Ar įteisinsime terminą „raktažodis“?

SHALL WE LEGITIMIZE THE TERM keyword? Define the meaning of words and you will save people from half their errors R. Descartes Over the past decade, Lithuanian vocabulary has changed considerably, as if a blight had lifted. Rapid changes in social life, the growing flow of information, and the attendant need to name new realities inevitably affect the lexicon. This is a perfectly natural phenomenon. But when new units spring up like mushrooms after rain, even learned people can no longer tell whether they belong in Lithuanian or are foreign intrusions. And when the same concept acquires five or six names in the language of science, that is no good either. This article discusses words that have begun to be used in the language of science relatively recently. The requirement to provide an English abstract (abstract) with key words listed in it apparently gave the impetus for a new concept to appear in Lithuanian-language abstracts as well. Since spelling varies in English itself (both key words and keywords), Lithuanian was immediately “enriched” with two units: some use the phrase rak­tiniui žodžiai, others the compound raktažodžiai. Although they are not terms belonging to any single scientific discipline, they can be considered terms because they name concepts as members of a particular system. Their terminological value, however, is open to question. Here we encounter the first obstacle: one of the defining characteristics of a term is a precisely defined meaning (see Gaivenis 2002: 13), but it is not very clear from usage how broad a concept is expressed by rak­tiniu žodžiu or its competitor raktažodžiu. As noted, raktinis žodis (raktažodis) has essentially become a feature of a particular type of scholarly discourse—the abstract. A name for words placed in a special position was needed primarily to make it easier to use information-system databases. The established tradition of listing key words in abstracts of articles in English-language publications first prompted us to examine how the English understand this concept. Admittedly, not all English explanatory dictionaries include key word among words containing the element key ‘key’ (see Cambridge Dictionary 1995); more often, other collocations are listed, such as key-stone, key-man, and so on. Some dictionaries do include key-word. The Illustrated Oxford Dictionary gives the following meanings for key word: “cipher key”; “a very important word”; “an information word used— 157 mas informacijos paieškos sistemoje dokumento turiniui nustatyti“ (Kindersley 2001). Pastarosios aiškinamuosiuose žodynuose teikiamos reikšmės, be abejo, netruko atsirasti ir anglų–lietuvių kalbų žodynuose. Viename iš jų tarp sudurtinių daiktavardžių, turinčių dėmenį key, taip pat yra mums rūpimas key-word; jo reikšmės: „šifro ir pan. raktas“; spec. „bazinis / reikšminis žodis“ (Piesarskas 2002). Atkreiptinas dėmesys, kad tai specialios paskirties žodis, – tuo pabrėžiama ne tik jo, kaip termino, specifika, bet ir vartojimo apibrėžtumas. Lietuviškame Aiškinamajame kompiuterijos žodyne taip pat jau randame kalbamąjį žodį – juo remiantis, aiškinamas terminas laisvoji paieška: „dokumentų paieška pagal raktažodžius arba deskriptorius“ (Paulauskas, Jasinēvičius 1995: 137). Taigi, kaip matome, ir vertėjai, ir kompiuterijos specialistai dar pateikia ir kalbamojo termino variantų – rinktis: ar vadinti informaciniu žodžiu, ar reikšminiu, ar baziniu žodžiu, o gal deskriptoriumi? Kuo toliau į mišką, tuo daugiau medžių, o aiškumo jokio. It is clear only that raktažodis did not arise within the Lithuanian language itself—it was coined (more precisely, translated) by following the example of another language. Such a process can be called linguistic induction. In general, translation, according to J. Klimavičius, is “a broad and complex interlinguistic and intralinguistic phenomenon” (2002: 137). In today’s age of globalization it is, of course, inevitable: new concepts from other peoples’ cultures or sciences are often borrowed together with the words of those languages rather than named by original neologisms. The terminologist S. Keinys recalls the exemplary practice of eighteenth-century translators: they did not translate terms from other languages blindly, but sought to make use of Lithuanian word-formation resources, drawing on the Lithuanian language itself (Keinys 2003: 58). It is likely that raktažodis arose precisely under the influence of English. A word of analogous structure is possible in German as well (German Schlüsselindustrie, Schlüsselperson; Schlüsselwort¹). In Russian, the word ключ, as in the languages mentioned, has the meaning ‘main’, ‘principal’ (see Lemchenas, Macaitis 2000), so the semantic fit of the words ключевое слово is beyond doubt. 1 Incidentally, Schlüsselwort, when included—which not all dictionaries do—is usually translated as code word, cipher key, while the meaning ‘most important, principal’ is given only as a meaning of the word Schlüssel (see Большой словарь 1980). 158 In English, the first element key, as most dictionaries indicate, has about 13 meanings: it is first said to denote certain instruments; moreover, English key also means ‘a way of understanding something’ and ‘the basis of a policy, a fundamental principle’, and can also have the adjectival meaning ‘principal, most important’. Thus, semantically, key is entirely compatible with note ‘principal tone, leitmotif’, key-stone ‘cornerstone’, key-speech2 ‘the principal address, a speech that sets the tone for a meeting’, key man ‘a person holding a leading position’, and so on. In Lithuanian, the word raktas also has various meanings; some correspond to meanings of the English word key. However, none of the dictionaries, not even the comprehensive Lietuvių kalbos žodynas, gives the adjectival meaning ‘principal, most important’ (in other words, it is absent from the system of meanings). Admittedly, as in English dictionaries, a figurative meaning is given: ‘a way to understand or explain something’ (e.g., Rado raktą, atskleidžiantį istorijos mįsles). Yet we do not use our raktažodį in this meaning at all; that is, it carries neither the sense of ‘code’ nor of ‘a means of unlocking something’. In tracing how the word under discussion came to be used in Lithuanian, attention should be paid to its purpose. It is no coincidence that key word was included in English dictionaries relatively recently as well. As noted, the latest dictionaries explain it as “an information word used in an information retrieval system to identify the content of a document.” It is primarily an equivalent in Lithuanian for the unit used in this sense that we need to consider. Perhaps we could call what has been described atraminiais žodžiais (‘supporting words’), or perhaps, as B. Piesarskas’s dictionary explains it, informaciniu žodžiu (‘information word’)—better still, informatyviuoju žodžiu (‘informative word’). Of course, it is always especially important to define the scope of the concepts expressed by terms. Judging by examples of rak­tinio žodžio (or raktažodžio) in scholarly article abstracts, this word, which aspires to term status, is used in Lithuanian with a very imprecise meaning. If these were understood as the principal words of an article, we might also suggest an equivalent close in metaphorical character to the English key word but reflecting a Lithuanian way of thinking: kertiniai žodžiai (‘cornerstone words’; cf. cornerstone postulates and corner- 2 There may also be key-terms. This unit is used in the title of a book that appeared in our libraries recently (see Key Terms 2001). 159 stones). To those who object and argue that the term should be nominative rather than expressive, one could suggest the alternatives most important terms or essential words / key words (cf. Zajankauskas 2003: 57). A comparison of abstracts in which words are placed in a special, prominent position shows that authors also use it with a different meaning—perhaps most often to mean a nominative word mentioned in the article, or something similar. For example: keywords: sexuality, understanding of love, adolescent; keywords: education, upbringing, teaching, pedagogy; key words: economic theory, rationalism and empiricism, hypothesis, testing of theory, scientific method; semantic words: participatory research, social innovation, rural community, social exclusion; “semantic words: career, career guidance, career guidance policy; words from a frequency word list, semantic words revealing the content of the text under study (key-words) make it possible to investigate…; “at the beginning, a 300–400-character abstract is provided (4–5 lines and 3–5 semantic words (keywords)3. Of course, the content packed into the shell of the term under discussion is very important, but in any case, both the phrase key words and the compound keyword are formed on the basis of semantic resources not belonging to Lithuanian, so their terminological value is questionable. After all, one of the most important linguistic requirements for terms is correctness (Gaivenis 2002: 36), and keyword, as noted, is a calque (a hidden borrowing) formed according to the semantic model of another language. Lithuanian has compounds that formally match the structure of the unit key word (name-word, magic-word, crossword, etc.), but their components are related by a different semantic relationship. It is true that terminology recognizes that words from general vocabulary can acquire a special meaning when they become terms—their semantics can change—but one should not try to transfer the semantic system of one language artificially into another (see Keinys 2003: 58). Derivational calques first appear in translated scholarly literature and translated terminology dictionaries, and later some of them spread and come to be used in everyday speech as well (see Kaulakienė 1974: 32). It seems that this may also happen with keyword. If we admit keyword (or key word) into our language, how will we prevent key poems, key concepts, key decisions 3 Examples are taken from the Vytautas Magnus University Corpus (see Tekstynas). 160 ments, key qualifications, key abilities, key expression of mindset, even a key day and key places. These are not phrases invented by the author—the Vytautas Magnus University Corpus shows that many have already appeared in recent years, and we hear some of them from respected speakers talking on television or radio. Soon, we will probably hear them from other people too. So it is high time to put the terminological disorder in abstracts in order, so that it does not spread to language in general. In addition to the units mentioned, some scholarly publications also use others in abstracts: significant word, semantic word, and sometimes key words. Of these, probably only the latter is worth considering, since both the term semantic words and significant words would be logically flawed—do other words used in scholarly language not have meaning (significance), such that only some of them are considered significant (semantic)? Having considered the terms keywords, key words, semantic words, significant words, key words used in the abstract section of scholarly articles, one may conclude that only key words is semantically possible and captures the essence (it emphasizes the importance and universality of the words in question). Giving preference to Lithuanian terms, we could also choose from the following units: reference words, essential words, most important words. Or might basic words or informative words be more acceptable as terms and better suited to their purpose, especially in the metalanguage of computing? One thing is clear: those words do not outwardly resemble a key (cf. locksmith, primrose), nor is a text unlocked by means of them (cf. the phrase cipher key), so the metaphorical term keyword is unsuitable. The function of the words in question is different, so while they have not yet become established, now is the time for terminologists to select the most suitable option and popularize it as quickly as possible in scholarly language. LITERATŪRA Большой словарь 1980: Большой немецко-русский словарь / под. ред. О. И. Москальской, Москва. Cambridge Dictionary 1995: Cambridge International Dictionary of English, Cambridge. Gaivenis K. 2002: Lietuvių terminologija: teorijos ir tvarkybos metmenys, Vilnius. Kaulakienė A. 1974: Darbybiniai vertiniai tiksliųjų mokslų terminijoje. – Kalbos kultūra 27, 30–33. 161 Keinys S. 2003: Tautinis terminologijos savitumas. – Žmogus ir žodis: Didaktinė lingvistika 5, 57–63. Key Terms 2001: Key Terms in Language and Culture /A. Duranti. Kindersley D. 2001: Oxford Illustrated Dictionary, Oxford. Klimavičius J. 2002: Kazimieras Gaivenis. Lietuvių terminologija: Teorijos ir tvarkybos metmenys [rec.]. – Terminologija 9, 129–148. Lemchenas Ch., Macaitis J. 2000: Rusų–lietuvių kalbų žodynas, Vilnius. Paulauskas K. V., Jasinevičius R. 1995: Aiškinamasis kompiuterijos žodynas, Kaunas. Piesarskas B. 2002: Didysis anglų–lietuvių kalbų žodynas, Vilnius. Tekstynas – http://donelaitis.vdu.lt/tekstynas. Zajankauskas S. 2003: Apie terminų tvarkybos skubą. – Terminologija III tūkstantmečio pradžioje: Tarptautinės mokslinės konferencijos pranešimų tezės, Vilnius, 55–58. Grazina AKELAITIENĖ Gauta 2003-11-25 Vilniaus pedagoginis universitetas T. Ševčenkos g. 31, LT-2009 Vilnius E. paštas [email protected] 162