Ilona Mickienė, Birutė Briaukienė. Lietuvių terminologijos aspektai: metodinė mokomoji knyga

Ilona Mickienė, Birutė Briaukienė ASPECTS OF LITHUANIAN TERMINOLOGY: A METHODOLOGICAL TEXTBOOK [Electronic resource] Vilnius: Vilnius University, 2016. – 67 p. ISBN 978-609-459-710-7 JOLANTA GAIVENYTĖ-BUTLER Institute of the Lithuanian Language In 2016, the Kaunas Faculty of Humanities of Vilnius University published the electronic methodological textbook prepared by Ilona Mickienė and Birutė Briaukienė, Aspects of Lithuanian Terminology. The publication of the book was approved by the Council of the Kaunas Faculty of Humanities of Vilnius University, and it was reviewed by two reviewers. The publication is highly relevant. There are not many publications devoted to Lithuanian terminology, especially textbooks. Students probably have to rely mostly on Stasys Kein o’s 1980 Alphabet of Terminology and Kazimieras Gaivenis’s book Lithuanian Terminology: An Outline of Theory and Management (2002). Jūratė Lubienė’s lecture notes on terminology were available online; one can also find summaries of lectures on specific terminology topics prepared by Antanas Smetona and Egidijus Zikauskas, a brief terminology handbook for translators prepared in 2006 by the Lithuanian Language Department of the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Translation, and theoretical and practical terminology topics are discussed in the sections of textbooks for professional language— 240 Jolanta Gaivenytė-Butler | however, until now there had been no separate, comprehensive teaching resource devoted to Lithuanian terminology. The textbook Aspects of Lithuanian Terminology discusses the most important issues in terminology, beginning with theoretical aspects and then moving on to practical ones. The book consists of eleven chapters, which introduce the development of Lithuanian terminology and the history of the emergence of terminology as a scholarly and practical discipline; explain the basic concepts of terminology; and discuss sources of terms, their formation, requirements, shortcomings, and methods of terminology management. A list of the literature used and recommended is included at the end of the publication. The book’s preface begins with the following words by the authors: “Knowledge is great and eternal, while human life is short. Some branches of science quickly grow strong and make progress, while the development of others is long and sluggish. Terminology is a branch of applied science. Throughout the world, it takes shape slowly and with difficulty, as if not knowing what to attach itself to—linguistics, computer science, or some other branch of science” (p. 5). Beautifully put. Almost as beautifully as K. Gaivenis wrote in the article “A Few Thoughts on Terminology,” published in the journal Terminologijos: “They say that in the courtyard of the Sorbonne stands a sundial bearing the Latin inscription ‘Sicut umbra dies nostrae’ (‘Our days are like a shadow’). Knowledge truly is great and eternal, while human life is short. But not all knowledge is alike. Some branches of science, once they emerge, quickly grow strong and immediately make great progress, while the development of others is long and sluggish. Terminology is an applied branch of science. Throughout the world, it takes shape slowly and with difficulty, as if not knowing what it should attach itself to—linguistics, computer science, or some other branch of science” (Gaivenis 1998: 89). Let us assume that the authors simply forgot to add a reference. The first chapter of the publication is devoted to the development of Lithuanian terminology. The first thing that catches the eye when reading it is that the authors use two words interchangeably when discussing terminology—terminologija and terminija. In Lithuanian, the totality of terms is indeed referred to in two ways: two meanings of terminologijos are recorded in the Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian (DLKŽ 2015), the Dictionary of Linguistic Terms (KTŽ 1990), and the Dictionary of International Words (TŽŽ 2013). As early as 1925, in his study “The Theory of Terminology and Lithuanian Philosophical Terminology,” Stasys Šalkauskis drew attention to the two meanings of the word terminologija and proposed using two separate words. Terminija, according to S. Šalkauskis, should denote “the totality of technical terms of a particular science or art,” whereas terminologija is “the science or at least the theory of terminology” (Šalkauskis 1991: 10). Such a Terminologija | 2016 | 23 241 terminology and terminology are commonly distinguished in contemporary Lithuanian lexicological and terminological studies and in textbooks intended for general or professional language (cf. Gaivenis 2002; Jakaitienė 2010; Rutkienė 2015; Vladarskienė 2013; Bielinskienė et al. 2014). Distinguishing two meanings of the word terminology in general-language dictionaries, or using terminology in the sense of terminology in works not devoted to terminology, is probably not a problem, but such variation is distracting in a work devoted to terminology. It would not be surprising if students wondered whether Lithuanian terminology might be an especially old branch of science, since the authors, having written that “the beginnings of Lithuanian terminology date not from the first printed Lithuanian books, but from much earlier,” add on the same page that “the terminology of European languages had only begun to develop at the time when the first Lithuanian books were being written” (p. 6). It seems that the authors consider any words designating specialized or abstract concepts to be terms. Referring to the works of Martynas Mažvydas, Mikalojus Daukša, and Konstantinas Sirvydas, they write: “The authors of the first Lithuanian books <...> laid sound foundations for the further development of the standard language. Their work also left its mark on Lithuanian terminology. Although the work of Lithuanian terminologists at the time had neither an organized character nor clear principles and was determined by the sources being translated [sic], nevertheless, more than one of their terms still calls to mind the authors of those books” (p. 7). The importance of the works of M. Mažvydas, M. Daukša, and K. Sirvydas for the development of the Lithuanian language is beyond doubt, but it is doubtful whether they can be called terminologists. It would be appropriate here to recall S. Šalkauskis once again, who argued: “For a word expressing a concept to acquire the name of a term in our time, the concept expressed by it must <...> fall within the field of objects studied by some science. Thus, not every word expressing a concept is a scientific term, although every term is a word expressing a concept” (Šalkauskis 1991: 14). Later, in the third chapter, the authors explain how terminology differs from terminology (also mentioning S. Šalkauskis), but in the subsequent chapters they again use these two terms interchangeably. Perhaps it would have been appropriate to begin the book with the concepts of term, terminology, and terminological science, and then recount the history of the development of Lithuanian terminology and terminological science. The second chapter of the textbook is titled, almost in a Darwinian fashion, “Theories of the Origin of Terminology.” It does not discuss theories of origin, but attempts to survey the development of terminology as the science of terms. This chapter draws mostly on K. Gaivenis and briefly discusses the terminological theories of S. Šalkauskis, Eugen Wüster, Dmitrij Lotte, and Valerija Danilenko 242 Jolanta Gaivenytė-Butler | theories. The surnames of the authors whose works S. Šalkauskis drew on could be corrected: not Venderyes, but Vendryes; the medieval philosopher D. Scotus is usually called Jonas Dunsas Škotas in Lithuanian (Joannes Duns Scotus). In writing about the works of Russian scholars best known to terminologists of his generation, K. Gaivenis noted that the works of foreign terminologists did not reach Lithuanian libraries, and were therefore little known. Today, works by foreign terminologists are easy to find in the libraries of Lithuanian universities. It would have been possible to mention at least a few names. For some reason, the chapter ends with a critique of tendencies to nominalize and terminologize the language of science. A discussion of the characteristics of the language of science would probably have been more appropriate in the fifth chapter, “Terms—the Foundation of the Language of Science.” At the beginning of the chapter there is a reference to J. Gaivenytė’s short article about E. Wüster (p. 10), but it contains nothing of the kind. In fact, the authors drew on a subsection of K. Gaivenis’s book about the theories of terminology of E. Wüster and Helmut Felber (Gaivenis 2002: 110–111). After surveying the development of terminology and terminological science, the discussion turns to the explanation of the term. The third chapter, “The Term. The Relationship between Term and Word, Term and Concept,” attempts to define a great deal: it begins with terminology as a system, mentions the requirements for terms (these are discussed in chapter nine), defines the term, attempts to show the relationship between term and word, explains narrow and broad conceptions of the term, discusses quasi-terms and pseudo-terms, states what terminology and terminological science are, distinguishes two approaches to terminological science, explains what terminography is, discusses the concept of professionalisms, and states what relations link concepts and terms. In discussing the relationship between term and word, the authors become somewhat confused. The book states: “Word and term are related by a species relationship—the concept of ‘word’ is broader; terms are a certain kind of words, more precisely, a functional and semantic kind. However, the concept of ‘term’ does not fit within the boundaries of ‘word’, since a term is not necessarily a word. That is, certain combinations of words (or symbols) also have a defined meaning and domain of use in a language. Such word combinations are considered compound terms. Consequently, the concept of ‘term’ goes beyond the boundaries of ‘word’” (p. 12). If word and term are related by a species relationship (more precisely, a species–genus relationship), and the concept of ‘word’ is broader, can the concept of ‘term’ go beyond the boundaries of ‘word’? In discussing the relationship between word and term, the authors refer to K. Gaivenis’s book, but that book argues the opposite: “The concepts of ‘word’ and ‘term’ are not related by a genus–species relationship, because Terminologija | 2016 | 23 243 terms are not simply a certain class of words. Moreover, the concept of a “term” does not fit within the boundaries of “word” either, since a term may consist of either a single word or a fixed word combination” (Gaivenis 2002: 14). In fact, the passage was based on St. Keinys (Keinys 1980: 15–16); only a couple of sentences from K. Gaivenis’s book were added to his ideas that were not marked with a citation. Incidentally, Evalda Jakaitienė also does not consider the relationship between the concepts of “word” and “term” to be purely one of genus and species (Jakaitienė 2010: 182). It would be interesting to know which view the textbook’s authors would support. The statement that “the words terminija and terminologija have more than one meaning in the standard language” (p. 13) should be clarified (the word terminija is used in only one sense). The fourth chapter explains what a definition is and describes the shortcomings of definitions. In recent years, there has been a tendency to use definition to mean the specification of the distinguishing features of a concept, and definiens for its result. This term is used not only by terminologists (cf. Jakaitienė 2010; Rutkienė 2015). The third chapter of the textbook states that “a descriptive proposition defining a concept and helping to distinguish it from related concepts is called a definiens” (p. 16), and distinguishes between intensional (=intensional) and extensional (=extensional) definiens, but in the fourth chapter definiens are called definitions. The subsection “The Concept of Definition” begins as follows: “A definition is the disclosure of a concept’s content <...>. The statement that constitutes a term entry must explain what the concept is. Once concepts have been selected, their definitions can be identified and it can be checked whether the terms correspond to the concepts. However, this is not so simple.” In terminographic work, one cannot make use of the set of definitions of concepts from any one science, because: a) many concepts have no definitions; b) in scholarly literature, definitions are replaced by only approximate explanations; c) many definitions are outdated and illogical; d) many existing definitions do not include sufficient and necessary features that bring out the specificity of the concept being defined. Consequently, definitions and concepts must be continually reviewed, that is, outdated and unscientific ones must be discarded and new ones formulated” (p. 18). This opening is not very clear. What is selected, from where, and why? Where are these inadequate definiens found—in dictionaries, scholarly works, textbooks? Why can one not make use of a “set of definitions of concepts” in terminographic work? Those who do terminographic work are usually able to formulate and refine definiens (or terminologists help them do so). The subsection concludes: “A definition must not constrain scientific thought. Most often it is verbal, while, for example, mathematical formulas are 244 Jolanta Gaivenytė-Butler | merely auxiliary material. Thus, if we describe a physical phenomenon only mathematically, we do not, in essence, disclose the content of the concept. However, there are concepts whose definition cannot be formulated without mathematical formulas” (p. 19). How do definitions constrain scientific thought? Why are they usually verbal? Definiens are always verbal. Specialists can probably understand the essence of a concept from a formula as well. The following paragraph states: “If definitions require the use of polysemous terms, the sense in which the term is used must then be indicated” (p. 19). It is difficult to imagine how, in practice, the requirement to specify the sense of a polysemous term in a definiens is applied. The subsection “Principles and Shortcomings of Definition Formulation” discusses only shortcomings. The principles are listed in the subsection “The Concept of Definition.” This subsection states: “Defects in terms arise because the definition used in forming the term also had shortcomings. Every scientific concept must be precise” (p. 19). Can precision be demanded of a concept? The term naming the concept must be precise, while the definiens should accurately reflect the essential, distinguishing features of concepts. Moreover, defects in terms may arise for reasons other than shortcomings in definiens. The brief fifth chapter, “Terms—The Foundation of the Language of Science,” consists of two paragraphs. The first paragraph offers general reflections on the importance of terms for scientific progress and language development; the second discusses the regulation of Lithuanian terms and lists Lithuanian linguists who have defended dissertations in terminology. Incidentally, Aušra Rimkutė and Markas Paura are not mentioned. In 2016, Liudmila Mockienė also defended a dissertation in the field of terminology. Discussion of terminology research would probably have been more appropriate in the second chapter. The information, taken out of context, from K. Gaivenis’s book about the preparation of “10,000 standardized term dictionaries” (p. 22) is confusing. It appears to refer to term dictionaries published in Lithuania, whereas K. Gaivenis mentioned this figure in discussing E. Wüster and the influence of his work on the standardization of terminology internationally. In the sixth chapter, “Classification of Terms,” terms are classified in terms of form, content, and their mutual relationships. The following classification of single-word terms is presented: “1) primary (simple) words (akis); 2) derived words (derivatives) (akiniai); 3) compound words (compounds) (kreivaakis)” (p. 23) (but is kreivaakis a term?). This classification should be corrected, since compounds are also derivatives. Presumably, what was meant was simple words, derivatives, and compounds. The seventh chapter, “Sources of Terminology,” discusses three main sources: the vocabulary of one’s own language, word-formation devices, and those of other languages Terminologija | 2016 | 23 245 lexicon. The examples illustrating the relationship between international and Lithuanian terms are taken from K. Gaivenis’s book. It would have been possible to look for more representative cases. The claim that “alongside a Lithuanian word we have its international equivalent, but it is the passive member of that word pair” (p. 27) is illustrated by the example nuomaris – epilepsija. It is doubtful that nuomaris is used more frequently nowadays. In the Dictionary of Psychological Terms (PTŽ 1993) and the Dictionary of Medical Terms (MTŽ 1980) available on the Raštija.lt website, nuomaris is listed with a cross-reference to epilepsija. International terms are indeed the active members of the pairs nuovala – placenta and perdanga – diafragma, though one might question whether such pairs exist at all in contemporary terminology. The textbook distinguishes two kinds of international terms: “genuine international terms, which are used in the world’s scholarship in Latinized form and whose spelling is not changed in any language, nor are they transcribed using other alphabets,” and “non-Latin” terms borrowed directly from other languages or via intermediary languages (p. 27). It is unfortunate that the authors did not provide examples of such terms, since it is unclear which “Latinized” terms they mean. Is this classification accurate? According to K. Gaivenis, “the international words entering our terminology are mostly derived from ancient Greek and Latin. They are adapted according to the rules and conventions of our language’s phonetics, morphology, and spelling, and become standardized” (Gaivenis 2002: 58–59). Later, in discussing international terms, the authors state that “Lithuanian equivalents for international terms are currently being created very intensively,” as a result of which “the synonymy of international and native terms is increasing” (p. 27). The terms vaakumas (=vakuumas) and tuštuma are given as examples of such synonymy, but they are not synonyms. It is true that Lithuanian equivalents for international terms are being created, but the claim that this is happening “very intensively” is highly questionable. As early as 1996, K. Gaivenis and Angelė Kaulakienė drew attention in a paper presented at KTU to the opposite tendency—the internationalization of terminology and reluctance to seek Lithuanian equivalents (Gaivenis, Kaulakienė 2014: 232). It is doubtful that this tendency has disappeared. The review of the place of loanwords in terminology concludes with the sound observation: “The most important thing is that loanwords should not displace established Lithuanian terms from usage and that a proper balance between native (national) and foreign (international) terms be maintained in the terminology system” (pp. 30–31). The same point is made in the article Lietuvių kalbos enciklopedijos, “terminologija” (LKE 2008: 553), so a reference should be added (this encyclopedia article was also relied on without citation in the first chapter (pp. 7–8)). 246 Jolanta Gaivenytė-Butler | A substantial eighth chapter is devoted to word formation in terms. It makes up about one fifth of the entire book. The chapter’s introductory section is rather long-winded and somewhat disorganized, repeatedly discussing the same points. For example, the main methods of word formation are mentioned three times; twice it is stated that “word formation plays a huge role in terminology, since most one-word and multiword terms are derivatives” (once citing St. Keinys and once without a citation) (p. 32); and, citing K. Gaivenis, it is further emphasized that “derivatives make up the majority of one-word terms” (p. 33). In discussing the naming of specific concepts, the authors state that “in the language of science, more complex concepts, including specific concepts, need to be named. Such concepts are designated by one-word terms, but compound terms are formed from them, e.g., set – abstract set, open set, infinite set” (p. 33). What is being done here? Although no reference is given, it is clear that this idea has been inaccurately copied from Terminologijos abėcėlės (the examples come from there as well). St. Keinys wrote that specific concepts are often “designated by one-word terms, but nevertheless are most often expressed by multiword names” (Keinys 1980: 17). By the way, the mathematical terms are abstrakčioji aibė, atviroji aibė. Later in this section, one of the requirements for terms is recalled: “When creating a neologism, one must know that correctness is one of the most important requirements for terms. In the Republic’s standard, correctness is defined as conformity with the rules of accentuation, spelling, grammar, word formation, grammaticalization, and usage (LR standard, 2009) [sic]” (p. 33). A strange definition in an even stranger document. What is this “Republic’s standard”? Apparently, we will not learn more about this publication, since it is not included in the list of references. The first subsection, “One-word Terms,” which is divided rather extensively into smaller sections, discusses the formation of simple terms (derivatives formed with suffixes, endings, and prefixes, as well as compounds). Suffixal derivatives are examined in two smaller sections, on verb derivatives and noun derivatives; consequently, for example, names of bearers of noun-based qualities and names of places are discussed in two different places. Perhaps it would be more convenient to discuss them in one place. Examples should be chosen more carefully: the word tyrimas is given as an example of a bearer of a verbal quality, and gydymas as an example of an unintentional action. The claim that the suffix -tė, -(i)uotė “is used only in term formation” in contemporary Lithuanian (p. 36) is questionable. One cannot disagree with the claim that “compound terms make it easy to name homogeneous concepts systematically.” This is clearly illustrated by the examples provided (savidulka, vėjodulka). It is doubtful, however, whether the following claim is correct- Terminologija | 2016 | 23 247 claim: “In terms of meaning, a compound term is often more unified, more definite, and more specialized than its base word combination. Therefore, compound words are suitable for a more precise, richer, and more meaningful mode of expression” (p. 43). At the end of the section on compounds, it is explained which parts of speech can form compounds. The examples provided (dalgiakotis, rudauodegis (katinas), kažkas, dvidešimt, bukagalvis, silpnaširdis, proligė) have little to do with terminology. This subsection also contains other examples that are not very terminological (at least not in contemporary terminology): žabaras, skystimas, kartumynai, vočiukė, apysakaitė, rankytė, upokšnis, užkandinė, dainius, among others. The second subsection of the eighth chapter, “Terms—Word Combinations,” is devoted to multiword terms. It should be noted that the components of multiword terms are called komponentais at the beginning of the chapter and elementais at the end. Some examples of questionable correctness are given: iris žirklikes, minus stiklai, augalai-indikatoriai. The subsection briefly describes the syntactic relations that can link the components of multiword terms, but does not examine the structure of multiword terms or the number of their components. It would be useful for students to learn about the order of the components as well. The ninth chapter discusses the requirements for terms. The authors distinguish seven requirements, naming them with adjectives. It would not be unusual to write in the text that “a term must be precise,” but nouns would be more suitable as the names of requirements (and subsections), especially since the first subsection of this chapter begins with the statement “correctness is one of the most important linguistic requirements for terms” (p. 47). The standards mentioned in this subsection have designations that should be written accurately: the designation of the standard “Terminology principles and methods” (1115–90) should be LST 1115-90; this standard was prepared not on the basis of international standard 980: 704-87, but of ISO 704-87. Correctness, precision, systematicity, brevity, stylistic neutrality, and derivational convenience are described fairly thoroughly—each receives from a couple of paragraphs to almost three pages—whereas clarity is characterized in a single sentence. The authors should either have said more about this requirement or omitted it altogether. Clarity is defined as “the requirement that the internal form of a term clearly convey the concept” (p. 47). Clarity lacks clarity. What is the “internal form of a term”? In describing the precision of a term, the authors distinguish three groups of terms: terms that orient correctly, neutral terms, and terms that orient incorrectly. The description of neutral terms needs revision: “Neutral terms can be considered all those terms whose lexical meanings cannot be determined. Such ter- 248 Jolanta Gaivenytė-Butler | Terms can be both concepts and words from other languages” (p. 48). More representative examples of terminological inconsistency should be sought (are garvežys and šilumvežis, skridininis suvirinimas really inconsistent terms (is this term actually used?) and taškinis suvirinimas?). The explanation of consistency ends with this statement: “It is very difficult to prohibit the use of an established term. This must be done if the term is incorrect and contributes to the instability of concepts, which can lead to practical errors” (p. 49). Will students understand what “instability of concepts” is and how terms “contribute” to it? The illustrative examples in the subsection describing brevity should be reviewed. Quite a few are questionable: either they are unsuitable or are explained imprecisely. The “contracted compounds” metro and taksis (the invariable form taksi is customary in usage and is also given in DLKŽ 2015) are not compounds. The pair of terms akceleratoriaus valdymas droseline sklende and droselinis akceleratorius does not illustrate the transfer of a feature of one object to another. The term karštasis apdirbimas is hardly a “short form of the expanded phrase apdirbimas karštame būvyje or karštų ruošinių apdirbimas,” in which the element karštasis indicates a property of an object and “does not express properties related to a process” (p. 50). The definition of karštojo apdirbimo given in the Aiškinamajame elektrotechnikos terminų žodyne (AETŽ 2010) points to a property related to a process: “plastic deformation of metal at such a rate and temperature that hardening stresses do not arise.” The pair of terms tiesioginis rezonansinis greitintuvas su stovinčiomis bangomis and rezonansinis (=rezonansinis) greitintuvas does not illustrate the replacement of one feature with another. The longest and most smoothly written subsection is the one on stylistic neutrality. Apparently this is because most of its text is taken from the works of St. Keinys and K. Gaivenis. The reference to St. Keinys’s Terminologijos abėcėlę is correct and placed appropriately. Although the use of K. Gaivenis’s book is acknowledged in the middle of the subsection, no further references are provided; however, most of this subsection was not written by the authors of the textbook. It is K. Gaivenis’s article “Lietuviškų terminų vaizdingumo klausimu,” published in volume 29 of Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimų. The final subsection briefly describes practical convenience. A reference to K. Gaivenis’s book is included at the end of the subsection, but the quoted text should be placed in quotation marks. Chapter Ten, “Terminological Errors,” discusses polysemy, synonymy, “the contradiction or mismatch of a term with a concept,” and “the difficulty of pronouncing a term.” The naming of these phenomena should be clarified, and it should be considered whether all four of these “errors” are equally significant. It seems odd to compare such a complex and multifaceted phenomenon as terminological synonymy with the awkward pronunciation of a term— Terminologija | 2016 | 23 249 —inconvenient pronunciation of a term. Neither polysemy nor synonymy is judged in an unequivocally negative way; both phenomena are important to the development of scientific thought and terminology. This chapter also needed more precise formulations and more careful selection of examples. One of the main causes of polysemy is explained as follows: “terms are borrowed from other languages incorrectly and uncritically. A native word, or one that has come from another language and become more or less native (widespread in the language), for example, benzinas, does not coincide in meaning with the French word benzine, since many authors use this term to mean benzolą; in coke-chemistry terminology there is the term benzinė. Thus the root benzin- is assigned an entirely different meaning” (p. 54). Why should benzinas coincide with the French word? I have never encountered the term benzine; the substance found among the products of coal coking is called benzenu in Lithuanian. The Chemijos terminų aiškinamajame žodyne (CHTŽ 2003) treats benzolas as a non-recommended term and corrects it to benzeną. The root of these words is not benzin- but benz-. The subsection on synonymy states that “synonyms always pose a certain danger, because some authors begin to distinguish them incorrectly. For example, the following synonyms were used for a long time in physics terminology: dielektrinis jautrumas, dielektrinis įspūdingumas, dielektriko polarizacijos koeficientas” (p. 55) (the word dielektrinis is probably a typographical error). In the glossary included in A. Kaulakienė’s book Lietuvių fizikos terminijos raida (Kaulakienė 2009: 281), only one synonym for jautrumo is given: jautris. Neither in this book nor in other sources could I find the synonyms dielektrinis jautrumas, dielektrinis įspūdingumas ir dielektriko polarizacijos koeficientas. Chapter Eleven is devoted to terminology management. It covers broad topics—terminography, terminology standardization, and computer-assisted terminology management. The subsection “Terminography” consists of fourteen paragraphs; K. Gaivenis’s name appears after three of them, and Jonas Klimavičius’s after two. So what? There would be nothing wrong with this if the authors had begun at least some of these paragraphs with phrases such as Gaivenio nuomone, Klima-vičius pastebėjo or the like. You will not learn from this subsection what the authors think or know about Lithuanian terminography, because nearly everything written here consists of K. Gaivenis’s (Chapter III, Section I of the book Lietuvių terminologija: teorijos ir tvarkybos metmenys) and J. Klimavičius’s (the conclusions of the article “Lietuvių terminografija: praeities bruožai, dabarties sunkumai ir uždaviniai”) ideas. The last three paragraphs of the subsection have no references. Hope dawns that the authors have investigated trends in the publication of terminology dictionaries and established that “during the years of the Second Republic of Lithuania (from 1990), a real boom in terminography began—more than 200 dictionaries and glossaries were published” (p. 60). 250 Jolanta Gaivenytė-Butler | Unfortunately, this is simply an unreferenced conclusion from J. Klimavičius’s article, which he reached in 2003 (Klimavičius 2003: 29). Apart from this conclusion by J. Klimavičius, the chapter also mentions a fact (from K. Gaivenis’s book): “in the postwar years, more than 150 terminology dictionaries in various fields were prepared and published in Lithuania” (p. 59). What period does this refer to? According to the bibliographic index Lietuvių kalbos terminų žodynai (LKTŽ 2008), 150 dictionaries had been published by 1988, counting from 1945. If students wanted to find out how many Lithuanian terminology dictionaries have been published to date, they would not find the answer in this textbook; they would have to consult the aforementioned bibliographic index and the lists of terminology dictionaries published annually in the journal Terminologijos. By 2015, more than 600 Lithuanian terminology dictionaries had been published, about 440 of them during 1990–2015. Incidentally, it seems that the boom in terminography which began with independence is now subsiding somewhat. From 1990 to 2005, an average of 20 dictionaries and glossaries were prepared each year; from 2010 to 2015, the annual average was 12. Another statement in this subsection should be clarified: “terminology dictionaries are submitted for evaluation to the Terminology Subcommission of the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language, which has drawn up rules for evaluating terminology dictionaries. The rules were last reviewed, supplemented, and approved on June 3, 2004.” The Valstybinė is a commission, not a subcommission, and it approved a new version of the rules in 2015. This chapter says about terminology standardization only what K. Gaivenis said about it in the corresponding chapter of his book. The subsection “Terminology Standardization” begins with the statement that “terminology standardization means the preparation of terminology standards. <...> Several dozen terminology standards are prepared each year.” This statement should be clarified. The scope of terminology standardization is somewhat broader. Standardized terms are published not only in terminology standards. Terminology standards make up only a small part of all standards. Most standards issued by international and European standardization organizations that Lithuania adopts as national standards, as well as original Lithuanian standards developed in Lithuania, have terminology sections, which usually contain anywhere from a few to several dozen terms. Thus, terminology standardization should be understood not only as the preparation of terminology standards, but also as the publication of terms in the terminology sections of standards. If several dozen terminology standards were prepared in Lithuania each year, the Lithuanian terminology fund would have been considerably enriched. Unfortunately, not that many terminology standards are prepared. From 1990 to 2016, about 100 terminology standards were published in Lithuania. The subsection goes on to mention terminology— Terminologija | 2016 | 23 251 problems of terminology standardization: “The more terminology standards there are, the more difficult it is to prepare new ones and revise those already in existence. The problem also arises because terminology standards are usually prepared not by terminologists, but by specialists in other fields, who cannot know about or assess all language innovations. On the other hand, very few people use terminology standards because of their limited distribution and availability” (p. 60). Through paraphrasing, the standardization of terminology becomes burdened with dubious problems. It would be worth quoting the entire paragraph from K. Gaivenis’s book: “Terminologists have already noted that the more terminology standards are in force, the more difficult it becomes to prepare new ones and revise old ones (Griniovas 1993: 255). The terminology of some standards begins to contradict that of others. Moreover, terminology standards are usually prepared not by terminologists, but by specialists in other fields, who can neither keep up with nor assess language innovations. As a result, the expert review of draft terminology standards becomes much more difficult. In addition, very few people in Lithuania use terminology standards nowadays, because their distribution is restricted” (p. 82). The fact that an increase in the number of terminology standards makes it more difficult to prepare them was noted in 1993 by the Russian terminologist Sergei Griniov. At that time, terminology standardization in Lithuania had barely begun. Although the number of terminology standards has increased further since then, preparing such standards is now considerably easier than it was in 1993, because a database of standardized terms has been available at the Lithuanian Standards Board for about 20 years and can now be accessed freely online. The opening of the subsection “Computerized Terminology Management” is based on K. Gaivenis’s 2002 book and a 1999 article by Rūta Marcinkevičienė. Given how rapidly information technologies change, it would have been worthwhile to find out what new developments had emerged in the dozen or so years since those works were published. The authors of the teaching book state that “at present, the best-known and most modern terminology banks in the world are those of Belgium, Spain, Germany, France, Finland, Switzerland, etc.” (p. 61). That was probably true in 2002, but new terminology banks—both national and international—have certainly emerged in Europe. It would hardly be easy to determine which of them is the most modern or best known. It is very good that the importance of corpora for terminology management is mentioned, but the authors should have looked into the work done by their colleagues at Vytautas Magnus University and Vilnius University. Computerized terminology management is discussed further without reference to other publications (there are no citations). It is stated that “scientific terminology in Lithuania is being rapidly computerized” (pp. 61–62), and the account goes on— 252 Jolanta Gaivenytė-Butler —to present two terminology resources: the Lithuanian Terminology Database and the Terminology Bank of the Republic of Lithuania. We learn that the database “is already operational” and that it was developed by specialists at the Institute of Mathematics and Informatics, with the Institute of the Lithuanian Language’s Terminology Division serving as consultants (the next paragraph says it was the Terminology Centre) (p. 61). The database took quite a long time to develop—during that period, the Terminology Division became the Terminology Centre. The website of the Department of Informatics Methodology at the VU Institute of Mathematics and Informatics gives the dates 2004–2014 for the Lithuanian Terminology Database project. The database is no longer being updated. A substantial part of the dictionaries formerly included in it was incorporated into the freely accessible online Terminology Bank and the Raštija.lt website, launched in 2014, so its significance has diminished. Apparently, the authors do not use this terminology bank often, since otherwise they would hardly claim that “the database is convenient for users, since the Lithuanian Terminology Database is available to every internet user who has installed the database program on their computer, providing internet access to the terminology database” (p. 61). It is stated that the Terminology Bank of the Republic of Lithuania was launched in 2005, and we are informed that collections of terminology entries have already begun to be submitted to the Terminology Bank. Indeed, they began to be submitted and have been for eleven years, so it seems rather odd that the teaching book goes on to discuss the Terminology Bank in the future tense. For an account of the Terminology Bank written in the present tense, it would be worth reading, for example, Alvydas Umbrasas’s article published in the 2013 Terminologijos journal (see Umbrasas 2013). At the end of the teaching book there is a fairly substantial list of works consulted and recommended. Looking over the publications that the authors did not rely on but that were included in the list, apparently as recommendations, raises the question of why these particular works. Why, for example, the English-language standard ISO 1087-1:2000 Terminology work – Vocabulary – Part 1: Theory and application rather than its Lithuanian version, LST ISO 1087-1:2005 Terminologijos darbas. Aiškinamasis žodynas. 1 dalis. Teorija ir taikymas? The list includes quite a few articles from the Terminologijos journal; the latest is from its fourteenth issue (2007). The twenty-second issue came out in 2015, and since the fifteenth issue the journal has been available in PDF format on the website of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language. Over eight years, the Terminologijos journal published a number of interesting articles. Students might find, for example, Heribert Picht’s articles on terminology theory interesting. Why should they read Terminologinis darbas. Pagrindai ir metodai. Pagalbinė priemonė, sudaryta pagal D. Lotės ir TSRS Mokslų akademijos Mokslinės-techninės terminologijos komiteto darbus (1973)? As for Terminologija | 2016 | 23 253 terminology work and its methods, there are more recent publications. The teaching book cites works by V. Danilenko, Vladimir Lei chik, and S. Griniov. Why these authors? Why not Maria Teresa Cabré, Rita Temmerman, or Kyo Kageura? Incidentally, are the works of terminologists no longer published in twenty-first-century Russia? For some reason, I suspect these authors are mentioned only because K. Gaivenis relied on them (the authors of the teaching book relied considerably on his book). It is now customary to provide the place of publication and publisher for cited works. These details are not given in the bibliography entries for the works by the Russian terminologists mentioned (nor are they included in the bibliography of K. Gaivenis’s book). The works of V. Danilenko, V. Lei chik, and S. Griniov are undoubtedly interesting, but students—most of whom do not read Russian—should also be offered alternatives. Teaching books published by universities are probably held to lower standards than textbooks, let alone monographs. When reading a teaching book, one probably should not expect new insights, but one would like to see the authors’ personal perspective on the topics discussed. Unfortunately, the authors were not inclined to make their own or others’ views clear in this work. There are passages where the lack of originality becomes evident only when the teaching book is compared with the texts of other publications. Reading “Aspects of Lithuanian Terminology” inevitably raises a terminological question: how are the concepts “quotation,” “paraphrasing,” and “compilation” explained? The answer can be found in another methodological teaching book published in 2016 by Vilnius University’s Kaunas Faculty of Humanities—Mokslo darbų metodiniai nurodymai lituanistams (Baranauskienė, Šarkauskienė, Juzelėnienė 2016). It describes quite comprehensively and very clearly the requirements for academic works, what counts as a quotation, how quotations and paraphrased text should be marked with citations, how to cite a secondary source, what a bibliographic entry should look like, what the cases of failing to comply with citation requirements are called, and how student papers containing such cases are assessed. The authors of Lietuvių terminologijos aspektų cannot be unaware of these matters. Incidentally, one of them was a reviewer of Mokslo darbų metodiniai nurodymai lituanistams. Do the same requirements apply to lecturers and students alike? Quod licet Jovi, non licet bovi? In conclusion, one would like to write that “the publication fills a long-standing gap,” “the shortcomings of the teaching book are insignificant,” “students have received a good learning resource,” or something similar. Unfortunately, all one can do is express the hope that such descriptions will fit the book’s second edition. For now, the authors can be commended for the publication’s timeliness and for their determination to undertake the preparation of a teaching book devoted to terminology. 254 Jolanta Gaivenytė-Butler | LITERATŪRA AETŽ 2010: Aiškinamasis elektrotechnikos terminų žodynas: lietuvių k., vokiečių k., anglų k., prancūzų k., rusų k. Vyr. red. Stasys Žebrauskas, Kaunas: Technologija. Prieiga per internetą: http://terminai.vlkk.lt, [žiūrėta 2016-11-15]. Baranauskienė R., Šarkauskienė S., Juzelėnienė S. 2016: Mokslo darbų metodiniai nurodymai lituanistams: metodinė mokomoji knyga. Elektroninis išteklius, Kaunas: VU KHM, 79 p. Prieiga per internetą: http://www.knf.vu.lt/dokumentai/failai/katedru/lietuviu/MOKSLO_DARB%C5%B2_METODINIAI_NURODYMAI_LITUANISTAMS.pdf [žiūrėta 2016-12-08]. Bielinskienė A., Kazlauskienė A., Rimkutė E., Tamošiūnaitė A. 2014: Lietuvių bendrinė kalba: normos ir vartosena. Vadovėlis aukštųjų mokyklų studentams, Kaunas: VDU, Vilnius: Versus aureus, 416 p. CHTŽ 2003: Daukšas K. et al. Chemijos terminų aiškinamasis žodynas. 2-asis patais. ir papild. leid., Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Prieiga per internetą: http://terminai.vlkk.lt [žiūrėta 2016-12-05]. DLKŽ 2015: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas. 7-as patais. ir papild. leid.; elektroninis variantas, Vilnius: LKI. Prieiga per internetą: http://www.lkiis.lki.lt [žiūrėta 2016-11-15]. Gaivenis K. 1991: Lietuviškų terminų vaizdingumo klausimu. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 29, 26–31. Gaivenis K. 1994: Kalbiniai ir loginiai terminų reikalavimai. – Terminologija 3, 204–213. Gaivenis K. 1998: Keletas minčių apie terminologiją. – Terminologija 5, 89–92. Gaivenis K. 2002: Lietuvių terminologija: teorijos ir tvarkybos metmenys, Vilnius: LKI 1-kla, 148 p. Gaivenis K., Kaulakienė A. 2014: Ekstralingvistiniai terminų norminimo principai. – Kazimieras Gaivenis. Rinktiniai raštai, Vilnius: LKI, 229–235. Jakaitienė E. 2010: Leksikologija. Studijų knyga. Antras pakartotinis leidimas, Vilnius: VU 1-kla, 351 p. Kaulakienė A. 2009: Lietuvių fizikos terminijos raida, Vilnius: Technika, 439 p. Keinys St. 1980: Terminologijos abėcėlė, Vilnius: Mokslas, 116 p. Klimavičius J. 2003: Lietuvių terminografija: praeities bruožai, dabarties sunkumai ir uždaviniai. – Terminologija 10, 9–32. KTŽ 1990: Gaivenis K., Keinys St. Kalbotyros terminų žodynas, Kaunas: Šviesa, 278 p. LKE 2008: Lietuvių kalbos enciklopedija, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos centras, 634 p. LKTŽ 2008: Gaivenytė-Butler J., Keinys St., Noreikaitė A. Lietuvių kalbos terminų žodynai. Anotuota 1900–2005 bibliografijos rodyklė, Vilnius: LKI, 260 p. MTŽ 1980: Astrauskas V. et al. Medicinos terminų žodynas, Vilnius: Mokslas. Prieiga per internetą: https://www.raštija.lt [žiūrėta 2016-11-15]. PTŽ 1993: Psichologijos terminų žodynas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Prieiga per internetą: https://www.raštija.lt [žiūrėta 2016-11-15]. Rutkienė L. 2015: Technologijų specialistų profesinė kalba: sistema ir vartosena. Vadovėlis, Vilnius: Technika, 160 p. Šalkauskis S. 1991: Raštai 2, Vilnius: Mintis, 351 p. TŽŽ 2013: Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas, Vilnius: Alma littera, 896 p. Umbrasas A. 2013: Lietuvos Respublikos terminų bankas: 10 metų po įstatymo priėmimo. – Terminologija 20, 96–122. Vladarskienė R. 2013: Kūrybinių industrijų specialybės kalbos kultūra. Vadovėlis, Vilnius: Technika, 127 p. Gauta 2016-12-19 Jolanta Gaivenytė-Butler Lietuvių kalbos institutas P. Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius E. paštas [email protected] Terminologija | 2016 | 23 255