С. Д. Шелов. Термин. Терминологичность. Терминологические определения

S. D. Shelov. TERM. TERMINOLOGICALITY. TERMINOLOGICAL DEFINITIONS1 Faculty of Philology, St. Petersburg State University St. Petersburg, 2003, 280 pp. Sergei Shelov, a member of the Russian Committee for the Study of Scientific Terminology, has long been well known to terminology specialists. Renewed with fresh vigor, Russian terminology draws on foreign scholarly experience without trampling on the principles of its own founders of terminology. Such ideas are also evident in S. Shelov’s latest monograph Term. Terminologicality. Terminological Definitions. As stated in the book’s Introduction, this philological study is a substantially revised version of a monograph published in 1998, supplemented with two chapters. In this work, the author presents a new approach to the term and terminologicality. New answers are offered to important questions: what a term is; what a term definition is; what types and requirements there are for term definitions; and what conceptual structure of terms is recorded in definitions. All terminologists would agree with S. Shelov’s view that terms constitute the most interesting and fairly extensive part of the vocabulary of modern languages. The linguistic problems associated with the term and its history are presented in the work of researchers such as A. Chajutin, V. Danilenko, V. Leichik, V. Nikiforov, A. Superanskaya, and others. Theoretical questions are inevitably linked to the organization and standardization of terminology (D. Lotte, I. Volkova). There are works in which the term, as a unit of scientific theory, is studied from the perspectives of the sociology of science or philosophy (E. Mamchur, E. Mulchenko, V. Nalimov). P. Achinstein and V. Karpovich take a logical approach. In linguistic literature, the definition of the concept of term varies enormously. However, the principal requirements for terms, as special words and word combinations, are established in the terminologies of many countries and are identified as follows: precision of a term’s conceptual semantics, univocity, stylistic neutrality and avoidance of expressiveness, nominative character, and systematicity. Among the most important requirements for terms in Lithuanian terminology theory are correctness (Gaivenis 2002: 36) and univocity (Keinys 1980: 28). Linguistic literature widely discusses the systematicity of terms. A large proportion of researchers recognize it as a characteristic of the term 1 Sergei Shelov. Term. Terminologicality. Definitions of Terms, St. Petersburg: Faculty of Philology, St. Petersburg State University, 2003, 280 pp. 160 (A. Chajutin, B. Gorodetsky, V. Raskin, et al.). However, according to S. Shelov, specific manifestations of systematicity are difficult to regard as reliably established. He draws a rather categorical conclusion concerning the first four characteristics of terms (univocity, precision, absence of affect and expressiveness, and nominative character): allegedly, these cannot be regarded as features by which terms are characterized as special words and distinguished from the general vocabulary (p. 22). Systematicity is emphasized as the principal characteristic of a term, shaping a word or word combination specifically as a term. B. Gorodetsky and V. Raskin express more categorical views: a term taken in isolation is a fiction. It exists only within a system of terms. Other authors emphasize functional systematicity (R. Budagov); according to still others, a system of terms is a set in which terms are interconnected at the conceptual, lexical-semantic, word-formation, and grammatical levels, and which is linked to a particular field of science, problem, topic, school, and so forth (F. Berezin, B. Golovin). S. Shelov first and foremost emphasizes the connection between a term and a concept, and the precision of its conceptual semantics. According to S. Shelov, the fundamental feature of a term is its ability to express a concept. The key question is how to distinguish a specialized concept from a non-specialized one. The words earth, ceiling, father also express concepts, so how do they differ from terms? According to the author, this distinction is demonstrated by a definition that meets the requirements of logic and linguistics. S. Shelov discusses the latter in a separate chapter (IV). Drawing on various views, S. Shelov presents a twofold approach to word meaning—lexicological and terminological. In the latter case, the meaning of a term is its concept. In light of the linguistic requirements for terms, the author distinguishes two closely related characteristics: a term’s univocity and its semantic, conceptual rigor, or precision. The categories precision and imprecision are contrasted. The question of precision extends beyond the scope of terminology. In mathematics, precision is compulsory, since there can be no “almost triangle” or similar designations. D. Lotte often discusses imprecision in terms—the situation in which a term misleadingly points to one object or phenomenon or another. The author of the monograph provides apt examples of precision and imprecision in the semantic content of terms: child, adolescent, young person, middle-aged person, elderly person, very old person; short stature, below-average height, average height, tall stature. There is no consensus on whether terms can or cannot have an affective dimension. S. Shelov presents A. Reformatsky’s view that terms in the non-terminological sphere (for example, in texts of literary style)—that is, terms that have undergone semantic transfer or acquired stylistic connotation—must be distinguished. 161 Opinions also differ regarding the nominal character of a term. G. Vinokuras and A. Reformatskis recognize only noun terms, whereas V. Danilenko is inclined to admit into terminology not only adjectives but also adverbs, as well as verbs. S. Shelov agrees that a term need not necessarily be a noun. This topic is not examined in greater detail; for the material under analysis, the author selects only noun terms or terms whose main component is a noun. The next chapter is Definitions of Terms: Types and Essence. S. Shelov is right to quote R. Descartes’s words: “Define the meanings of words, and you will free the world from half of its errors.” For some researchers, the presence of a definition is a necessary criterion for recognizing a term. In his 1972 article More Attention to Terminology, J. Kruopas wrote: “Our task now is to move from the inventorying of terms to the compilation of term systems, to term definitions, in preparing comprehensive, systematic explanatory dictionaries of terms” (Kruopas 1998: 528). The study of the content of a term as fixed by its definition becomes central to the investigation of all fundamental questions in the theory of terminology—term semantics, the structure of terminological concepts, the system of terms, term motivation, and so on (p. 32). A definition is not the only way to fix the meaning of a special lexical unit. Meaning can also be explained descriptively, by characterization, comparison, and so forth. The advantage of a definition, however, is that it meets the requirements of logic and linguistics. S. Shelov fully agrees with the view that, in an explanatory dictionary of terms, it is sufficient to record the totality of an object’s features that allows it to be distinguished from other objects; the remaining features are encyclopedic knowledge about that object. The task of a definition is neither to confirm nor to describe, but only to establish and define an object and distinguish it from others (p. 33). The author then turns to the typology of term definitions. The function and structure of definitions, as well as their classification, are introduced. In addition to logical issues, definitions have linguistic characteristics (morphology, syntax, word formation, semantics) and require appropriate lexicographic techniques. S. Shelov’s book follows the nomenclature of definitions used in logic. 1. Classificatory definitions (родовидовые или классифицирующие определения, p. 37). A definition distinguishes a genus concept and its differentiating feature, which makes it possible to delimit the corresponding species concept and establish it as the meaning of the term being defined. Definitions of this type, whose history begins with Plato and Aristotle, are found in all explanatory dictionaries of terms. Classificatory definitions are divided into partitive (the level of classification of the genus concept is not specified) and totative (they form a concept from species or partitive representatives according to one feature or another). 162 2. Enumerative definitions (перечислительные определения, p. 45). The name itself indicates that, in this case, the conceptual content of a term is fixed by listing the elements that represent it. For example, the principal parts of a sentence are “subject and predicate.” 3. Contextual definitions (контекстуальные определения, p. 51) are of a completely different kind. They are characterized specifically as an exact enumeration of all contexts that indicate the meaning of the term being defined, for example: Stylistics studies those linguistic forms that are described by grammar and lexicography. The boundaries of the text of such a definition—its beginning and end—are highly determinate: the longer the context required to establish the identity of the conceptual content of the relevant unit being defined, the more its degree of terminologicality needs to be brought out. That is why the precise boundaries and length of a contextual definition are so important. According to S. Shelov, non-axiomatic contextual definitions are found in quotation-type dictionaries, such as the Prague School linguist J. Vachek’s Лингвистический словарь Пражской школы (Prahos mokyklos kalbotyros žodynas, 1964), E. Hampo Словарь американской лингвистической терминологии (Amerikiečių kalbotyros terminų žodynas, 1964), and others. 4. Operational definitions (операциональные определения, p. 62). Definitions of this type differ from those mentioned above in that they also implement certain non-linguistic procedures. Operational definitions are always associated with a particular imperative addressed to a person who reads the definition in order to create or construct an object—do it this way, observe it this way! They reflect operational activity, which is why such definitions are characteristic of the physical and mathematical sciences. For example, acid–base indicator—“an organic compound that changes color within a certain pH range” (ChŽ 1997). 5. Monomorphic and polymorphic definitions (мономорфные и полиморфные определения, p. 67). This is a summarizing subsection in which definitions of all types are divided into two groups. Monomorphic definitions are characterized by a strictly delimited content of the term being defined, with no intermediate transitions and no gradation of characteristic features, qualities, or relations. Definitions of this type do not admit of objects described as “almost,” “more or less,” and so on. For example: one-member sentence—“a simple sentence containing only one principal part of the sentence” (KTŽ 1990). Polymorphic definitions, by contrast, allow a freer interpretation of the semantics of a concept. For example: association—“connections between mental processes, in which the emergence of one image, concept, idea, or emotion gives rise to other similar, contiguous, and contrasting images, concepts, and so on” (PT 1993). A regular way of expressing polymorphism is through phrases such as “and so on” and “and the like”—such definitions can easily 163 to interpret. They are insufficiently precise and therefore, like synonymy and polysemy, are not recommended in normative terminography. However, the phenomenon of polymorphism does not always play a negative role (p. 85); it is impossible to exclude such terms from the terminological system. Chapter II – Term definitions and the conceptual structure of terminology: an analysis of the classificatory hierarchy of concepts. New classes of definitions are introduced, called general definitions (p. 128), which lack a specific feature, with the entire definition consisting of a generic component, and non-specific definitions, which do not record the specific difference closest to the concept being defined (p. 131). Only then is the final classification of term definitions (six types) presented. Chapter III – Definition and the motivation of terms. As early as the 1930s, D. Lotte wrote that the meaning of a term, as fixed in its definition, must be consistent with the term’s linguistic structure. V. Danilenko stresses the importance of examining the linguistic structure of a term and its definition as a whole, paying attention to their grammatical, derivational, and other forms of coherence. This work seeks, synchronically, to substantiate the relationship between a term’s structure and the expression that defines it, and also to clarify under what conditions this relationship is merely optional and under what conditions it is necessary. Chapter IV – The logical and linguistic character of term definition. Degree of terminologicality. In this chapter, the author analyses the feasibility of meeting logical and linguistic requirements in terminography. The greatest attention is given to the dictionaries in which these requirements should be met first and foremost—normative term dictionaries. Seven logical requirements for term definitions are listed: 1) the definition must be proportionate (соразмерность)—the scope of the definiendum and the definiens must be equal; 2) the nearest genus and specific difference must be used in the definition (per genus proximum et differenciam specificam); 3) the specific difference must be specific; 4) a vicious circle is impermissible in a system of definitions (circulus vitiosus); 5) logically contradictory definitions are impermissible; 6) definitions must be clear and precise; 7) negative definitions are impermissible. Of all the rules, the sixth requirement is the most general: clarity and precision throughout the system. The familiar principles of terminology are then recalled: 1) all lexical units used in a definition must be unambiguous; 2) linguistic consistency, that is, parts of meaning must be expressed by uniform linguistic constructions. In the concluding remarks, S. Šelov also looks to the future: it is hoped that terminology will expand its connections not only with traditional areas of research but also with the newest directions in language studies—with hermeneutics, cognitive linguistics, computational linguistics, and others. 164 The book’s appendix presents a characterization of term definitions and an analysis of the classificatory hierarchy of concepts. It includes a list of terms, each term and the wording of its definition, the wording of the generic component, the definition type, and also an important section of notes concerning the analysis procedure and inaccuracies in the system of definitions. S. Šelov is a representative of the semasiological approach to terminology. As the bibliography shows (with the largest number of entries—eighteen—being articles by the professor), S. Šelov himself has written extensively about term definitions from logical and linguistic perspectives. Until now, we have relied on the works of T. Kandelaki, D. Lotte, A. Superanskaya, and other prominent Russian scholars; now we will also be able to learn from Professor S. Šelov’s handbook on terminology. The relevance of defining terms in Lithuanian terminology is a long-standing issue, but one that has been little addressed. LITERATŪRA ChŽ 1997: Chemijos terminų aiškinamasis žodynas, Vilnius. Gaivenis K. 2002: Lietuvių terminologija: teorijos ir tvarkybos metmenys, Vilnius. Keinys St. 1980: Terminologijos abėcėlė, Vilnius. Kruopas J. 1998: Rinktiniai raštai, Vilnius. KTŽ 1990: Gaivenis K., Keinys St. Kalbotyros terminų žodynas, Kaunas. PT 1993: Pedagogikos terminai, Kaunas. Solvita LABANAUSKIENĖ Gauta 2005-11-02 Lietuvių kalbos institutas P. Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius E. paštas [email protected] 165