LEXICOLOGY seminar 3
1 Terms and term requirements
The process of establishing the concept of a term is long and diverse. On the one hand, this is due to
the fact that this concept is quite complicated. In particular, from the time of appearance of the
term concept and until now, it has no single definition.
Obviously, it is impossible to formulate a comprehensive overview of all existing definitions of a
term. Therefore, it is appropriate to limit with the most important ones. In its historical evolution,
the concept of “term” was interpreted as:
• “a word that is a name of a strictly defined concept”3(Volin and Ushakov 1940);
• “a word that shows strictly defined philosophical, scientific, technical, etc. concept”
• “a word or a collocation that expresses a concept of some special science, technology, art, social
life,etc.”
• “a word or a collocation of special (scientific, technical, etc.) language that is created (received or
borrowed) for accurate expression of specific concepts and notations of specific objects”
• “a specially cultivated word being artificially invented or taken from natural language”7
• “a word or a collocation being the exact name of a special concept for any field of science,
technology, production, social political life, culture, etc.”
The above definitions cannot be considered as successful. Firstly, one should be aware that
the Latin word terminus is not the etymon of a term, as far as the latter is derived from the
Greek τέρμα ‘end, boundary’. Secondly, the qualification “special” is not quite correct,
because the terms are normally classified as belonging to the groups of the common ones
(distance, light, section, speed, star, water), general (analysis, analogy, category, synthesis),
cross-disciplinary (electricity, osmosis, proton, weight), field terms (bosons, gluons, quarks),
etc.
According to the functional (descriptive) approach, terms are not special words but the words in a
“special function”. Within this approach, the opposition “term – word” proved to be very productive
in the term theory creation. However, most of these “special” functions are inherent to ordinary
words. In addition, “there is no clear boundary line between terms and common vocabulary. The
process of interchange between trivial language and terminology in the form of terminologization
and determinologization, never stops”.
In the second half of the twentieth century, there appeared many author definitions of a term,
although it was claimed in 1959 that special works providing term definition and its particularities,
“are almost absent in the linguistic literature”.
• a basic unit of terminological systems, the structure of which is determined by the fact that it is, on
the one hand, a member of the terminological system, and on the other, it inherits the “traits that
are characteristic for the actual vocabulary of the native language”15 (Nikitina 1978, 3);
• “a word or a collocation with historically justified or conventionally assigned meaning that reflects
one concept in a specialized field of knowledge or production”
• “a linguistic unit (word or collocation) of a special area of use that is a verbal denotation of a
scientific concept, has a meaning fixed by a definition that is the semantic basis of corresponding
concept, and is implemented within a certain terminological field”.
According to Theodore Savory, “terms are symbols designed to transfer a certain amount of encoded
information that is understood only by those who know the appropriate key or code” . It turns out
then that a term does not denote the concept but, on the contrary, rather isolates it from those “not
initiated enough.” Russian terminologists Vladimir Lejchik and Sergej Shelov define a term as a
lexical unit of a language for special purposes that indicates the general, specific or abstract concept
of a theory of a particular domain of knowledge or activity.
Let us pay attention to those definitions that can be considered sufficiently successful. These include
the following:
• “a term is a word or a collocation that corresponds (unambiguously, in the ideal) to some concept
in social and political life, science, technology and art. A term differs from the usual word by
accuracy of semasiological boundaries”
• “a term is a variant of a usual word or a specially created unit that has not only the properties of a
primordial, but also new specific quality”
• “a word or a collocation that is used to accurately express concepts specific to any field of
knowledge, production, or culture, and that serves communicative needs in this field of human
activity, is called a term”
Representatives of the French terminological school Didier Bourigault and Anne Condamines
emphasize the logical and linguistic essence of a term and its ability to express the concept, where
the term appears as a terminological element that is a linguistic expression of concepts in a specific
field of knowledge.
So, summarizing and amending the above definitions, the following can be presented:
a term (from the Greek τέρμα ‘end, boundary’) is a word or a collocation that refers to a certain
concept in a particular field of human endeavour: science, technology, culture, sports, art, etc.
2 terms and non-terms
3 The notion of terminological system
Terminology constitutes the greatest part of every language vocabulary. It is also its most
intensely developing part, i.e. the class giving the largest number of new formations.
Terminology of a. language consists of many systems of terms. We shall call a term any word
or word-group used to name a notion characteristic of some special field of knowledge,
industry or culture. The scope and content of the notion that a ‘term serves to express are
specified by definitions in literature on the subject. terminology is precisely that part of lexis
where this influence is not only of paramount importance, but where it is recognised so that
terminological systems are purposefully controlled. Almost every system of special
terminology is nowadays fixed and analysed in glossaries approved by authorities, special
commissions and eminent scholars.
A term is, in many respects, a very peculiar type of word. An ideal term should be
monosemantic and, when used within its own sphere, does not depend upon the micro-
context, provided it is not expressed by a figurative variant of a polysemantic word. Its
meaning remains constant until some new discovery or invention changes the referent or
the notion. Polysemy, when it arises, is a drawback, so that all the speakers and writers on
special subjects should be very careful to avoid it. Polysemy may be tolerated in one form
only, namely if the same term has various meanings in different fields of science. The
terms alphabet and word, for example, have in mathematics a meaning very different from
those accepted in linguistics.
A term is intended to ensure a one-to-one correspondence between morphological
arrangement and content. No emotional colouring or evaluation are possible when the term
is used within its proper sphere. A term can obtain a figurative or emotionally coloured
meaning only when taken out of its sphere and used in literary or colloquial speech. But in
that case it ceases to be a term and its denotational meaning may also become very vague.
It turns into an ordinary word. The adjective atomic used to describe the atomic structure of
matter was until 1945 as emotionally neutral as words like quantum or parallelogram. But
since Hiroshima and the ensuing nuclear arms race it has assumed a new implication, so
that the common phrase this atomic age, which taken literally has no meaning at all, is now
used to denote an age of great scientific progress, but also holds connotations of ruthless
menace and monstrous destruction.
The terminology of a branch of science is not simply a sum total of its terms but a definite
system reflecting the system of its notions. Terminological systems may be regarded as
intersecting sets, because some terms belong simultaneously to several terminological
systems. There is no harm in this if the meaning of the terms and their definitions remain
constant, or if the respective branches of knowledge do not meet; where this is not so,
much ambiguity can arise. The opposite phenomenon, i.e. the synonymy of terms, is no less
dangerous for very obvious reasons. Scholars are apt to suspect that their colleagues who
use terms different from those favoured by themselves are either talking nonsense or else
are confused in their thinking. An interesting way out is offered by one of the most modern
developments in world science, by cybernetics. It offers a single vocabulary and a single set
of concepts suitable for representing the most diverse types of systems: in linguistics and
biological aspects of communication no less than in various engineering professions. This is
of paramount importance, as it has been repeatedly found in science that the discovery of
analogy or relation between two fields leads to each field helping the development of the
other. Such notions and terms as quantity of information, redundancy, enthropy,
feedback and many more are used in various disciplines. Today linguists, no less than other
scholars, must know what is going on in other fields of learning and keep abreast of general
progress.
Up till now we have been dealing with problems of linguistic terminology. These are only a
part of the whole complex of the linguistic problems concerning terminology. It goes
without saying that there are terms for all the different specialities. Their variety is very
great, e.
g. amplitude (physics), antibiotic (medicine), arabesque (ballet), feedback (cybernetics), fiss
ion (chemistry), frame (cinema). Many of the terms that in the first period of their existence
are known to a few specialists, later become used by wide circles of laymen. Some of these
are of comparatively recent origin. Here are a few of them, with the year of their first
appearance given in
brackets: stratosphere (1908), gene (1909), quantum (1910), vitamin (1912), isotope (1913)
, behaviourism (1914), penicillin (1929), cyclotron (1932), ionosphere (1931), radar (1942), t
ransistor (1952), bionics (1960), white hole (1972), beam weapon (1977).
The origin of terms shows several main channels, three of which are specific for
terminology.
These specific ways are:
1. Formation of terminological phrases with subsequent clipping, ellipsis, blending,
abbreviation: transistor receiver → transistor → trannie; television text → teletext;
ecological architecture → ecotecture; extremely low frequency → ELF.
2. The use of combining forms from Latin and Greek like aerodrome, aerodynamics,
cyclotron, microfilm, telegenic, telegraph, thermonuclear, telemechanics, supersonic. The
process is common to terminology in many languages.
3. Borrowing from another terminological system within the same language whenever there
is any affinity between the respective fields. Sea terminology, for instance, lent many
words to aviation vocabulary which in its turn made the starting point for the terminology
adopted in the conquest of space. If we turn back to linguistics, we shall come across many
terms borrowed from rhetoric: metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche and others.
Terms are not separated from the rest of the vocabulary, and it is rather hard to say where
the line should be drawn. With the development and growth of civilisation many special
notions become known to the layman and form part and parcel of everyday speech. Are we
justified to call such words as vitamin, inoculation and sedative or tranquilliser terms? With
radio and television sets in every home many radio terms — antenna, teletype, transistor,
short waves — are well known to everybody and often used in everyday conversation. In
this process, however, they may lose their specific terminological character and become
similar to all ordinary words in the intentional part of their meaning. The constant
interchange of elements goes both ways. The everyday English vocabulary, especially the
part of it characterised by a high index of frequency and polysemy, constitutes a constant
source for the creation of new terms.
Dictionaries for the most part include terminological meanings into the entry for the head-
word. The fact that one of the meanings is terminological is signalled by showing in brackets
the field where it can be used. For example, the word load as an electrical term means ‘the
amount of current supplied by a generating station at any given time’; power in
mathematics is ‘the product obtained by multiplying the number into itself, and in
mechanics ‘capacity of doing work’; the optical term power denotes ‘the magnifying
capacity of a lens’.
4. Metalanguage and the theory of definition
Metalanguage is the language used to talk about language. Terminology and forms associated with
this field are called metalinguistic. The term metalanguage was originally used by linguist Roman
Jakobson and other Russian Formalists.
The language under study is called the object language and the language being used to make
assertions about it is the metalanguage.
A single language can function as both an object language and a metalanguage at the same time.
This is the case when English speakers examine English. "English speakers, of course, do not study
only foreign languages; they also study their own language. When they do, the object language and
the metalanguage are one and the same.
There are times when speakers will begin a conversation in one language only to realize that another
language would be much more appropriate. Often, when individuals realize that a language switch is
necessary mid-conversation for the sake of collective understanding, they use metalanguage to
orchestrate it.
so, instead of maybe using the word, "He was sad," we might say something like, "He felt
sorrowful." The choices in words changes the meaning that is interpreted by the reader, just slightly,
but there is still a difference. So, when it comes to studying texts or reading articles and trying to
analyze what the author is trying to do, we look at metalanguage as a way to help give us insight
into the ideas that they're trying to portray.
The simplest way to explain this is to focus on part 3 of the English exam – Language Analysis. In
Language Analysis, we look at the author’s writing and label particular phrases with persuasive
techniques such as: symbolism, imagery or personification. Through our description of the way an
author writes (via the words ‘symbolism’, ‘imagery’ or ‘personification’), we have effectively used
language that describes language.
The notion of metalinguistic awareness seems crucial.
Their is four errors in this sentance. Can you find them?
Three errors announce themselves plainly enough, the misspellings of there and sentence and the
use of is instead of are.
The fourth error resists detection until one assesses the truth value of the sentence itself—the
fourth error is that there are not four errors, only three. Such a sentence asks you to look at it in two
ways, simultaneously as statement and as linguistic artifact—in other words, to exercise
metalinguistic awareness.
Metalanguage closely resembles a literary device that references one object in the abstract by
equating it to another: the metaphor. Both these and metalanguage function in the abstract as tools
for comparison. "We are so immersed in our own metalanguage," says Roger Lass, "that we may not
notice (a) that it is much more metaphorical than we think, and (b) how important ... metaphors are
as devices for framing our thinking.
