REVIEWS, SURVEYS

Kazimieras Gaivenis, LITHUANIAN TERMINOLOGY: OUTLINES OF THEORY AND ORDERING Vilnius: LKI Publishing House, 2002, 148 pp.

There are various kinds of terminologists. Jonas Jablonskis, who coined several hundred terms and, at the very beginning of his work, most succinctly expressed the principles of his neologism-making (“They forge them just as people forge them,” Jablonskis 1935: 42), but wrote no theory of terminology, is rarely called a terminologist; even in the book under review, only in the Preface is it said that the foundations of terminology were laid “in Lithuania by S. Šalkauskis (theoretical) and J. Jablonskis (practical)” (9); Jablonskis’s name is also mentioned in connection with standardization (89, 91, 103). On many occasions, when the terminological, and especially terminographical, work of a linguist, botanist, or physicist is mentioned, somehow the title of terminologist seems to elude them... More than one linguist who worked as a full-time terminologist when younger, then moved into other fields and made fruitful contributions there, can point to some article on terminology, or to a dictionary preface bearing their name as a consultant (with or without thanks). Kazimieras Gaivenis has been a one-hundred-percent terminologist since 1959, both practitioner and theoretician. He began to chew the tough bread of terminology in the Terminology Commission of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language, headed by Jonas Kruopas; for quite a long time he was, in fact, the sole member of that commission. He later headed the Terminology Group of the Dictionary Department, again under Kruopas’s fatherly care; finally, after a brief interval, he took the helm of the Terminology Department and was also its Terminology editor-in-chief. After a decade of intensive work, having defended his doctoral dissertation (the specialist examiners judged him very well prepared theoretically), he continued to delve into terminology theory while meticulously carrying out the exhausting practical work of creating terms (his own coinages include šienainis, stiklūnas, and many plant names; J. Dagys himself named a plant gaivenis in his honor), standardization, endless consultations, and deliberations; he published articles in the field and set out to write Lithuanian Terminology. He strengthened his broader theoretical preparation with the Dictionary of Linguistic Terms (with Stasys Keinys). A dash

129

ed a popularizing booklet, A Colorful World of Words, delightful and appealing, with epigraphs and snippets of poetry, with etymologies of Gaivenis and his native Tauragnai, but also peppered with theoretical asides, terminological threads, and even a section entitled “The Most Important Words of the Language of Science—Terms.” He was truly a terminologists’ l e a d e r (not a driver): the most demanding of himself, always the first to take the initiative, yet able to agree with his seconds, advise his thirds, and consult with everyone, bringing them all together.

For various reasons, Lithuanian Terminology was delayed, but Gaivenis persevered! Some ideas may have matured further, while there may have been insufficient time and energy for a more unified structure and composition. It is beyond doubt, however, that the author himself assesses the situation accurately—as the final title, “<...>: Outlines of Theory and Ordering,” shows, among other things. In one respect Gaivenis also displayed entirely unnecessary modesty: he included not a single one of his own works in the Bibliography. Readers are left at a disadvantage—they will have to wait for a bibliography of Gaivenis’s works, while the reviewer is already in a tight spot.

The book consists of a Preface (9–11), five chapters (features of terms, sources, ordering, standardization, and a review of theories), a Concluding Word (137–138), lists of Literature—both cited and other works (139–142)—an English summary (143–145), and an English table of contents (7–8). The outlines are sufficient, the heddles are by no means doubled, and the warp is fairly dense. The reviewer does not intend to sit at the author’s loom in the reader’s place, but would not wish to conceal their own understanding of the author’s outlines or their own weft.

The book’s structure is fairly clear and simple, and the exposition is mostly unhurried and coherent. But the logical arrangement of terminology theory and ordering is neither easy nor unequivocal or beyond dispute. Questions might even arise: why is the ordering of terms (terminography, standardization, computerized and textual ordering) discussed first, followed by the principles and rules of term standardization, which would more logically follow the sources of terminology (term formation, neologism creation, borrowing)? The ordering of terms could reasonably constitute a separate part of the book.

Chapter I—Features of Terms and the Requirements They Must Meet (13–49)—is the most important, the most theoretical and substantial, and the longest. It would be shorter if it did not include the subsections 1. The Concepts “Term,” “Terminology,” and “Terminology Studies” and 2. Typology of Terms, which discuss matters that are not yet features. Here, too, readers might find an inconsisten-

130

…some difficulties. For instance, right at the beginning it is stated that logicians, philosophers, sociologists, and others understand the term differently, but their conceptions are not dominant (13); a few pages later, however, we read: “In logic, a term is a compound component of a proposition (subject and predicate). Logicians therefore speak of major, minor, and other terms” (16–17). In fact, Latin terminus means “boundary; limit; wall,” “boundary marker; boundary stone (Roman—a stone); wall marker (usually a post),” figuratively “boundary,” “goal,” “end, termination,” and later “time limit”; subsequently, in logic it acquired the meaning “(propositional) concept”: term 2. “in logic, an essential component of a proposition (subject and predicate) or an element of a syllogism (the predicate of the conclusion is called the major term, the subject of the conclusion the minor term, and a concept present in the premises of a syllogism but absent from its conclusion the middle term)” (FilosŽ 1975: 436). The step from “concept” to “name of a concept” is already a short one. And here the intrinsic support of terminology in logic is clearly apparent. Sometimes a contradiction slips into the text. For example, it is said that a term is a word or a fixed a t t r i b u t i v e phrase (14), but immediately afterwards it is asserted that the phrase may involve any grammatical relation: coordination, government, or adjunction (14); but surely an adjoined phrase is not attributive?

The author distinguishes terminology (the set of terms) from terminology (the discipline), and uses the concepts terminological meaning (13, 17, 39) and nonterminological lexicon (122); yet he inconsistently, illogically, and unsystematically calls the conversion of a word into a term not terminization but terminologization (18, 121, 130), terminologizing (51), doing so on the exceptional grounds that “sometimes one must speak not only of adapting words, but also their forms or affixes, for use in terminology” (18). There are also determinization (18, 121, 130), transterminologization (18, 130), reterminologization (130), although intraterminization (114) is used; then we find terminological meaning (17, 52, 53, 130), terminological system (116), terminological concept (117), terminological designation (129), terminological field (130), and even terminology (the discipline) (126, 127) in place of terminology (the set of terms). One cannot sacrifice sometimes for usually; more importantly, terminization (term-forming) can certainly mean both “translation or conversion into a term” and “translation or conversion into something terminological.” Incidentally, an excellent example of terminization, transterminization, and determinization is the term itself. Its terminization and transterminization have already been discussed, but

131

it must be added that this happened beyond the bounds of the Lithuanian language—term is a loanword for us. New Latin terminus also underwent determinization and even acquired the meaning “word” (becoming synonymous with Latin dictio, from which, incidentally, our expression derives, though it is not easily understood by non-linguists). Traces of this process remain in many European languages: French en d’autres termes – in other words, to put it differently, dans toute la force du terme – in the full sense of the word; Italian in altri termini – in other words; English in set terms – in considered words, clearly, in the simplest terms – in simple words, understandably; Polish innym terminem – in other words; Russian протестовал в энергетических терминах – opposes in forceful words. In Lithuanian, term in the sense of “word” occurs only as a translation error (international words—faux amis du traducteur!..). Yet the book under review also has special words, or special terms (21). Thus, the international word term is remarkable: as a word it is highly polysemous (or even homonymous; cf. terme I: 1) end, boundary, wall; 2) fixed time, deadline; 3) (for an apartment or house) rent-payment deadline; rent; 4) (of pregnancy) time, term; 5) boundary post; terme II: 1) word, term; 2) mathematics: term; 3) (in logic) term, a compound component of a proposition; 4) plural: relations (PLKŽ 1976); in logic, terminized—unambiguous; in terminology and linguistics, transterminized—unambiguous; in language, determinized; in terminology it has synonyms—doublet, professionalism; formerly (RŽ 1948, RLKŽ II 1967 термин – term, designation), and it can again be a designation: its derivation from to designate is impeccable (there is also the adverb by name, “precisely; by specifying, naming” LKŽ IV 1957).

Another shortcoming in the exposition is the use of rarer terms that have not yet—or have not been explained at all. For example: “A term’s terminological meaning does not coincide either with the lexical meaning of the word or with the definition of the term. The latter reflects the intensional of the terminological meaning and some semes of the implicational. Extensional definitions of terms, which designate the totality of specific concepts belonging to one level of abstraction, do not reveal the term’s semes” (17); “The ideological semes of the social sciences belong not to the intensional but to the implicational” (19). The terms extension and intension are explained much later (28–30); extensional and intensional, and especially implicational, are not explained there at all. The term conceptology is left unexplained (19).

132

The lexicography of terms—terminography (16)—has come into use recently, but is now widespread. Incidentally, I brought the terms terminography, terminization, transtermin(i)zation, determinization back from Kyiv in the autumn of 1970 (Ковалик 1970: 14). Another meaning of terminography—“historiography of terms or terminology” (16)—is unknown in Lithuanian terminology and, in my view, misguided.

The book distinguishes nomenclature and also nomen (16), but then, as if nothing were amiss, says: “Sometimes the word term is replaced by the word name, for example, ‘Dictionary of Botanical Names,’ names of months, and so on” (25)—as though names were not the Lithuanian equivalent of name and thus of nomen. Object designations (26), it seems, are essentially nomina as well.

Almost half of subsection 1 is devoted to explaining the relationship between terms and professionalisms. Although it is stated right at the beginning that “professional language contains not only terms, but also professionalisms, slang, and other words” (13), the discussion is already confusing there: on the basis of the special nature of concepts, one can speak not only of scientific terminology but also of the terminology of sport or cookery; it remains unclear, however, why “the special nature of a concept is a feature of its restricted professional use” (13). The normal, intelligible opposition is ordinary ↔ specialized (not professional). If it is not restricted, professional language is specialized; narrow, restricted professional usage is characteristic only of informal in-group naming: term gear ↔ professionalism bėgis. Terms require definitions, and this is what distinguishes them from professionalisms. The broad conception of professionalisms is introduced with a 24-line quotation in which they are understood in three ways—as terms used within a group, colloquial professionalisms, and slang doublets used in occupational speech. The concept of terminology is thus also made ambiguous: 1) specialized (narrowly used) terms = professionalisms; 2) terms; 3) colloquial professionalisms; 4) occupational slang. The author illustrates simpler matters with diagrams, but does not provide a diagram for his final conception: “some professionalisms are terms, but some terms are not professionalisms, and some professionalisms are not terms” (23–24). Incidentally, the Dictionary of Linguistic Terms adheres to the narrow conception of professionalisms, adding only at the end: “The concept of professionalism is often greatly broadened—terms and even slang are regarded as professionalisms” (KTŽ 1990). In my view, the relationship between professionalisms and terms—their common…

133

The problem of distinguishing and separating them arises in regions where the concept of professionalisms (e.g., German Fachwortschatz, Fachausdrücke) is older than that of terms.

The author’s understanding of macaronisms, which includes even Latin botanical and anatomical terms and Italian musical nomenclature (24), is extraordinarily radical, differing fundamentally from Kalbotyros terminų žodyno.

In the subsection Terminų tipologijos, terms named according to their subject matter (e.g., dirvožemio, vandentiekio terminai) are, for some reason, understood as unofficial (25). The division (of concepts) (sąvokų) skirstinys introduced here (26, 27 (2x)) becomes clear only much later (skirstymas ↔ klasifikacija “division into classes” 41–42).

The ordering of the properties of terms is not explained, but when viewed in terms of content (meaning) and expression it does not seem consistent: 3. Extension and intension of terms (matters of meaning); 4. Grammar of terms; 5. Pragmatics of terms (close to meaning); 6. Correctness of terms (formation, grammar, accentuation, spelling); 7. Accuracy of terms (meaning); 8. Systematicity of terms (here, logical; although there may also be lexical, derivational, and grammatical systematicity); 9. Brevity of terms; 10. Stylistic neutrality of terms (closest to meaning); 11. Ease of term formation. Another arrangement might be: 1) systematicity; 2) extension and intension, pragmatics, accuracy, stylistic neutrality; 3) grammar, correctness, ease of formation; 4) brevity. In Stasys Keinys’s booklet in the popularization series “Language and People,” The Alphabet of Terminology, the order is: univocality, accuracy, [emotional neutrality], systematicity, convenience, correctness (Keinys 1980: 28–58).

The subsection Terminų gramatikos aptly observes that terminology has only two genders, though it does not consider why there is no neuter gender. The terminologization of plural forms is noted, but the fairly common terminologization of diminutives is omitted (medis ↔ medelis, pelėda ↔ pelėdikė, smilga ↔ smilgaitė). Gaivenis rightly argues that the classification of concepts can alter the usual order of modifiers, e.g.: papelių bakterinė degligė (subspecies + species + genus member). But this occurs outside terminology as well, e.g.: jis paliko žodyne savo nuopelnų nenykstamą paminklą J. Balčikonis (Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 1, Vilnius, 1941, V).

134

In the subsection Terminų taisyklingumo, one word in the explanation of correctness is unclear: “it means compliance with the rules of stress, spelling, grammar, word formation, grammaticalization, and u s a g e” (36), but no examples of violations of usage rules are given. If by this vartojimu we understand some kind of lexical collocation (valency) or the compatibility of meanings, then this would belong to semantics, and thus to precision. The principle of pseudo-analogy is not explained (37), although analogy in linguistics is understood in two ways. Incidentally, herbera is an example not of incorrect grammaticalization (36–37), but of pseudo-analogy (: herba) (in reality: Gerberis). An example of pseudo-analogy is not only bebrìmvietė (37), but also perimvietė, listed among the analogues (since there is perėjimas, not perimas). Vāžiūklė (36), sąnaudos (37), and so on, are errors not of stress, but only of stress marking. This formulation may also be misleading: “c) the second component of compound words is incorrectly stressed (e.g., lūpažiedžiai, šimtakojis, daugiasluoksnis, etc.)” (37). One might think that the stress on the second component of these compounds is being criticized, since most similar words stress the linking vowel. In fact, however, these are merely errors in stress marking—the forms should be lūpažiedžiai, šimtakojis, daugiasluoksnis.

A significant subsection is Terminų stilistinis neutralumas. In this connection, it is worth adding that, if expressive metaphorical geomorphological terms such as balnas, avinų kaktos are defended, the term ragas should be defended too. Although it was replaced long ago by iškyšuliu and later by kyšuliu, it would be difficult to restore Gerosios Vilties ragą; but let us recognize that such terms exist and leave Ventės ragą, Grobšto ragą alone (for discussion of the terminology of anatomy in folk geographical terminology in general, and “horn” specifically in Baltic, Slavic, Germanic, Chinese, and Vietnamese, see Мурзаев 1974: 133–134). Mirties taškas, too, was needlessly replaced by rimties tašku, and the calm in question is false, highly conditional.

In the subsection Terminų darybos patogumo, only the ease or difficulty of forming words is discussed. But quite a few terms are phrases as well. In 1910, K. Būga wrote to J. Jablonskis: “The terms gramatika, etimologija and sintaksis are necessary for us: where appropriate, we cannot replace them with kalbos mokslu, kilmės mokslu ir sakinių mokslu, because it is impossible to derive adjectives from the latter” (Būga 1961: 912).

The chapter Terminijos šaltiniai (51–62) is the shortest. There is little theory and much practical material, but there could be more synthesis.

135

Two methods of terminologization are distinguished—broadening and narrowing of meaning; it is said that “a term acquires special semes that an ordinary word does not have” (53). But it is difficult to agree that “this is easy to verify” (53). Banga (wave) and banga (physics)—this is easy, although even in such a classic case componential analysis would be useful. The ease of other examples, however, is questionable; here is how they are presented: “čivy lis (what an ordinary person knows about this little bird) and čivy lis (Acanthis cannabina), tiesė (simply a line) and tiesė (mathematics), and so on” (53). Gaivenis does not mention some cases of the terminologization discussed, which consists only in assigning a definition: such terminologization is indeed questionable, and linguistically, it seems to me, no semantic change takes place.

The subsection Coining Neologisms omits Jablonskis, and rightly so. V. Urbutis’s quotation and ideas take up a considerable portion, appropriately enough, but the listing of the word-formation devices for nouns in the academic grammar (which, incidentally, is also V. Urbutis’s work) is questionable—here a more critical, updated approach is needed. The book does not discuss the terminological specialization of word-formation devices (well known to Gaivenis). The subsection nevertheless contains two significant ideas. The first, although not new, remains relevant: word formation must be distinguished from structure (failure to make precisely this distinction led to the mistaken evaluation of įvardas). The second, also not new (at least for Gaivenis), is even more relevant: “In terminology, even clear derivatives or derived words often cannot be classified as instances of term formation. For example, the entomological term čiuožikas, the bacteriological term lazdelė, the plant-morphology term šluotelė, and so on, are not suffixal derivatives but words with transferred meanings that have been terminologized” (56). It can be argued that, from now on, terminologists should saddle the well-studied word-formation hobbyhorse of V. Urbutis only when there is a clear process of coining new terms; it is also time to discuss terminologization in greater depth, with stronger grounding and greater specificity—without forgetting that in Lithuanian it is often parallel (in essence, carried out outside the Lithuanian language).

Similarly, old borrowings (agurkas, asiūklis, gandras, stiklas, etc.) in terminology are “no longer borrowings, but words of human language that have been terminologized” (58).

Between the two subsections, two significant matters were left adrift, not discussed at length and barely mentioned: “xenomania (fondness for borrowings) and purism (avoidance of borrowings)” (58). Here, too, there would have been an opportunity

136

to give the decisive word to the leader in coining new words, Jablonskis, who had chastened the overzealous purists. The demands of the times, and specifically the new “Procedure for Replacing Foreign Words with Lithuanian Equivalents” and its implementation, will no doubt compel us to examine this matter seriously in theory once again.

Calques, or hidden borrowings (51, 58), are merely mentioned, but translation, a broad and complex dialinguistic and interlinguistic phenomenon, is not examined at all. Linguistic induction, or following a model, is not even mentioned. Borrowed hybrids and hybrid word formation are not discussed at all, although a prohibition is quite unjustifiably put forward: “Although the mixing of international and Lithuanian terms in word formation is not forbidden, such terms are not very convenient or promising. Efforts are made to avoid them” (62). Incidentally, no one deliberately mixes elements on Lithuanian linguistic soil—our hybrids generally arise through translation—but how can one avoid terms such as anti- kūnas, antimedžiaga, ekskunigas, infragarsas, kontrsmūgis, kontržval- gyba, protožvaigždė, subnuoma, superlaidininkas, ultragarsas, vicepir- mininkas, as well as auksidas (101) and digeležis (102), mentioned in this book?

The Lithuanian word formation of some international words is questionable, even if it is understandable in a broad sense: abonentas, reflektorius, klaviatūra, partitūra, ad- miralitetas (61–62). Among the international specialized affixes, miriado – miriadometrinės bangos. should additionally be mentioned.

The grammaticalization of international terms, which is somewhat out of place in this chapter overall, is presented almost entirely as a list drawn from other sources, despite being mentioned as a practically disputed issue; no current material is offered.

Chapter IV—Principles and Rules for the Creation and Standardization of Terminology (89–108)—is quite substantial and informative, but also inconsistent. The subsection General Principles of Term Standardization (89–100) distinguishes standardization principles and criteria, but does so in a footnote, where criteria are called requirements, which are also listed in Chapter I. In the main text, however, there are principles and criteria; it says, “They have been identified and discussed by contemporary standardizers of the general language, A. Girdenis and A. Pupkis” (89), but does not indicate how or where—perhaps the reference is to their extensive article Principles of Standardization and Codification of the General Language in the 1978 collection of articles Baltų kalbos ir jų tyrinėjimo metodai (53–56), although these two authors also wrote another article, Principles of Language Standardization (Gimtoji kalba 1996 5 1–5). But Gaivenis goes on to list—

137

jami principai sutampa su A. Pupkio vadovėlio Kalbos kultūros pagrindai („Mokslas“, 1980) poskyrio Kodifikavimo principai ir kriterijai teikiamais kriterijais (Pupkis 1980: 40–48), tik nuorodos nėra (nors ši knyga įtraukta į antrąjį – necituojamos – literatūros sąrašą); be to, A. Pupkio yra dar ir poskyris Kodifikavimo kriterijų hierarchija (Pupkis 1980: 48–53). Vardijant minimas „komunikacinio tikslingumo“ principas (P. Jonikas, P. Skardžius), kai vertinamas ne situacinis šnekos lygis, bet struktūrinis kalbos lygmuo“ (89), o aiškinamas jau funkcinis tikslingumas – „reikia vadovautis tuo, kas tikslinga (t. y. priimtina, perspektyvu) visai visuomenei“ (90). Pirmiausia A. Girdenio ir A. Pupkio buvo kalbama apie tikslingumo (arba funkciškumo) kriterijų (Girdenis, Pupkis 1978: 60), A. Pupkio vadovėlyje – jau komunikatyvinio tikslingumo kriterijus (Pupkis 1980: 41), A. Girdenio ir A. Rosino – visuomeninio tikslingumo kriterijus (Girdenis, Rosinas 1983: 68), paskui A. Girdenio ir A. Pupkio – viešasis (visuomeninis) tikslingumas (Girdenis, Pupkis 1996: 1), Valstybinės lietuvių kalbos komisijos patvirtintame dokumente Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos tvarkybos principai, kodifikacijos kriterijai ir jų taikymas – visuomeninio tikslingumo principas (LBKTP, KK ir jų T 1997: 1). Grįžtant prie principų ir kriterijų hierarchijos, kurios recenzuojamoje knygoje nėra, galima priminti, kad vienas paskutinių ir glaustiausių šio dalyko aiškinimų yra minėtame VLKK dokumente: „Kalbos reiškinių kodifikavimą galima įsivaizduoti maždaug taip. Pirmiausia visuomeninio tikslingumo principą atitinkantys faktai įvertinami taisyklingumo požiūriu, po to – grynumo, distinktyvumo, ekonomijos ir lankstaus pastovumo kriterijais. Remiantis funkcine sklaida, dar galima pasitelkti gyvumo, estetiškumo, aiškumo ir autentiškos vartosenos kriterijus“ (LBKTP, KK ir jų T 1997: 3).

The discussion of the principle of living language returns once again to terminologization (Chapter II, Section I). One idea here would indeed be significant, but it is not developed at all and is given without examples, so it may remain misunderstood: “Several factors often hinder the terminologization of words from living language. The more important ones are probably these: 1) a large part of Lithuanian special vocabulary consists of narrowly used words (occasionalisms of official or colloquial speech); 2) quite a few lexical units of this kind are words with unclear motivation and associative words; 3) words of living lan-

138

guage are characterized by variation and synonymy, etc.” (93–94). There is no doubt that these authorial observations have been more or less confirmed by his many years of terminological practice, but, undeveloped, unsupported, and unillustrated here, they may rebound against the author himself.

In discussing the principle of authority, the text refers not only to the ideal of the past and scholarly authorities, but also to the authority of terminological dictionaries, as well as collective foundational authorities—international codes, standards, and rules (94–96). It is hard to shake the impression that this material should belong under the subsection Special Principles and Rules for Term Creation and Standardization (100–108). Only midway through this subsection is it explained that “special rules for term creation regulate the planning of different areas of terminology or their microsystems” (105). It is also stated belatedly that these rules may be Lithuanian or international (105)—although numerous international rules had already been discussed, some of which, such as those for chemistry, were unjustifiably attributed to Lithuanian intermediaries (101–103). Furthermore, some of these rules are not linguistic, but subject-specific or logical.

Chapter IV – Directions, schools, and prominent researchers in terminology (109–135), although survey-like and at times fragmentary, is nevertheless quite informative and perceptive, and critical. It is right that there is semasiological and onomasiological terminology (109), and that there is a linguistic conception of terminology theory (121). But perhaps it is already time to name the independent branches of terminology, a joint (complex), rather than composite, science—first, linguistic terminology, which belongs to linguistics (and not only to applied linguistics), then logical (or perhaps already conceptological) terminology and subject-field terminology (mostly onomasiological and definitional). In general, it must be said that terminology arose and developed as a scientific phenomenon of Central and Eastern Europe: subject-field (“engineering”) and logical terminology in German-speaking countries and the Soviet Union (E. Drezenas, D. Lottė), and linguistic terminology in Slavic countries, mainly in the Soviet Union and now Russia; it also exists in French-speaking countries, but not in the Anglo-Saxon world, where in many countries activity is certainly limited to terminological work and standardization. The Russian terminologist V. Danilenko is quite right in saying that terms, too, are subject to all the lexical and semantic processes of living language (124). However, these—polysemy and synonymy, homonymy and antonymy—are only beginning to be studied in terminology, so one should hardly rush to agree with everything. Categorical

139

Polysemy (125) is quite obvious. Interdisciplinary terminological homonymy (125–126), without the slightest regard for the closeness or remoteness of the fields of science, can be somewhat forced—it is certainly not enough that definitions differ and that terms function in different systems (126): the central semes must differ. A real contradiction arises when the response is, in one case, a cross-disciplinary term (122), and in another, an interdisciplinary homonym (126). It is truly unclear on what basis interferences are also lumped together with interdisciplinary homonyms (130). It is good that the notion of the “engineering” synonym (and of information languages) is being abandoned, but here, too, not everything is clear, since there is no equivalent of synonym in logic. Overall, the book sheds little light on terminological synonymy.

Gaivenis, with very good reason and without the slightest dogmatism, takes a critical view of the tendency to keep increasing the number of terminology schools (109). Unfortunately, the author merely states, without showing how, that A. Superanskaja, N. Podolskaja, and N. Vasiljeva “were the first to compare the terminological views of representatives of the Russian and Vienna schools” (131). In general, it is unclear how and for what purpose subject-field and linguistic terminology are compared.

In my view, the high regard for S. Šalkauskis’s theory of terminology is justified, although there is insufficient information to assess its originality.

Chapter III, which could have been a separate part of the book, – Methods of terminological work (63–87) – now really seems out of place; it should at least come after standardization and codification.

The subsection Terminography (63–80) begins in the distant past: terminological dictionaries “originated from glossarium-type dictionaries, in which obsolete or little-known and rarely used words were explained” (63). But today glossary has the standardized terminological meaning “translational terminological dictionaries and lists of terms” (63), although here and there it means “an explanatory glossary of terms.” Thesaurus is inadequately explained in Gaivenis’s book: “Thesauri are now called dictionaries that reflect the relationships among terms” (63). In fact, “thesauri may be explanatory or translational, general or specialized,” while “in the theory and practice of machine translation, this term denotes a dictionary intended for and stored in an electronic computer” (KTŽ 1990). However, a thesaurus may also be non-electronic, and not even a tool for automatic information retrieval, but rather a description of terminology according to the terms’

140

a matrix of actual relations (functions). For instance, in S. Nikitina’s Thesaurus of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, according to a set of 28 features, the term looks as follows: 1) term, 2) synonym: – [i.e., none], 3) correlate: –, 4) generic concept: word, word combination, 5) specific concept: scientific term, technical-scientific term, 6) whole: terminology, 7) components: –, 8) class: –, 9) class member: –, 10) parameter: unambiguity, [sign of absence] expressiveness, 11) parameter marker: –, 12) main function: concept, 13) way of expressing the function: –, 14) linguistic object: –, 15) way of representing the object: –, 16) operation: standardization, regulation, 17 a) initial object: –, b) final object: –, 18) instrument/method: –, 19) (language) level: lexicon, 20) units of the level: –, 21) relation: –, 22) members of the relation: –, 23) implication: –, 24) context/subject: terminology, 25) language aspect: –, 26) object of the subject area: –, 27) “related to”: –, 28) nonstandard functions (associations): professional language (Никитина 1978: 79, 348). Terms described in this way are called descriptors—as distinct from d e f i n e d terms (Никитина 1978: 54–58). There are also much simpler thesauri. Here are the descriptor relations in the “Eurovoc” thesaurus: field of use, references to a microthesaurus, relations between descriptors and non-descriptors, relations between broader and narrower terms, and related terms from different microthesauri (Bodin 2001: 7).

Gaivenis calls S. Šalkauskis’s General Terminology of Pedagogy a glossary (66, 67), although it contains 1,600 terms (Šalkauskis 1991: 277–345); elsewhere (113), he also calls his General Terminology of Philosophy this, although it is twice as large (Šalkauskis 1991: 126–274). Having listed ten of S. Šalkauskis’s coinages, he describes them critically as “pale formations” (68). There are many more—atgamus, draudus, jautulys, jusena, juslė, juslingumas, kaitumas, kursena, lyta, mąstinys, pagava, pasąmonė, paskata, paveikumas, regumas, ryžtis, savaveiksmškumas, savimana, saviveika, savivoka, sielovada, šeimotyra, vaikotyra—many of them established, and many others not, but good.

The book was even less successful with L. Dargis and A. Salys’s Glossary of Commercial Correspondence. Of the suitable coinages, the author mentions only six—apmoka, bendraskolis, darbūmas (by the way, also found in S. Šalkauskis), pirklumas, važtaraščio antrininkas, važus. The glossary contains about 1,000 terms. It also includes dialect words—atlygis, atmokestis, brangymetis, brangininkas,

141

išrankos, kainų pokytis, laivininkas, mokėsena, pamokestis, piginėti, pigininkas, pirkinys, pirksena, podėlis, postovis, praženginas, -à, -ai, rankpinigiai, žinovas; atlyginimas from J. Brodovskis’s dictionary; krova from the dictionaries of J. Brodovskis, P. Ruigys, and K. Milkus; išmota (išmestinė prekė) from the dictionaries of P. Ruigys, K. Milkus, and F. Kuršaitis; prekymetis from the dictionaries of P. Ruigys, K. Milkus, and F. Nesselmann; and priepelnis from F. Kuršaitis’s dictionary. There are quite a few coinages by J. Jablonskis—antspaudas, atmoka, išgalioti, mokumas, pirmaraštis, spaudinys, vadyba—as well as by A. Lelis, J. Šlapelis, Vydūnas, A. Baronas, A. Vireliūnas, S. Šalkauskis, and others: įmonė, įmoka, išmoka, priemoka, moka, nuošimtis, pirmenybė, pirmenybinis, prekyrastis, prekyvietė, santoris, siunta, spauda, žinyba. However, A. Salys himself made the greatest contribution: “After L. Dargis explained the concept of a term, A. Salys would often suggest several Lithuanian equivalents, and finally, together with L. Dargis, choose the word and its form that both liked best. K. Dargis himself later (1975) stated that here ‘the principal author of the new terms in the Lithuanian section was Prof. A. Salys’ (Salys 1979: 455). Accordingly, the glossary contains the largest number of A. Salys’s own coinages: apmoka, apmuita, bendraskolis, beteismis susitarimas, didmuo, draudlakštis, draudpin igiai, įpirka, kainų nuokrytis, krausta, krovaraštis, kursaraštis, laivaraštis, langinis vokas, mokumas, nameivis, naminėti, neišmoka, nepri emoka, nuosvoris, nuotąsa, nuotąsus, padarumas, pajamoti, palanka, paštiniai, patikėtinis, pavada, pavadinis, perdraudimas, perkrova, persavinimas, pigymetis, pigmena, pirk ybos, pirklumas, póterminis, prekybininkas, prekylangis, priedrauda, prieminus, priepirka, priesvoris, priimtis, saugiraštis, sendaikčiai, sendaiktininkas, slaptaraštis, sukčinės bendrovės, vamzdinis paštas, važykla, vieninė prekyba (according to LKŽ data; some entries may need revision: ydraštis is also given by M. Jurkynas—GK 1938 6 83). Not all the glossary’s neologisms even made it into LKŽ; absent are: antraraštis, beteismis, dervadrobė, mažmuo, mokmenys, naminėti, nuotąsa, paštiniai, perrašininkas, podienis, telkmenys, vidursąskaitis, vilkstininė prekyba, žininė; nor are the glossary meanings of the words pagava, perrašas included. Those that are in LKŽ are most often— even when accompanied by a sentence from A. Salys—hidden under the label rš (i.e., writings), since the label A. Sal (i.e., A. Salys) appeared only from volume XVI (1995); others are marked NdŽ (i.e., Dictionary of the Lithuanian Written Language, vols. 1–5, compiled by M. Niedermannas, A. Senn, F. Brender, and A. Salys, Heidelberg, 1932–1968; here

142

they were probably included through A. Salys’s own efforts), DŽ (i.e., Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian, Vilnius, 1954), TTŽ (i.e., Dictionary of Legal Terms, compiled by A. Žirgulys, Vilnius, 1954), ETŽ (i.e., Russian–Lithuanian Dictionary of Economic Terms, Vilnius, 1966), and others; nuodera is marked burž., patikėtinis is illustrated with a sentence from Kommunistas, and pasiūla 2.—with a quotation from Marx’s works. Some words in this glossary were classified as Soviet-era neologisms (Lyberis and Ulvydas 1958): priesvoris (39, 77), santoris (67), slaptaraštis (67), žinyba (68), atlygis (68), išmoka (68), mokūs (68), nepriemoka (68), nuosvoris (68), priemoka (69, 67).

Apart from coinage, a particularly valuable feature of this glossary is its consistent and productive efforts to Lithuanianize terminology: darbumas (Leistungsfähigkeit; productivity); draudlakštis (Police; insurance policy); įpirka (bonus); krova (Ladung, Last; loading, cargo); laivo nuomos sutartis (Charterpartie, Befrachtungsbrief; charter party); padarumas (Produktivität; productivity, efficiency); palanka (Begünstigung, Entgegenkommen; favor, protection, patronage); pavada, konsignacija; perrašas (Indossament; endorsement); perrašininkas (Indossant; endorser, endorser); pirmenybė (Vorrecht; preference, priority); pirmenybinės akcijos (Vorzugsaktien; preferred stock); prekrašti̇s (Prospekt, Faktura; prospectus, pro forma invoice); priimtis (acceptance); remitentas, gavėjas; skubinis (express; express); slaptaraštis (Chiffre, Geheimschrift; code, cipher); teikimas, rekomendacija; tolinė prekyba (Distanzhandel; distance trade); vadyba (Verwaltung; management, administration; vedomstvo); važma (Fracht, Frachtgeld; freight); važta (Fracht, Frachtgut; load, freight, shipment, cargo). The glossary includes skolininkas (Kreditnehmer; debtor) and skolintojas (Kreditgeber; creditor), but not kreditoriaus (nor kredito). Enthusiastic replacers of foreign words could harvest Lithuanian equivalents from this glossary by the handful.

The glossary clearly demonstrates a systematic approach to terminology: moka, mokus, mokumas, apmoka, atmoka, įmoka, išmoka, neišmoka, priemoka, nepriemoka; išvažos (Ausfuhr, Ausfuhrgüter; exports), įvažos (Einfuhrgüter; imports), pervažos (Transit-, Durchgangsgüter; transit goods), prievazos (Zufuhrwaren; loads, goods, cargo to be loaded), išvežamosios, išvažinės prekės, įvežamosios, įvažinės prekės, pervažinės, tranzitinės prekės, pervažinė, tranzitinė prekyba; nameivis (Hausierer, Hausierhändler; hawker, peddler), naminėjamoji, panaminė prekyba, nami-

143

…; niekena (Brack; defective merchandise, refuse), niekikas, niekti, niektinis; važykla (Fuhrgeschäft; carrier, trucking enterprise), važta (Fracht, Frachtgut; load, freight, shipment, cargo), važtaraštis, važtininkas (Frachtführer; carrier, forwarding agent), važma (Fracht, Frachtgeld; freight.- Važmavadinamas važtos mokestis ar atlyginimas), važmuo (Frachtsatz; freight rate), važūs (transportable; easily transportable). The millstones of an unfavorable time ground down much here; for example, važta came out battered (retained only in DŽ—in all editions, but not found in usage to this day!), although važtaraštis survived (but is this systematic: krovinys – važtaraštis?); frachtas, frachtavimas, kargas took root; only now is važus, važumas being reinvented, like the bicycle; only the loss of važmos was properly compensated for—by važtapinigiais (incidentally, also known from the interwar period), though that word, too, has largely survived only in DŽ. It is a great pity that A. Salys’s gyvi, gyvieji pinigai (also used by K. Būga, Vaižgantas, and A. Baronas), gyvinė prekyba. Gryni pinigai did not survive. First of all, gryni pinigai would mean genuine, that is, counterfeit-free money (classifying it under grynas 1. ‘without admixture, clean, pure’ in DŽ₄ is a real misunderstanding).

The author of the book notes that the glossary also contains prepositions, adverbs, participles, and infinitives (72), but provides not a single adverb of manner, even though these are the most numerous there—atsiskait ytinai, įskaitytinai, išskaitytinai, atsiųstinai, išpirk tinai, išsiųstinai,... An important grammatical point has been overlooked in the glossary: when the verb in a phrase is transformed into a noun, the adverb is transformed into an adjective (or participle): parduoti išsimokėtinai → išsimokamasis pardavimas. In 1969 Salys’s observation was unknown to Gaivenis—his accepted term was prekyba išsimokėtinai (Гайвяниц 1969: 9); later, however, researchers of syntax (E. Valiulytė) confirmed A. Salys’s point: “Noun phrases with adverbs are very rare” (LKG 1976: 233), and those with qualitative adverbs occur “only in isolated cases” (LKG 1976: 234). Terminology cannot be based on isolated cases. In the subsection on Terminografijos the author also discusses definitions and their errors, although he himself says that definitions in explanatory terminology dictionaries “cannot replace the scientific definitions of those concepts” (74). Thus, scientific definitions belong in Chapter I.

Significant topics, but the subsections are not extensive—2. Terminų standartizacija (81–82), 3. Kompiuterinė terminų tvarkyba (82–84), and 4. Tekstinė terminų tvarkyba (84–87). There was not enough room in the book for terminology banks,

144

although a computerized terminology bank is also being developed in Lithuania—it is unfinished, but already contains 187,000 terms (Černiauskas 2002: 20–24).

To achieve an appropriate degree of thoroughness, a few more minor inaccuracies should be noted: 1) “For example, in popular speech the word gelta most often refers to any morbid yellowing” (93). According to LKŽ III, this is only one meaning of the word gelta, which has five meanings in all: 1. “yellowness, yellowing”: Nuo saulės tuoj gelta apsitraukė (Liškiava); 3. bot. “saw-wort” (Serratula) (Salakas); 4. “yellow dye” (Liškiava); 5. “yellow threads” (Rudamina); 2) having analyzed about 200 names of tools with the suffix -tuvas, the author concludes: “they are all formed from non-prefixed transitive verbs” (99), while those formed from prefixed intransitive verbs “should be assessed cautiously,” although no examples are given (99). It remains unclear why transitivity is made dependent here on the prefix, when there are plenty of such prefixed derivatives: išleistuvas, nuleistuvas, nupiltuvas, nuimtuvas, nusodintuvas, surinktuvas, atskirtuvas, atsuktuvas, užsuktuvas, užkištuvas, pramuštuvas, atmuštuvas, iškrautuvas (ADLKŽ 1995); 3) the reference S. Keinys 1975: 7 is repeated (48 and 57); 4) the Duns Scotus taken from Šalkauskis (Šalkauskis 1991: 11) became D. Scotus in the book (113)—in Lithuanian the traditional form is Jonas Dunsas Škotas; 5) the “neologism” (or “neonym”) (131) is dubious—neonimas would be naujavardis. The author’s own language is almost exemplary. Only p e r Lietuvą p r a e i- n a (92) and the very irritating conjunctive phrase for comparison or contrast tuo tarpu stood out—it is permitted as rare in the three-volume academic grammar (LKG 1976: 770), is not mentioned in the new one-volume grammar (DLKG 1994: 708–716), and in any case is not from living speech and should not be used.

Thus Kazimieras Gaivenis fulfilled his promise. Theoretical thought is alive in the book, though uneven—at times mature, at times half-mature, now pulsing, now weary. A fully coherent synthesis did not emerge from the author’s many articles; the picture is sometimes mosaic-like, and in places, as the author himself likes to say, full of gaps. Nevertheless, the book exists, and it will endure. Having worked alongside Gaivenis in the field of terminology longer than anyone else, the reviewer, feeling sincere respect for the author’s life’s work, hopes also to be fulfilling his obligation to younger terminologists. And in the book’s Pabaigos žodžio, with weighty thoughts, Gaivenis is wholly immersed in the future of Lithuanian terminology, living with its difficult concerns.

145

LITERATŪRA

ADLKŽ 1995: Atgalinis dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas. Sudarė Vida Žilinskienė, Vilnius.

Bodin A. 2001: Europos žodynas. – Gimtoji kalba 12, 6–9.

Būga K. 1961: Rinktiniai raštai 3, Vilnius.

Černiauskas V. 2002: Rengiamas kompiuterinis terminų bankas. – Gimtoji kalba 7–8, 20–24.

DLKG 1994: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika. Red. Vytautas Ambrazas, Vilnius.

DŽ: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas. Vilnius, 1954, 1972, 1993, 2000.

FilosŽ. 1975: Filosofijos žodynas. Lietuviškąjį leidimą redagavo R. Plečkaitis, Vilnius.

Гайвянс К. 1969: Составные термины в современном литовском языке, Вильнюс.

GK 1938: Gimtoji kalba 6.

Girdenis A., Pupkis A. 1978: Bendrinės kalbos norminimo ir kodifikavimo principai. – Baltų kalbos ir jų tyrinėjimo metodai, Vilnius, 53–66.

Girdenis A., Pupkis A. 1996: Kalbos norminimo principai. – Gimtoji kalba 8, 1–5.

Girdenis A., Rosinas A. 1983: Dar kelios mintys dėl bendrinės kalbos kodifikacijos. – Kultūros barai 4, 67–69.

Jablonskis 1935: Mūsų raštų kalba. – Jablonskio raštai 4, Kaunas, 40–43.

Keinys S. 1980: Terminologijos abėcėlė, Vilnius.

Ковалик И. И. 1970: Основна проблематика сучасної української термінології. – Перша науково-методична нарада з проблем упорядкування і нормалізації термінології, Київ, 13–14.

KTŽ 1990: Gaivenis K., Keinys S. Kalbotyros terminų žodynas, Kaunas.

LBKTP, KK ir jų T 1997: Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos tvarkybos principai, kodifikacijos kriterijai ir jų taikymas (patvirtinta Valstybinės lietuvių kalbos komisijos). – Gimtoji kalba 4, 1–3.

Lyberis A. ir Ulvydas K. 1958: Lietuvių literatūrinės kalbos leksikos praturtėjimas tarybinės santvarkos metais. – Literatūra ir kalba 3, Vilnius, 31–110.

LKG 1976: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 3. Vyr. red. K. Ulvydas, Vilnius.

LKŽ 1941–2002: Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 1–20, Vilnius.

Мурзаев Э. М. 1974: Очерки топонимики, Москва.

Никитина С. Е. 1978: Тезаурус по теоретической и прикладной лингвистике (Автоматическая обработка текста), Москва.

PLKŽ 1976: Prancūzų–lietuvių kalbų žodynas. Sudarė A. Juškienė, M. Katilienė, A. Kaziūnienė, Vilnius.

Pupkis A. 1980: Kalbos kultūros pagrindai, Vilnius.

RLKŽ II 1967: Rusų–lietuvių kalbų žodynas 2. Paruošė V. Baronas, V. Galinis, redagavo K. Musteikis, J. Macaitis, Vilnius.

146

RŽ 1948: Lietuvių kalbos rašybos žodynas. Redagavo K. Gasparavičius, N. Grigas, J. Lazauskas, K. Ulvydas, A. Žirgulys, Kaunas.

Salys A. 1979: Raštai 1, Roma.

Šalkauskis S. 1991: Raštai 2, Vilnius.

Jonas KLIMAVIČIUS

Lietuvių kalbos institutas

P. Vileišio g. 5, LT-2055 Vilnius

[email protected]

Gauta 2002-11-15

147