| This paper is devoted to a linguistic problem
of terminology in the age of multilingual contacts.
As it is written in the “Brussels Declaration
for international cooperation on terminology”
(Brussels 2001), it is necessary to encourage
dialogue among countries with the same language
but with different linguistic norms to harmonize
the creation of new words and terminology standardization.
In close connection with this I would like to
suggest an additional idea that follows from the
urgent terminology practice in Latvia. Namely,
it is necessary to encourage dialogue among countries
of European area with different languages and
different linguistic norms, but a rich stock of
common words and word-building resources. These
are European languages in which a big part of
the borrowed word-stock is originated on the base
of the same borrowed material. The talk is about
the words or the initial or final parts and roots
of so called internationalisms (international
words or parts of words) which are videly used
in different European languages. Mainly these
words consist of word-elements of Latin and/or
Greek origin and are widely used with similar
spelling and pronounciation in different European
languages.
Terms being built on the basis of Latin and Greek
elements quickly spread into other languages and
become internationally inteligible. These are
such terms as appropriation, communication,
comparator, control, descriptor, examination,
identification, inspection, regulation, technique,
technology, and many others. Such terms are
either borrowed from the Latin and Greek language
or built in different modern languages on the
basis of Latin and/or Greek word-elements. Due
to the same or similar spelling and/or pronounciation
these words form that part of vocabulary which
translators usually do not use to translate. As
a result – these words are transferred from
one language into another without translation
considering them to be with the same meaning.
It creates problems if the meaning differs. Then
such “internationalisms” become the
so called false friends of translators.
The understanding of the so called “internationalisms”
we can find in the definition which is developed
as a result of investigation of this group of
borrowings. Now it is enough to remind only of
some aspects of this definition: for to qualify
the word in the status of the “internationalism”
it is necessary that the word in different (different
group of) languages is used with the same or similar
spelling and pronounciation and besides –
with the same or close meaning as well.
The meaning of the word, especially in the function
of a term, is very relevant in terminology. In
fact, all the requirements put before scientifically
motivated term are based on the semantic aspect.
The specific role of the semantic aspect in terminology
is underlined by a number of terminologists (Picht,
Draskau 1985: 9, 98-105; Skujina 2002: 44-62).
The necessity of the unity between concepts and
terms (which we spell and pronounce) is one of
the characteristic features of terminology at
all (Drezen 2002: 1). But if we compare equivalents
given in ISO standards, for instance on energetics,
in English, German, Russian and other languages,
sometimes we will see that such international
terms given as equivalents (for the expression
the same concept) are not with the same meaning
(see ISO, 371):
| English |
|
German |
|
Russian |
| telecontrol |
– |
Fernwirken |
– |
telemehanika |
| telemonitoring |
– |
Fernüberwachen |
– |
telekontrolj |
| teleindication |
– |
Fernanzeigen |
– |
telesignalizacija |
| telecomand |
– |
Fernsteuern |
– |
teleupravlenije |
| teleinstruction |
– |
Fernanweisen |
– |
telekomandovanije |
Taking into account that internationalisms on
the base of Latin and Greek word-elements are
widely used in EU legislative acts and ISO standards,
and the semantic discrepancies of such internationalisms
cause serious misunderstandings among legislation
act users, one of the relevant tasks of nowadays
linguists is to find out ways how to bring nearer
the semantics of such words in different languages.
This task refers to interlingual level of terminology.
One of the ways for bringing nearer the semantics
of internationalisms being built on the base of
Latin and Greek languages is to
respect the meaning of every word-element in the
source language. Let us compare meanings
of the elements bi- (from Latin bi
‘two’), tri- (from Latin tres
‘three’), multi- (from Latin
multus ‘much, many’) given
in the Oxford dictionary (Oxford 1995)
| bi- |
– |
biannual |
‘ocuring twice a year’ |
| biaxial |
‘having two axes’ |
| bicycle |
‘a vehicle of two weels’ |
| bikini |
‘a two-piece swimsuit for women’ |
| bilingual |
‘able to speak two languages’ |
| tri- |
– |
triangle |
‘a plane figure with three sides
and angles’ |
| triathlon |
‘consisting of three different events’ |
| triaxial |
‘having three axes’ |
| tricycle |
‘a vehicle having three wheels’ |
| trilingual |
‘able to speak three languages’ |
| multi- |
– |
multiaxial |
‘of or involving several axes’ |
| multicellural |
‘having many cells’ |
| multicolour |
‘of many colours’ |
| multilateral |
‘if three or more parties participate’ |
| multilingual |
‘using several languages’ |
As we can see from examples, the elements bi-,
tri-, multi- are used in different terms according
their meaning in the Latin as the source langauge
of these elements. Consequently, if we use the
term bilingual or bilingualist that
means that we can to attribute it only to an individual
who is able to communicate in two languages, not
in three or more languages. Than he would be a
multilingual person, or multilingualist.
The semantic “creativity” sometimes
applied in language practice by some lawyers,
clerks or other language users we can qualify
only as a deviation which contradicts with the
national content of the word, and may create misunderstandings.
A serious problem, and not only linguistic but
political as well, is semantic discrepancies between
the same English and Latvian international term
in politics. These are such terms as nationalism
and nationalist, occupation and
occupant, national minority and
ethnical minority, integration and
assimilation, etc. These terms are internationalisms
on the spelling and pronouncing level but differs
on the semantic level.
Also a number of financial terms appears problematic.
So, up till now the term apropriacija (‘appropriation’)
in Latvian was used in the meaning ‘to take
possesion of; to usurp’. Now this term under
the influence of the English word appropriation
is used in opposite meaning – as ‘allocation’.
From the one hand, the semantic difference of
one and the same internationalism has objective
reasons:
1) the polysemy of a word or word-element
in the source language;
2) the specifity of the historical development
of each national language.
From the other hand, such internationalisms are
the factor which results in contradictions. The
choice of more appropriate form is realized on
the base of semantic investigation of each word-element
in source language using the appropriate manuals
(Skujina 1999) and according appropriate structural-semantic
models of internationalisms.
As international models of terms in English,
German, Russian and Latvian are stated (examples
are given in English only):
1) derivatives with the postfixal element -logy:
biology, geology, immunology, lexicology, philology;
2) derivatives with the postfixal element
-graphy: geography, orthography;
3) derivatives with the postfixal element
-sphere: atmosphere, lithosphere, stratosphere;
4) derivatives with the postfixal element
-eme: grapheme, lexeme, morpheme, sememe,
termeme.
Some models are actual in German, Russian and
Latvian, but not in English (examples are given
in German only):
1) derivatives with the postfixal element -thek:
Bibliothek, Diskothek;
2) derivatives with the postfixal element
-ur: Doktorantur.
These models are still active for derivation
new terms from Latin and Greek word-elements.
For instance, new derivatives in Latvian are:
terminema (‘termeme’), programmatura
(‘software’), datoteka (‘data
library’), ludoteka (‘game
library’).
There are some groups of internationalisms which
have word-elements with common origin but different
structure, for instance, such elements as dermo-
and dermato- from Greek derma (dermatos)
‘skin’, or such as ferri- and
ferro- from Latin ferrum ‘iron’.
The terminology practice shows that there is a
tendency to fasten each of these forms for expressing
the different content: the element derm[a]-
is used for expressing the content of ‘that
which is belonging to skins, or that is like a
skin’ (dermal), but dermato-
is used for expressing the content of ‘that
which refers to skin diseases’ (dermatology).
In chemistry different forms ferri- and
ferro- are used to express compounds with
different iron content (ferrimagnetism; ferroelectricity,
ferromagnetism).
The meaning of such word-element variables is
not the same in different languages (compare Latvian
arha-, arhe-, arheo-, arhi- and English
arch-, archa-, archaeo-, archi-). Therefore
a very difficult task is to harmonize the semantics
of such elements on the international scale. It
is necessary to establish appropriate meaning
system for such elements first of all in a particular
national language.
Considerations expounded do not mean that all
internationalisms in a number of European languages
must be revised and unified. The main idea is,
that common structural-semantic models could help
us in unambiguous communication. Therefore it
is recommended to fix such models and use them,
if necessary, for new derivations. In cases when
the meaning of the same internationalisms is different
we can try to bring it nearer to the appropriate
meaning in origin.
The multilingual investigation of international
terminology shows that Latin and Greek word-elements
are still vital in new structural-semantic models.
These models may induce a positive influence on
unambiguous communication process if these models
are interlingually coordinated, being a good remedy
also in translating EU regulations and ISO standards.
If possible, there could be established a special
Board or a Committee whose task would be providing
unambiguous international term-models with coordinated
meaning. A lot of such models are in use in many
languages. |
