal and external sources: the use of existing vocabulary of standard language or dialects and creating new vocabulary using native word-building means (internal sources) as opposed to the use of borrowings (external sources). 2. The approaches of the Russian terminologists may be divided into two groups. One group (A. Superanskaja, N. Podolskaja, N. Vasiljeva, V. Leitchik) use the opposition of internal and external sources of terms as the main criterion for classification of ways and means of term formation. Another group (V. Danilenko, S. Grinev-Griniewicz) has a different starting point and base their classification on the type of means of term formation: semantic, morphological, syntactic and morphological-syntactic. 3. In the works on the English terminology (J. C. Sager, ISO 704:2009 (E)), several criteria are used in the classification of patterns of term formation: opposition of existing forms and borrowings as well as various means of term formation. However, they interpret differently the process of conversion and formation of neologisms and, therefore, the categories of term formation in their classifications do not coincide. The results of the analysis reveal that the works on Lithuanian, Russian and English terminology provide similar approaches to the analysis of term formation, however, their starting points might be different: based on etymological criterion or the type of term formation process (morphological, syntactic, semantic). The choice of principles of term classification depends on the prevailing terminology traditions and the language structure. Classification of terminology of one language might be unsuitable or partially suitable for classification of terminology of another language. Therefore, contrastive analysis of term formation of several languages requires development of a specific classification which would cover all term formation ways and means in the languages under investigation and serve as a basis for their comparison. REFERENCES EC 2006: Terminologijos vadovėlis Europos komisijos vertimo raštu generalinio direktorato lietuvių kalbos departamento vertėjams, Liuksemburgas: EC DGT LT. Gaivenis K. 2002: Lietuvių terminologija: teorijos ir tvarkybos metmenys, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Gaivenis K. 2014: Rinktiniai raštai, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. ISO 704:2009 (E) 2009: Terminology work — Principles and methods (3d ed.), ISO. Jackson H. & Zé Amvela E. 2012: Words, Meaning and Vocabulary: An Introduction to Modern English Lexicology. 2nd ed., London, New York: Continuum. Keinys St. 1980: Terminologijos abėcėlė, Vilnius: Mokslas. Keinys St. 2005a: Dabartinė lietuvių terminologija, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla. 7 1Terminologija | 2016 | 23 Keinys St. 2005b: Galūninė lietuviškų terminų daryba. – Dabartinė lietuvių terminologija, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 77-112. Keinys St. 2005c: Lietuviškų sudurtinių terminų daryba. – Dabartinė lietuvių terminologija, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 129-182. Keinys St. 2005d: Priesaginė lietuviškų terminų daryba. – Dabartinė lietuvių terminologija, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 21-76. Keinys St. 2005e: Priešdėlinė lietuviškų terminų daryba. – Dabartinė lietuvių terminologija, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 113-128. Keinys St. 2005f: Tarptautiniai elementai lietuvių terminologijoje. – Dabartinė lietuvių terminologija, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 193-201. Keinys St. 2005g: Terminologijos kūrimo šaltiniai. – Dabartinė lietuvių terminologija, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 231-233. Keinys St. 2012: Lietuvių terminologijos raida, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla. Plag I. 2003: Word-formation in English, Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. Sager J. C. 1990: A Practical Course in Terminology Processing, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pub. Co. Sager J. C. 1997: Term formation. – G. Budin & S. E. Wright (Eds.). Handbook of terminology management, Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 25-41. Sager J. C. 2004: Terminology in Special Languages. – W. Kesselheim, S. Skopeteas, J. Mugdan, G. E. Booij & C. Lehmann (Eds.). Morphologie: Ein Internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung [Morphology: An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation], Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 1924-1928. Šeškauskienė I. 2013: Ways with Words: Insights into the English Lexicon and Some Cross-Linguistic Aspects of Study, Vilnius: Vilnius University Publishing House. Umbrasas A. 2010: Lietuvių teisės terminija 1918-1940 metais: Pagrindinių kodeksų terminai, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Valeontis K., Mantzari E. 2006: The Linguistic Dimensions of Terminology: Principles and Methods of Term Formation. – 1st Athens International Conference on Translation and Interpretation Translation: Between Art and Social Science, 13 -14 October 2006, Athens, Greece, 1-20. Гринев-Гриневич С. В. 2008: Терминоведение, Москва: Академия. Даниленко В. П. 1977: Русская терминология: Опыт лингвистического описания, Москва: Наука. Лейчик В. М. 2009: Терминоведение: Предмет, методы, структура. 4th ed., Москва: Либроком. Суперанская А. В., Подольская Н. В., Васильева Н. В. 2005: Общая терминология: Терминологическая деятельность, Москва: УРСС Эдиториал. Суперанская А. В., Подольская Н. В., Васильева Н. В. 2012: Общая терминология. вопросы теории. 6th ed., Москва: Либроком. TERMINŲ KŪRIMO ANALIZĖ LIETUVIŲ, RUSŲ IR ANGLŲ TERMINOLOGIJOS DARBUOSE Straipsnyje analizuojamos ir gretinamos žymiausių lietuvių terminologų St. Keinio ir K. Gaivenio, rusų terminologų A. Superanskajos, N. Podolskajos, N. Vasiljevos, V. Leitchiko, V. Danilenko ir S. Grinev-Griniewicziaus, terminologo J. C. Sagerio, tyrinėjusio anglų kalbos terminiją, bei Tarptautinės standartizacijos organizacijos pateiktos terminų kūrimo būdų klasifikacijos. Atlikta terminologų darbų analizė leidžia daryti tokias išvadas: 1. Lietuvių terminologų (St. Keinio ir K. Gaivenio) darbuose pagrindinis terminų kūrimo būdų klasifikavimo kriterijus yra opozicija tarp vidinių ir išorinių šaltinių: terminai skirstomi į daromus, panaudojant savąją leksiką (terminologizuojant gatavus žodžius bei kuriant naujadarus, pasitelkus savosios kalbos žodžių darybos inventorių), ir į pasiskolinamus iš kitų kalbų. Pagal formaliąją sandarą terminai skirstomi į vientisinius (vienažodžius) ir sudėtinius (keliažodžius). 2. Rusų terminologai A. Superanskaja, N. Podolskaja, N. Vasiljeva, V. Leitchikas vidinių ir išorinių šaltinių priešpriešą taip pat laiko pagrindiniu terminų kūrimo būdų 7 2 Liudmila Mockienė Analysis of Term Formation in Lithuanian, Sigita Rackevičienė Russian and English Terminology Works klasifikavimo kriterijumi. Tuo tarpu kiti rusų terminologai V. Danilenko, S. GrinevGriniewiczius klasifikavimo pagrindu renkasi terminų darybos priemones, skirstydami jas į semantines, morfologines, sintaksines ir morfologines-sintaksines. 3. J. C. Sageris, kuris tyrinėjo anglų kalbos terminiją, bei tarptautinio standarto ISO 704 rengėjai, klasifikuodami terminų kūrimo būdus, sujungia keletą kriterijų: terminų šaltinius bei terminų darybos priemones. Tačiau jie skirtingai interpretuoja konversiją bei neologizmus, todėl terminų kūrimo modeliai jų klasifikacijose nesutampa. Analizės rezultatai rodo, kad terminologijos darbuose, skirtuose lietuvių, rusų ir anglų terminijai, laikomasi panašių kriterijų, klasifikuojant terminų kūrimo būdus: remiamasi vidinių ir išorinių šaltinių priešprieša bei terminų darybos priemonių tipologija. Tačiau terminologai dažnai renkasi skirtingus klasifikavimo išeities taškus, akcentuodami arba terminų kilmę, arba jų darybą. Neretai jie skirtingai interpretuoja ir tuos pačius terminų darybos procesus. Terminų klasifikavimo principų pasirinkimą lemia tiek vyraujančios terminų kūrimo tradicijos, tiek kalbos, kurios terminai klasifikuojami, struktūra. Vienos kalbos terminų kūrimo būdų klasifikacija gali visai netikti arba tik iš dalies tikti kitos kalbos terminų kūrimo būdų klasifikacijai. Todėl, atliekant gretinamąją kelių kalbų terminų analizę, reikia sudaryti tiriamoms kalboms tinkamą klasifikavimo sistemą, kuri apimtų visus tiriamų kalbų terminų kūrimo būdus ir sudarytų pagrindą jų sugretinimui. Gauta 2016-08-22 Liudmila Mockienė Mykolo Romerio universitetas Ateities g. 20, LT-08303 Vilnius E. paštas [email protected] Sigita Rackevičienė Mykolo Romerio universitetas Ateities g. 20, LT-08303 Vilnius E. paštas sig[email protected]