CC BY
55
Секция 6. Лингвистика
Section 6. Linguistics Секция 6. Лингвистика
Bagiyan Alexander Yrievich Pyatigorsk state linguistic university English philology department teacher, postgraduate student E-mail: alexander.0506@mail.ru
Cognitive and philosophical aspects of specific and common lexis correlation
Annotation: The article focuses mainly on the interrelation of scientific and common lexis. The problem is discussed form philosophical, psycholinguistic and cognitive points of view, thus giving a deeper understanding of terminological processes, dealing with lexical migration.
Key words: specific lexis, common lexis, term, word, cognitive linguistics, psycholinguistics, terminological process, lexical migration.
In our opinion, the resort of the science of terminology to the ideas of cognitivism was inevitable as at a certain point of its development of the science about terms experienced a pressing need to get into the essence of the processes taking place in modern terminology [1, 6]. After all it is known that at a turn of XX and XXI centuries in linguistics certain serious changes connected directly with the metamorphoses of scientific knowledge paradigms in linguistics took place. All this, as one would expect, led to allocation of a new, cognitive approach (direction) in the science of terminology.
The most important and necessary in this approach is the fact that in cognitive science the human cognition is brought to the forefront, thereby in focus of research there are not simply observed phenomena (as it often occurs in the traditional approach), but their internal mental representations [2, 7]. In other words, the correlation of language and mental structures comes into focus. And considering the fact that language forms a speech and cogitative basis for any human activity, it is simple to assume that from the positions of cognitivism it is regarded as one of the main and most important cognitive abilities of a person, inseparably linked with his mental and physical activity [1, 6].
Now let us have a closer look at the reasons of the “diffuseness” ofborders between special and common lexicon.
To our mind, it would be appropriate to start first with the understanding of the ordinary and scientific knowledge differentiation parameters.
For several decades polemic concerning the relationship of term and word does not stop. As a result of it, the problem of notion and concept differentiation has also become actual recently. All this is some kind of reflection of such a relevant problem in the humanitarian sphere as that of the correlation or opposition of scientific and ordinary knowledge [3, 66]. This opposition initially goes back to philosophy, so it would be appropriate to give a philosophical definition of scientific and ordinary knowledge, as well as to designate the criteria of their differentiation.
According to V. A. Kanke, the science represents activities of an individual for development, systematization and examination of knowledge. And only the knowledge that is well-checked and proved can be called a scientific one. The ordinary knowledge, from his point of view, is consciousness of people in their everyday life which is characterized by spontaneity [4].
One of the main differences of the two indicated types of knowledge is that the scientific knowledge has a consecutive and systematic character. The science is a certain system of knowledge, not a simple set of “data” on the world.
One of the most important characteristics of ordinary knowledge consists in subordination to the solution of empirical, immediate tasks, as well as unsystematized character and, often, subjectivity. Therefore, this type of knowledge cannot represent the strong basis for the models and theories of high level of abstraction, allow-
69
Section 6. Linguistics
ing to experience particular qualities and to penetrate deep into internal regularities of different phenomena.
Thus, the difference between scientific and ordinary knowledge is defined by the character and degree of importance of the reflected signs of objects and phenomena, along with various ways of knowledge of reality [5, 22].
However one should not forget the fact that, despite the qualitative distinctions of scientific and ordinary knowledge, there is an indissoluble connection between them. After all, the science in itself, with its methods of perception, came from ordinary knowledge [6, 25-27].
This opposition, in our opinion, is the basis and a peculiar philosophical foundation of differentiation of common word and term, as well as of notion and representation.
Now, having a more or less clear idea of the philosophical base of the differentiation under discussion, let us come directly to the merits of the matter of this article,
i. e. to the “term-word" correlation.
Speaking about term status, one of the most important questions is the correlation of term (which in fact represents the main special lexical unit), and word (which is the main unit of language). In our opinion, it would be pertinent to begin directly with the consideration of various definitions of the term offered by various scientists.
The initial meaning of term (from Latin “terminus”) is defined as “border”, “limit”. The definition itself already speaks about the ultimate accuracy and unambiguity as about one of the main functions of term.
The statement of K.Ya. Averbukh, according to whom term exists only as long as it appears to be an element of the system of terms, is very interesting and deserves attention [7, 11]. Does it mean that, first of all, term belongs to the general class of lexical units, whereas its belonging to the special lexicon is secondary? S. V. Grinev-Grinevich adheres to this point of view, claiming that the specificity is first of all are caused by the correlation and, in particular, opposition with common lexicon. [8, 24].
As already mentioned, term status had quite a debatable character throughout a long period of time (till 1970s). Attempts were made both to output terms out of language borders, opposing them to the common layer of lexicon, and to identify them with each other. However, the disputes concerning this question started losing the relevance to the middle of the 1970s because by this moment term began to be understood as a word (or a phrase), inseparably linked with the notion belonging to this or that field of knowledge (or activity).
V. P. Danilenko and T. L. Kandelaki agree on the point of term definition, claiming that it is a word or a phrase (“lexicalized word group” in Kandelaki’s definition) in the special sphere of usage, representing the name of a special notion, and demanding a definition for the establishment of its value in the corresponding system of notions [9, 15; 10, 7].
B. N. Golovin’s definition also indicates the connection berween term and notion, denoting term as a word or a combination of words which is functioning in professional area and being used in specific conditions, verbal reflection of notion, being the component of a conceptual system of a particular sphere of professional knowledge [11].
H. Felber understands term as a linguistic symbol assigned to one or several notions which are defined by adjacent notions. Term can represent a word or a phrase, and also an alphabetic and graphic sign, an abbreviation, an acronym, a set of conventional signs, etc. [12, 168]
Yu. N. Revina considers that the term is a word or a phrase which designates a scientific or technical notion of special area of knowledge or activity [13, 8].
As D. L. Bronnikova claims, term is a special lexical unit accepted for designation of notions of a certain sphere of knowledge and appearing in the text for exact and compact transfer of specific information and notions which do not have the name in everyday speech. Term possesses such qualities as accuracy, unambiguity, existence of accurate scientific definition, and such qualities as emotionality, expressivity and modality are not inherent to it. In other words, it is system-defined and stylistically neutral. Terms are connected with a certain scientific conception, the results of scientific discoveries and researches, their theoretical conceptualization are reflected in them. Moreover, terms are means of communication in special scientific and technical spheres and description of the scientific and technical conceptions and phenomena [14].
According to V. M. Leychik’s definition, it is pertinent to call term a lexical unit of language for special purposes, denoting general — concrete or abstract — notion of the theory of a certain special field of knowledge or activity. [15, 31-32].
Considering the matter from the positions of cognitive science of terminology, E. I. Golovanova claims that term is a verbalized result of professional thinking, significant linguo-cognitive means of orientation in professional sphere and the most important element of professional communication [1, 58].
In our opinion, the definition given by Z. S. Hasa-nova is quite interesting as it understands term as “a word
70
Секция 6. Лингвистика
or a phrase representing a specialized scientific notion of scientific discourse, relating to a certain subject domain, and thus carries out functions of nomination and definition" [16, 227].
In the article “Once Again about the Notion of “Term” Definition" S. D. Shelov, having set as the purpose specification of the nature of term and having analysed 30 definitions of term, offers his own (and, in our opinion, quite successful) definition of this: “Term is a language sign (a word, a phrase, a combination of word or phrase with special symbols, etc.), expressing the notion of a certain area of knowledge and, due to this fact, having a definition (interpretation, explanation) which those using this language sign, are consciously guided by". [17, 796].
Analyzing all the abovementioned definitions of term, it becomes obvious that term is inseparably connected with notion, representing it. There can also be no doubt that term is a word presented, however, in a special meaning. Let us try to get into the nature of similarities and distinctions of term and common word in more detail.
V. N. Yartseva’s Linguistic Encyclopaedic Dictionary defines word as the main structural-semantic unit of language serving to name the subjects and their properties, the phenomena, the relations ofreality and possessing a set ofphonetic, semantic and grammatical features, individual for each language. V. N. Yartseva also emphasizes that in word the process of formation, expression and transfer of notion takes place, and in word meaning itself the results of cognitive activity of people are fixed. [18, 464].
At the basis “word — term" differentiation lie the main signs and requirements imposed both to word and to term. However, here, as practice shows, the evidential base is not flawless either. As already mentioned, in the traditional approach term possesses such qualities as unambiguity, brevity, accuracy, systemacity, emotional and expressive neutrality, absence of a synonymy and homonymy within the borders of one terminological system. But B. N. Golovin calls in question the legitimacy of presenting the abovementioned requirements to terms as “the considerable part of really functioning terminology does not meet these requirements, but, nevertheless, continues to serve the corresponding branches of knowledge" [19, 28].
Especially interesting and deserving attention appears to be N. P. Kuzmin’s statement, according to which neither in shape, nor in content is it possible to find substantial difference between word of all-widespread, nonspecific lexicon and word ofterminological lexicon [20, 145].
Thus, we come to the conclusion that one of the most significant parameters in “term and not-term" differentiation is the sphere of word usage, and not logical, but purely functional criterion [21, 29]. A. A. Reformat-sky adheres to the similar point of view, speculating on the idea of terminological field: “... term is semantically paradigmatic, i. e. in each terminology it is correlated (and it is surely correlated if it is term) with various concepts. In this sense each term has the field within this terminology that is possible and needed to be fixed precisely. The field for term is the given terminology, out of which word loses its characteristic as term" [22, 51].
It is also worth mentioning the so-called consubstan-tial terms which are undoubtedly causing some difficulties at differentiation of terminological lexicon from the general lexis structure of language. Lexical units which can be found both in everyday and professional speech are considered to be such terms. [8, 25].
Theoretical calculations of G. A. Dianova also deserve attention. Proceeding from the sign nature of the word (according to Ferdinand de Saussure), she claims that unmotivated, spontaneous nature is inherent in the word. Term, in this case, is a sign of a special semiotic system, and possesses the functions of nomination and definition. Nominative function is inherent in term (as well as in word) as it represents a designation of the whole complex semantic fragment from the general constructed (structured) system of meanings (“inten-tionals"). With the function of definition everything is even more interesting: term represents the replacement of a definition which, in turn, consists (both explicitly and implicitly) of a number of statements. At the use term means the corresponding definition, i. e. represents a secondary formation in relation to it. Thus, “relation of the pair “definition — term" is opposite to relation of the pair “word — definition". This different orientation causes distinction in terminological and lexicological activity. The first one is onomasiological: the denomination is investigated from the point of view of notion; whereas the second one is semasiological: the research goes from a form to semantics of word" [21, 31].
The fact that terms have the same formal and semantic signs, as the word [15], allows us to come to the following conclusion: the term, being, first of all, a word, takes a certain place in classification of lexical units of language on account of its functional orientation, “intentionality" [23]. Intentionality is understood as the aspiration of term to be used in a certain situation and with definite purposes which, by the way, in itself already speaks not only about relevance, but also necessity of
71
Section 6. Linguistics
using the cognitive approach while considering the essence of term [24].
The notion is often identified with a word meaning. To be more exact, they are considered as ideas of one level, viewed, however, in different systems of communications: meaning corresponds to language system, and notion — to the system of logical relations and forms which represent the object of research in linguistics as well as in logic.
On the one hand, meaning in itself is wider than notion, as it includes not only evaluative, but some other components as well. On the other hand, however, meaning is narrower than notion, as it includes only distinctive characteristics of objects while the notion covers deeper and more essential properties of objects. Meaning is, nevertheless, compatible to the formal, proximate mundane notions, standing in counterbalance to substantial, scientific notions. And only term has the combination of lexical meaning of the word with scientific notion.
Now let us deal with the opposition of notion and representation.
Considering such characteristic of term as the presence of definition, at scientific school of Moscow State University was developed the criterion of terminological nature, according to which it is offered to compare scientific definitions to the interpretations presented in common-literary explanatory dictionaries. As a result it becomes possible to reveal the difference between identification of one and the same lexical form in common-literary and special dictionaries.
This type of analysis suggests an idea that the difference of definition and commonliterary interpretation is the reflection of the difference between notion and representation. Representation is understood as a generalized, sensual and evident image of a subject or phenomenon, which remains and is reproduced in consciousness (with that subjects and phenomena themselves do not affect directly sense organs of the recipient). What is also important is that representation, being an image, does not reveal internal, deep relation of subjects. First of all the external relations and communications of subjects and the phenomena are displayed. In other words, the essential has not abstracted yet, has not allocated from the mass of insignificant. The closed nature of internal relations and existence of insignificant signs indicate a direct connection between the common-literary word interpretation and representation.
Consequently, we once again come to the conclusion that the distinction of word and term is caused directly by the reflection of different levels of cogitative activity, namely scientific thinking (concerning term) and mundane operating of representations (concerning common-literary word).
In this regard especially accurate seems the statement that the requirement of accuracy from term is illogical, as the accuracy of meaning of each term is defined first of all by the notion it evokes. In other words, it is precisely the notion that should be restricted from a range of other notions.
References:
1. Golovanova E. I. Introduction to cognitive science of terminology. - Moscow: FLINTA: Nauka, 2011. - 224 p.
2. Maslova V. A. Cognitive Linguistics. - 2nd Ed. - Minsk: TetraSystems, 2005. - 256 p.
3. Zalevskaya A. A. Word in human lexicon: psycholinguistic research. - Voronezh: Voronezh University Press, 1990. - 204 p.
4. Kanke V. A. Philosophy. Historical and systematic course. - 4th Ed. - Moscow: Logos, 2002. - 344 p.
5. Perevozova Y. E. Scientific and ordinary knowledge representation in language units denoting chemical substances: PhD thesis in Philology. - Tambov, 2004. - 189 p.
6. Lazarev V. V. On the theory of ordinary/cognitive perception (from Copernicus to Ptolemy)//The Scientific Bulletin of Pyatigorsk State Linguistic University. - Pyatigorsk: 1999. - № 2. - P. 25-34.
7. Averbukh K. Y. General theory of term. - Ivanovo, 2004. - 252 p.
8. Grinev-Grinevich S. V. Science of terminology. - Moscow: “Academia" Publishing House, 2008. - 304 p.
9. Danilenko V. P. Russian terminology (Experience of linguistic analysis). - Moscow, 1977.
10. Kandelaki T. L. Semantics and motivation of terms. - Moscow, 1977.
11. Golovin B. N. On some problems of term studies.//Semiotic problems of the languages of science and information. Part I. - Moscow, 1971. - P. 64-67.
12. Felber H. Terminology manual. - Paris, 1984.
13. Revina Y. N. Automobile terminology in German and Russian: Structural-semantic and functional approaches: Synopsis of PhD thesis in Philology. - Ekaterinburg, 2011. - 22 p.
72
Секция 6. Лингвистика
14. Bronnikova D. L. Contrastive-comparative analysis of the alternative fuel and electronics terminological corpus: according to the data from frequency dictionaries: Synopsis of PhD thesis in Philology. - Moscow, 2009. - 29 p.
15. Leychik V. M. Science of Terminology: subject, methods, structure. - 4th Ed. - Moscow, 2009.
16. Hasanova Z. S. Sublanguage and terminological system: correlation and specific character of terminological units//Young Scientist. - 2013. - № 2. - P. 224-232.
17. Shelov S. D. Once again about the notion of “term” definition//The Scientific Bulletin of Nizhny Novgorod University after N. I. Lobachevsky. - 2010. - № 4 (2). - P. 795-799.
18. Yartseva V. N. Linguistic Encyclopaedic Dictionary. - Moscow, 1990.
19. Golovin B. N. Types of terminological systems and grounds of their differentiation//Term and word: interacademic compilation. - Gorky, 1981.
20. Kuzmin N. P. On the question of the nature of term//The Scientific Bulletin of LSU. - 1962. - № 20. - Issue 4. - P. 136-146.
21. Dianova G. A. Term and notion: problems of evolution (to the basics of historical science of terminology). - 2nd Ed. - Moscow: R. Valent, 2010. - 160 p.
22. Reformatsky A. A. What is term and terminology?//Terminology matters. - Moscow: USSR Academy of Sciences, 1961. - P. 46-55.
23. Alimuradov O. A. Meaning. Concept. Intentionality: Monograph. - Pyatigorsk University Press, 2003. - 312 p.
24. Bagiyan A. Y. The process of determinologization and its cognitive-stylistic relevance//3rd International Conference on Science and Technology ISPC 2013. - London: SCIEURO. - P. 257-264.
Berikkhanova Ayzhan Ezhenkhanovna, Zhunussova Zhaniya Myrzhakhmetovna Mukhametzhanova Zhanna Aktayevn, Semey State MedicalUniversity,
teachers of English, masters od phylology E-mail: zhankatai80@mail.ru
Russian and kazakh equivalents of the english proverb labour
Abstract: This article discusses the English equivalents of Russian and Kazakh proverbs labor. We have an opportunity to get acquainted not only with culture of the people of the target language, but also with psychology, worldview of representatives of a country on the material of proverbs of the Russian, Kazakh and English languages. Keywords: proverbs, labor, culture.
Берикханова Айжан Еженхановна, Жунусова Жания Мырзахметовна, Мухаметжанова Жанна Актаевна, Государственный медицинский университет г. Семей Казахстан, преподаватели кафедры русского и иностранных языков, магистры иностранной филологии
E-mail: zhankatai80@mail.ru
Русские и казахские эквиваленты английских пословиц о труде
Аннотация: В статье рассматриваются английские эквиваленты русских и казахских пословиц о труде. На материале пословиц русского, казахского и английского языков, отражающих трудовую деятельность человека, мы имеем возможность познакомиться не только с культурой народа изучаемого языка, но и психологией, мировосприятием представителей той или иной страны.
Ключевые слова: пословицы, труд, культура.
Давно замечено, что мудрость и дух народа проявляются в его пословицах и поговорках, а знание пословиц и поговорок того или иного народа способствует не только лучшему знанию языка, но и лучшему пониманию образа мыслей и характера народа. Известный собиратель пословиц и поговорок В. И. Даль
в сборнике «Пословицы русского народа» так определял поговорку: «Поговорка — окольное выражение, переносная речь, простое иносказание, способ выражения, но без притчи, без суждения, заключения, применения; это одна первая половина пословицы. Поговорка заменяет только прямую речь окольною,
73
