Kazimieras GAIVENIS

LINGUISTIC AND LOGICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR TERMS

Every term has a form and content. The form of a term is the verbal shell of the concept being named, while its content is the terminological meaning reflected in the definition. Terminological meaning does not coincide with the lexical meaning of a word. In linguistics, the structural elements of both these meanings are usually called semes. In terms of their mode of expression, the semes of terms can be divided into those with formal expression (explicit) and those without formal expression (implicit). For example, the plural ending of the term sugars (chemistry) indicates that it names a class of certain chemical substances, since the word sugar is singular in general language and in the terminology of some fields. The suffix of the term clubmosses (Lycopodiales) indicates that this is the name of a plant order, and so on. These are semes with formal expression.

Both terminologization (the conversion of general-language words or terms into terms), transterminologization (the conversion of terms from one field into terms in another field), and determinologization (the conversion of terms into non-terms) are associated with significant semantic changes. A terminologized word acquires new semes. For example, the lexical meaning of the general-language word dandelion consists of the semes “weed,” “yellow-flowered,” “honey-bearing,” and others, whereas the terminological meaning of the term dandelion (Taraxacum) also includes new specialized semes needed to characterize this plant systematically and distinguish it from other similar plants (e.g., thistles or hawkweeds), such as: “the flowers have 5 stamens,” “the pollen grains are uniform in size, about 30μ,” and so on. Non-specialists are unaware of these latter semes, and they are largely absent from explanatory dictionaries of general language.

Definitions of terms must reflect the core semes of their terminological meaning. Only then will they be scientific. However, since there are more core semes than are usually reflected in definitions, not just one but even several definitions of a term may be correct.

Terminological meaning is often formalized not only by means of dendrograms, histograms, and diagrams, but is also revealed through the use of for-

26

mulas. It is thought that formalizing a word’s meaning is one of the most objective ways of describing a word’s meaning scientifically¹.

In terms of form, terms are most often divided into single-word terms and compound (multiword) terms. Single-word terms include not only primary (simple) words, but also various derivatives and compound words, e.g.: conjugation (grammar), penalty shot (sport), oxygen (chemistry), steam flow (engineering), St John’s wort (botany), and others. Compound terms usually name various specific and composite concepts. They may consist of two, three, or, in general, multiple words, e.g.: proper noun (linguistics), beneficiation of mineral resources (chemistry, geology), market for unregistered securities (economics), and others. Scientific and specialized texts also contain longer so-called descriptive compound terms, e.g.: cabbage after clover sown in a mixture of vetches and oats for green fodder (name of a preceding crop in agricultural terminology), balance of the creation, distribution, redistribution, and final use of national income (economics), and so on.

In terms of content (or function), terms are divided into specific, generic, and categorical terms. This division is related to the different scope (extension) and content (intension) of terms. Š. Šalkauskis called the first property extension, and the second content. They are inversely proportional: as one decreases, the other increases. Categorical terms have the greatest scope, while specific terms have the smallest.

The terminology of each field comprises thousands of terms, so in practical terminology management, questions concerning the relations between terms, their division, and their classification are also important. In addressing the problem of term content and the relations among terms, terminology primarily draws on three disciplines: the specific field of science (production, sport, and so on), linguistics, and logic. These fields form the foundation of terminology theory.

Both Š. Šalkauskis and E. Wüster also linked the subject matter of terminology to ontology, psychology, philosophy, and other disciplines. However, these fields nevertheless have fewer points of contact with terminology than

¹ Jakaitienė E. Leksinė semantika. V.,1988.P.18.

27

logic, word formation, language culture or sociolinguistics. The Canadian terminologist F.W.Rigs places terminology midway between lexicology and conceptology and illustrates their relationship with the following diagram²:

Linguistic Requirements for Terms

The most important and most frequently mentioned linguistic requirements for terms are: correctness, precision, systematicity, brevity, ease of formation, emotional neutrality, and so on. We have already discussed some of these requirements in other publications³, so this time we will discuss in greater detail three more important linguistic requirements for terms, namely correctness, precision, and ease of use.

Correctness is one of the most important requirements of terminology. In the standard of the Republic of Lithuania, “Terminology: Principles and Methods” (1115–90), prepared in accordance with the corresponding international standard (ISO 704–87), it is defined as conformity with the norms of a particular language. Thus, correctness means compliance with the rules of pronunciation, stress, spelling, grammar, word formation, and usage. For example, a term or one of its components must not be incorrectly formed (bešaudyklinės staklės, vyrinžinierius), incorrectly stressed (dožimetras, įkrova, važiuoklė), incorrectly spelled (skersnukis, šašlikas, pusiausvyrumas), or incorrectly inflected (ekslibris, herbera, jacintas), etc.

Terms are often more complex in their formation than simple words, for example: [(žied)+yn]+ pumpuris (botany), {prieš + [(stipr)+ in) + turi + is } (technology), {[į + (magnet + in)] + am] + umas (technology), {[(šluo + t) + smilg] + ynas} (botany), etc.

² Суперанская А., Подольская Н., Васильева Н. Общая терминология. М., 1989. С.21.

³ Gaivenis K. Lietuviškų terminų vaizdingumo klausimu//Lietuvių leksikos ir terminologijos problemos. V.,1991.P.26–31.

28

Theorists of word formation sometimes also call the stages of word formation word-formation steps or acts. Both Baltic and Slavic standard languages are said to have an average of 3–4 word-formation steps. The formation of terms sometimes involves 5–6 steps. Clearly, a more detailed study of the gradation (depth) of term formation may extend beyond the bounds of synchronic word formation.

The most common cases of incorrect term formation today are as follows:

1. Inaccurate selection of a prefix, suffix, ending, infix, or base word, caused by copying the structure of words in other languages; for example, the name apšildytojas for a thermal insulating building material is incorrect not only because of the inappropriate suffix, but also because the base word was poorly chosen (it should be: šiltalas), etc.

2. Inaccurate selection of a word-formation type or category, caused by applying the principle of pseudo-analogy. For example, the neologism bebrim-vietė was formed by analogy with the questionable formations augimvietė, kirtimvietė, perimvietė, radimvietė and should be replaced with the correct neologism bebravietė. It cannot be said that the incorrect term ugniaat-sparumas was formed from the words ugnis and atsparumas (in fact, it was formed from the adjective ugniaatsparus, which in turn was formed from the words ugnis and atsparus). Thus the word ugniaatsparumas is incorrect because its base word—the adjective ugniaatsparus—is incorrect. This one-word term should be replaced with the multiword term atsparumas ugniai.

3. Inaccurate selection of grammatical configurations for compound terms, caused by copying the structure of word combinations in other languages. For example, Russian terminology uses compound terms of the “adjective + noun” type to express a whole–part relationship, whereas our terminology uses genitive constructions, such as: stabdinė (= stabdžių) pavarà, anteninis (= antenos) pérjungiklis, etc.

4. Draft terminology standards show that errors in stressing Lithuanian terms most often concern the choice of intonation, rather than the position of stress (e.g., in a sample of 320 terms, 94 errors in intonation choice and 10 errors in determining stress position were identified). The most frequent intonation errors are the following: a) prefixed derivatives are stressed incorrectly (e.g., sąnaudos, įtvaras, povėržlė, etc.); b) no account is taken of

29

metatony in suffixed nouns (e.g., matúoklis, gru- pūotė, etc.); c) the second component of compound words is stressed incorrectly (e.g., lūpažiedžiai, šimtakojis, daugiasluoksnis, etc.).

5. The most common spelling errors in terms are: a) inserting a letter where it is not needed and omitting it where it is needed (e.g., helioterapija, i.e., helioterapija, kompiuteris, i.e., kompiuteris, variantas, i.e., variantas, etc.); b) not all adjoining consonants or vowels are written at the juncture of the components of compound terms or of a prefix and a root (e.g., the fish name skersnukis, i.e., skersnukis; the adjective tarplanetinis, i.e., tarpplanetinis, etc.); c) a hyphen is used between the components of a compound term where it is not required, or omitted where it is required, and a hyphen is also confused with a dash (e.g., silabinė toninė eiliadara, i.e., silabinė-toninė eiliadara, gydytojas-chirurgas, i.e., gydytojas chirurgas, etc.); d) the components of compound proper names in astronomy, geography, and certain other fields are written contrary to spelling rules (e.g., Didieji Grįžulo ratai, i.e., Didieji Grįžulo Ratai, Raudonasis kryžius, i.e., Raudonasis Kryžius, etc.).

Precision. The precision of terms is primarily associated with their unambiguity and the definiteness of their meaning. In practical work on standardizing terms, however, these aims are not easily achieved. The unambiguity of terms takes shape through an ongoing contest of opinions. Only a small proportion of terms are understood and used uniformly by all specialists in a given field for any extended period. Differences in the understanding of terms may persist for decades. For example, the geological term facija has been in use for more than 100 years, but to this day has no more or less uniform definition. Moreover, this term is used not only in geological terminology but also in geography, where its interpretation and definition are somewhat different again.

Literary terms fabula ir siužetas and linguistic terms žodis, tranzityvumas, veiks las, among others, are likewise understood and interpreted differently. These are most often the most content-rich categorical concepts. All this is, in general, normal. If all specialists in a given field understood and defined terms in exactly the same way, there would be no scientific progress.

In terminology, there is also what is known as categorical polysemy—

30

city. This is a phenomenon in which the same term denotes both an action and its result (e.g., vertimas – literature) or both an action and the place where it occurs (e.g., kirtimas – forestry). Specialists in some fields successfully avoid this imprecision in terminology. For example, physicists use the terms greitis, dažnis, tankis to denote specific quantities expressed in particular units, and do not confuse them with names of properties. Specialists in other fields, meanwhile, often unnecessarily (especially under the influence of other languages) turn plural forms of action nouns into terms to name the results of actions (e.g., išrūkimai, t.y. išrūkos – ecology, išvarvėjimai, t.y. išvarvos– veterinary science, etc.).

The precision of terms is, of course, also related to their motivation. However, one cannot say that motivated terms are precise and unmotivated ones imprecise. Only terms whose motivation is misleading should be considered imprecise. Such terms often arise under the influence of other languages, e.g.: nepertraukiama (= nenutrūkstama) gamyba (economics), padažnintas (= padažnėjęs) kvėpavimas (medicine), etc. Moreover, the precision of terms should not be linked to their derivational meaning. Specialists in various fields do this very often, claiming that a term is imprecise because its derivational meaning does not contradict its terminological meaning. More precisely, they perceive the derivational meaning as the most important seme of the term’s meaning. In reality, owing to its abstractness, derivational meaning may be said to lie between lexical and grammatical meaning. It follows from the structural components of a derivative and the relationship between them. For example, the derivational meaning of the term pievagrybis (Agaricus) is “a mushroom growing in a meadow (meadow mushroom).” Its lexical and terminological meanings are much broader and more specific. Botanists distinguish at least several species of these mushrooms and speak even of miškinius pievagrybius (Agaricus silvaticus) and dirvinius pievagrybius (Agaricus arvensis). In addition, many other mushrooms grow in meadows that are not called meadow mushrooms. Thus, derivational meaning is usually a false, deceptive meaning of a word. In general, it can be said that the precision of terms is most closely related to their semantics.

Convenience in use. E. Jakaitienė asserts that the civilized nat-

⁴ Jakaitienė E. Ten pat. P. 91.

31

In these languages, derivatives make up about 60% of the lexicon⁴. Other theorists say that the ratio of derivatives to primary words depends on the degree of syntacticity of the language. Analytic languages are said to have more primary words than synthetic languages. V. Urbutis maintains that in Lithuanian, derivatives should make up at least 4/5 of the entire lexicon⁵. In A. Tikhonov’s Russian “Dictionary of Word Formation” (1985), the ratio of primary words to derivatives is said to be as follows: 18118 and 126690= 1:7⁶. According to S. Keinys, 92.5% of the nouns among the purely Lithuanian and hybrid one-word terms included in the “Russian-Lithuanian Dictionary of Economic Terms” (V. 1966) are derived from other words (just over 1,600 different words in all were counted, of which about 120 were primary). Derivatives also make up about 90% of the terms of the same kind presented in the “Russian-Lithuanian-English Dictionary of Computing Terms” (V., 1971) and the “Dictionary of Botanical Terms” (V., 1965) (over 1,900 and about 800 different words, respectively, in all, of which about 180 and 120 were primary)⁷. Thus, in any case, derivatives make up the majority of one-word terms, and it is important that they be convenient to form.

A base word and a derivative are considered a “word-formation pair,” whose marked member is the derivative. This concept is, as it were, the cell of the entire word-formation system. However, the process of word formation does not end with a word-formation pair. If new words are formed from derivatives in turn, word-formation chains arise⁸, for example:

•—•—•—• (1)

Fig. (1): leisti→laidus→laidininkas→puslaidininkis→puslaidininkinį; stiprus→stiprinti→stiprintuvas→priešstiprintuvis and so on.

⁵ Urbutis V. Žodžių darybos teorija. V., 1978. P. 62.

⁶ Моисеев А. Основные вопросы словообразования в современном русском литературном языке. Л., 1987. С.5.

⁷ Keinys S. Priesaginė lietuviškų terminų daryba // Lietuvių terminologija. V., 1975. P. 7.

⁸ Моисеев А. Ibid. P.181 ff.

32

Such term-formation chains can branch, for example:

(2)

Fig. (2): from the word geležis the word geležinis is formed, and from the latter word, geležinkelis, geležiniai (chains); from the word geležinkelis – geležinkelininkas, and so on.

If new words are formed again from the same base word, word-formation fans arise, for example:

(3)

Fig. (3): vilkas → vilkauglis, vilkauogė, vilkduobė, vilkdagis, vilkligė and others.

Term-formation fans may also join together to form term-formation complexes. In addition, word-formation specialists also speak of word-formation nests. Admittedly, this concept is often understood in different ways. Some believe that only words with the same root can form a nest, while others say that nests can also be formed by all derivatives of a given derivational affix. However, it is most commonly thought that a word-formation nest consists of a set of related words sharing a common root.

A word-formation nest is the result of word-formation processes. For example:

drąsus

– courage – boldly – brave person – to grow bolder – growing bolder – to encourage – encouragement – boldness

Word-formation nests may also contain distinct word-formation…

33

Paradigms are sets of words at the same derivational level. In other words, they are branches of derivational nests. Thus, the nests themselves can also be regarded as large paradigms. The concept “word-formation nest,” to use mathematicians’ terms, is inversely proportional to the concept “word-formation type”: a nest is a set of words with a common root and different affixes, while a type is a set of words with a common affix but different roots. For example, all adjectives with the suffix -inis constitute one word-formation type, although their roots may differ: from nouns (medinis: medis), adjectives (saldinis: saldus), numerals (pirminis: pirmas), even letter names (tėjin: tė), and so on. V. Urbutis says that a word-formation type can be understood in two ways—either as an abstract structural pattern present in the language, according to which all derivatives of the same derivational meaning and form are created, or as the actual derivatives of this kind present in speech (i.e. utterance), taken as a whole⁹. A word-formation type as a formal pattern can be imagined as having three dimensions: 1) derivational meaning; 2) the lexical-grammatical character of the base word; and 3) the derivational formant.

Derivational productivity is a term’s suitability for forming new words that depend on it semantically and formally. In Lithuanian, nouns, adjectives, and verbs have the greatest derivational power. However, these are broad and highly branched parts of speech, and terms are not formed from all their subclasses. For example, names of tools are formed only from verbs denoting active actions. Action nouns with the suffix -imas are not formed from mixed verbs whose infinitive has the suffix -yti. Names of the result of an action with the suffix -muo (-menys) are not formed from prefixed verbs. The most characteristic and very rare cases of forming compound terms are as follows:

⁹ Urbutis V. Ten pat. P. 246.

34

Compound

Frequent

Medium

Rare

Very rare (or impossible)

Noun + noun

+

Noun + adjective

+

Adjective + noun

+

Adjective + adjective

+

Adjective + verb

+

Verb + noun

+

Verb + adjective

+

Verb + verb

+

In both general and scientific language, verbs are formed not only from verbs but also from nominal words. In terminology, it is often necessary to form nouns again from deverbal nouns. Such work is already inconvenient and unproductive. In general, the most useful neologisms are short Lithuanian words.

Logical requirements for terms

Logicians say that a designation, or name, is a linguistic expression,

35

denoting an object or a class of objects¹⁰. However, the concepts of both “object” and “common or proper name” differ in linguistics and logic. For example, in logic the noun humanity is considered a proper (singular) name, whereas in linguistics it is a common, collective noun. The concept of “concept” also differs. Logicians, of course, understand a “concept” more deeply and comprehensively, whereas in terminology a concept has only secondary importance, although it is standardized by an international standard (ISO|R 1087 – 1969): “any unit of thought expressed by a term, letter symbol, or any other symbol”.

All terms denote concepts. However, there are words that do not denote concepts, for example, conjunctions, particles, interjections, etc. On the other hand, terms denote not ordinary concepts, but specialized concepts in a particular field.

Every concept has an intension (the set of its internal and external characteristics) and an extension (the set of all objects possessing the characteristics of that concept). The broader the intension of a concept, the narrower its extension. In other words, the greater the number of characteristics reflected in a concept, the fewer objects possess those characteristics.

The two most important logical requirements for terms are systematicity and precision of definitions.

The first requirement is associated with the division and classification of terms and the concepts corresponding to them, while the second concerns the standardization of definitions.

In terminology, the set of concepts is first divided into categories: objects, processes, tools, properties, and quantities. Objects are characterized by features of form, size, origin, construction (structure), purpose, material, chemical composition, method of manufacture, and principle of operation. Concepts in the process category are distinguished by features such as the nature of the process, its speed and intensity, its duration, the cause of its occurrence, its results, and so on. This categorical division is, of course, not yet exhaustive or precise.

In terminology, concepts differ from one another primarily in extension. On this basis, the relations between concepts may be of several kinds, namely:

¹⁰ P l e č k a i t i s R. Logikos įvadas. V., 1968.P128.

36

1) equality of meaning (identity), e.g.: “linguistics” (A) and “language science” (B),

2) exclusion, e.g.: “crow” (A) and “hooded crow” (B)

3) intersection, e.g. “term” (A) and “word” (B)

4) inclusion, e.g.: “duckling” (A) and “duck” (B)

In practical terminology-management work, two types of relations between concepts are most often distinguished: hierarchical and non-hierarchical relations, e.g.: “bus” (generic concept) and “double-decker bus” (specific concept); “bus” (concept of the whole) and “chassis” (concept of a part). Non-hierarchical relations between concepts are most often those of material–product, cause–effect, etc. They are based not on the internal but on the external features of concepts.

The classification of concepts is closely related to their logical division. Two types of division are most often distinguished: 1) division according to a change in a feature and 2) division according to the presence or absence of a feature. The latter division is also called dichotomous. It is a division in which classes are divided into only two subclasses. When dividing concepts, certain rules must be observed, namely: 1) the division must be adequate; 2) the division must be continuous; 3) the members of the division must exclude one another; and 4) the division must be carried out on a single basis. Failure to observe the rules of division results in various unsystematic concepts and the corresponding terms. For example: 1) volatile substances in magma cannot be divided into water, chlorine, fluorine, boron

37

oxide and carbonic acid, because the division here is not carried out on a single basis: some members of the division are chemical elements (e.g., chlorine, fluorine), while others are compounds (boron oxide; carbonic acid); 2) the main antiseptic substances cannot be divided into phenols, formaldehydes, halogens, hydrogen peroxide, potassium permanganate, boric acid, heavy-metal salts, sulfonamides, antibiotics, because the concepts “hydrogen peroxide,” “potassium permanganate,” and “boric acid” are specific, whereas “phenols,” “formaldehydes,” and “halogens” are generic (the rule of continuity of division is violated here); 3) lifts (machinery) cannot be divided into mechanical, screw and hydraulic, because screw lifts are a subtype of mechanical lifts, etc.

The division of concepts is closely related to their classification: every classification is also a division, but not every division is a classification. Logicians give the following definition of classification: “Classification is a division in which (when – K.G.) objects are divided into classes in such a way that each class occupies a fixed, defined place in relation to the other classes”¹¹. In logic, two types of classification are most often distinguished—auxiliary and principal (true, natural). The first classification helps locate objects among other objects (for example, the arrangement of terms in alphabetical order), while the second divides objects into classes according to their essential features. In terminology, by contrast, two different classification systems are more commonly used: hierarchical, in which relations of subordination are established between the groups being classified, and faceted, in which a set is divided repeatedly from various points of view.

The systematicity of terms is sometimes also understood as regularity in word formation. Nevertheless, it would be more accurate to call the consistency and coherence of the classification or division of terms systematicity. Thus, unsystematic terms can be entirely correct and precise.

We will not discuss the precision of definitions separately in this article, since it has already been addressed earlier in the publication “Terminologija”¹².

¹¹ P l e č k a i t i s R. Ibid. P. 91.

¹² G a i v e n i s K. A few thoughts on the standardization of terms// Terminologija. V., 1995. Vol. 2. P. 6–11.

38