Изучение точности терминологии: сравнительный анализ

Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika

–

Зарубежная

лингвистика

и

лингводидактика

–

Foreign

Linguistics and Linguodidactics

Journal home page:

https://inscience.uz/index.php/foreign-linguistics

Examining the precision of terminology: a comparative
analysis

Nurbek AYAKULOV

1

Gulistan State Pedagogical Institute

ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

Article history:

Received June 2024

Received in revised form

10 June 2024

Accepted 25 July 2024

Available online

15 July 2024

The article explores a critical issue in contemporary

terminology: the status, use, and challenges of scientifically

describing terms in linguistics and literary studies. Its relevance
is underscored by the need to address this problem.

A comparative analysis of terms in these fields is deemed
crucial, as it can enhance the principles for organizing the
conceptual frameworks of both disciplines and reveal the

similarities and differences between their respective
terminology systems within the broader field of philology.

2181-

3701/© 2024 in Science LLC.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.47689/2181-3701-vol2-iss4-pp351-357

This is an open access article under the Attribution 4.0 International

(CC BY 4.0) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.ru)

Keywords:

linguistics,

term,

terminology,

terminology system;

comparative analysis,

literary criticism.

Terminologiyaning aniqligini tekshirish: qiyosiy tahlil

ANNOTATSIYA

Калит сўзлар:

tilshunoslik,

atama,

terminologiya,

terminologiya tizimi,

qiyosiy tahlil,

adabiy tanqid.

Maqolada zamonaviy terminologiyaning muhim muammosi:

tilshunoslik

va

adabiyotshunoslikda

atamalarni

ilmiy

tavsiflashning holati, qo‘llanilishi va muammolari ko‘rib

chiqiladi. Uning dolzarbligi ushbu muammoni hal qilish zarurati

bilan ta’kidlanadi. Ushbu sohalardagi atamalarning qiyosiy

tahlili hal qiluvchi ahamiyatga ega, chunki u ikkala fanning

kontseptual asoslarini tashkil qilish tamoyillarini kuchaytirishi
va filologiyaning kengroq sohasi doirasida ularning tegishli

terminologiya tizimlari o‘rtasidagi o‘xshashlik va farql

arni ochib

berishi mumkin.

1

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in Philological Sciences, Associate Professor, Vice-rector for Scientific Affairs and

Innovations, Gulistan State Pedagogical Institute. E-mail: 4nurbek.ayaqulov.1992@gmail.com

Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika

–

Зарубежная лингвистика

и лингводидактика

–

Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics

Issue

–

2

№

4 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701

352

Изучение точности терминологии: сравнительный
анализ

АННОТАЦИЯ

Ключевые слова:

лингвистика,

термин,

терминология,

терминосистема,

сравнительный анализ,

литературоведение.

Статья исследует критический вопрос современной

терминологии: статус, использование и проблемы
научного

описания

терминов

в

лингвистике

и

литературоведении. Ее актуальность подчеркивается
необходимостью решения этой проблемы. Сравнительный

анализ терминов в этих областях считается критически
важным, поскольку он может улучшить принципы
организации концептуальных рамок обеих дисциплин и

выявить сходства и различия между их соответствующими
терминологическими системами в более широкой области
филологии.

INTRODUCTION

Terminology comprises a collection of lexical units that represent specific concepts

and facilitate professional communication. A term is a lexical unit used within a

specialized sublanguage. Each scientific or specialized field has distinct linguistic and
semiotic characteristics [Danilenko, 1977, p. 201]. The terms within each domain or

scientific discipline form an organized system of concepts that are interrelated [Leichik,
2007, p. 25]. Unlike general literary language, terms are deliberately constructed to

accurately reflect concepts. The complexity of scientific and professional phenomena
requires contributions from various specialists, including logicians, linguists, and subject

experts. Researchers propose a "triune basis" for terms, encompassing subject
knowledge, logical understanding, and linguistic expression [Superanskaya et al., 2012, p.

17]. Terms should be precise and unambiguous, with polysemy, homonymy, or
connotation being undesirable traits.

The ongoing advancement in science, industry, and human knowledge necessitates

meticulous recording, observation, and management. This needs to study and

systematize specialized vocabulary has led to the establishment of a field dedicated to the
study of terms and terminology systems. This field is dynamic and evolving, with many of

its core issues still subject to debate. For example, the terminology for this discipline
itself

–

whether to use "terminology" or "terminology"

–

remains unresolved [Leichik,

2007, pp. 13

–

15; Superanskaya et al., 2012, pp. 9

–

11]. However, this article will not delve

into that issue. For this discussion, "terminology" will refer to the continuum of terms,

while "terminology" will denote the discipline that develops and organizes various
terminology systems within specific fields.

METHODOLOGY

This research employs a comparative analysis approach to examine the

terminology systems of linguistics and literary criticism. The study involves a detailed
review of existing literature, including seminal and contemporary works on terminology

within both disciplines. Primary sources include academic articles, dissertations, and
dictionaries relevant to the terminology of linguistics and literary criticism. The analysis

focuses on identifying and contrasting the characteristics of terms in both fields, such as

Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika

–

Зарубежная лингвистика

и лингводидактика

–

Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics

Issue

–

2

№

4 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701

353

their definitions, applications, and the influence of external factors like ideology and

literary language patterns. By synthesizing insights from various scholars and examining
the diachronic evolution of terms, the research aims to elucidate the similarities and

differences in the terminology systems of these two humanities subfields, highlighting
trends in their development and integration with common language.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Linguists examine the terminology used across various fields of human activity,

encompassing not only technical and specialized scientific vocabulary but also terms
from the humanities, including linguistics and literary criticism.

B.N. Golovin and R.Yu. Kobrin categorized terms into four broad groups: scientific

terms, technical and industrial terms, management terms, and cultural and sports terms

[Golovin, Kobrin, 1987, pp. 14

–

15]. They note that a defining feature of scientific terms is

their direct link to concepts [Golovin, Kobrin, 1987, p. 15], whereas technical and other

types of terms are more associated with the objects they name [Ibid.]. They propose that
only scientific terms prominently feature the "word

–

concept" relationship and are

perceived as distinct from everyday language. In contrast, the other three categories of
terms do not emphasize the "word

–

meaning" connection and are not recognized as terms

outside of their specific context [Golovin, Kobrin, 1987, p. 15]. This distinction arises
because scientific knowledge deals with abstract concepts and aims to develop theories.

Examining both classical and contemporary research on linguistic terminology

reveals various insights.

S.E. Nikitina categorizes the conceptual framework of linguistics as scientific

terminology [Nikitina, 1987, p. 20]. She highlights the unique aspects of terms within the

humanities and points out that the metalanguage used in these fields is particularly
challenging to describe and systematize. This difficulty arises because the "meaning"

component in the humanities differs from the concept of "significance," complicating the
precise definition of terms. Nikitina notes, "For social sciences, the openness of scientific

language is crucial, which involves the integration of different languages within a single
scientific text and even within a single theory" [Nikitina, 1987, pp. 20

–

21]. It is also worth

mentioning that in her monograph, Nikitina uses "social sciences" and "humanities"
interchangeably.

S.E. Nikitina describes the characteristics of linguistic metalanguage as follows:

“The underdevelopment of issues within the field of humanities is largely attributed to

the complexity of subject-object relations in these languages. In linguistics, for instance,
the immediate object of study is speech activity, where the ultimate focus

–

language and

its user

–

is intrinsically intertwined. Thus, linguistics examines the man-language

relationship as a subject-object structure, and during introspection, the linguist's focus

shifts to their own linguistic consciousness. The diverse manifestations of linguistic
objects, the inherent theoretical weight of linguistic terms, the presence of exceptions to

established linguistic rules, and the ability to test many hypotheses beyond the discipline
itself all contribute to the complexity of linguistics as a subject for logical and

philosophical analysis” [Nikitina, 1987, pp. 20

-21].

The quotation indicates that the author highlights the heightened theoretical

nature of linguistic terms, which stems from the fact that the object of linguistic research
is natural language itself. Language, as a research subject, is described through language,

and this description is conducted by a researcher with a personal perspective on the

Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika

–

Зарубежная лингвистика

и лингводидактика

–

Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics

Issue

–

2

№

4 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701

354

object of study. This situation creates interpretive discrepancies, leading to an expansion

of the terminological framework, as well as increased polysemy and synonymy.
Moreover, the integrative and open nature of linguistic metalanguage complicates the

process of organizing it, as it often involves borrowing concepts from other fields. This
results in blurred definitions, which is problematic for terms. S.E. Nikitina notes that

terms in the humanities "often lack precise definitions" [Nikitina, 1987, p. 28], whereas
T.L. Kandelaki views having a definition as an essential characteristic of a term

[Kandelaki, 1977, p. 7]. However, Nikitina does not argue that terms are absent in the
humanities; rather, she points out that terms in the natural sciences tend to be more

precise and defined compared to those in the humanities.

The issue of linguistic metalanguage remains pertinent today, with contemporary

research exploring various aspects of linguistic terminology systems. V.V. Antimirova's
dissertation focuses on the derivational aspects of Russian linguistic terminology from a

cognitive perspective [Antimirova, 2011, p. 4]. This anthropocentric approach offers a
distinct interpretation of linguistic metalanguage compared to a functional perspective.

Antimirova observes: “As a crucial part of the metalanguage of linguistics, linguistic

terminology is particularly challenging to study due to the inherent overlap between the

object language and the metalanguage: they fully coincide in expression, despite being

outwardly the same language” [Antimirova, 2011, p. 8]. This view aligns with

S.E. Nikitina's earlier work and is considered a foundational principle in studying
linguistic metalanguage. However, Antimirova's dissertation also presents several points

that diverge from the functional paradigm, particularly regarding the status of linguistic
metalanguage compared to terminology systems in other humanities disciplines.

V.V. Antimirova classifies the terminology system of linguistics as part of the

scientific domain. She notes that the metalanguage of linguistics is gradually becoming

distinct within the broader metalanguage of the humanities, achieving a degree of
independence. However, she acknowledges that this independence is relative, as

linguistic metalanguage remains an open, integrative system with connections to various
fields of human knowledge [Antimirova, 2011, p. 8]. Antimirova defines it as follows:

“The linguistic terminology system, as a segment of the overall Russian terminological

continuum, is an open, integrative system of linguistic signs at all levels. It is designed to

represent a specific conceptual domain and to facilitate the application of scientific

knowledge within the linguistic sublanguage” [Antimirova, 2011, p. 9].

Like B.N. Golovin and R.Yu. Kobrin, V.V. Antimirova adopts a functional perspective

on the nature of terms. She posits that the meanings of words and terms are essentially

the same when considered separately; a word functions as a term only in specific
contexts. Utilizing theories from the anthropocentric approach, Antimirova concludes

that the distinction between specialized and general vocabulary disappears in this

framework: “Overall, terms and words are ontologically identical; their differences arise

from the specific functions they serve” [Antimirova, 2011, p. 10].

Modern researchers, as indicated by these views, recognize linguistic terminology

as distinct within the humanities metalanguages. They agree that it is an open system and
that its object of study is the descriptive tool itself, namely language. When addressing

issues such as vague definitions, polysemy, and the incorporation of terms from natural
sciences into linguistic terminology systems, contemporary scholars emphasize that such

Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika

–

Зарубежная лингвистика

и лингводидактика

–

Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics

Issue

–

2

№

4 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701

355

inconsistencies and ambiguities are not unique to humanitarian terminology systems

[Antimirova, 2011, p. 14].

Now, let's examine the terminology used in literary studies. As part of the

humanities, literary studies employ terms that fall under scientific terminology. Despite

ongoing debates about the status of literary studies within the scientific community, the

prevailing view is that it is indeed a scientific discipline: “Literary studies is a field that

investigates the features of fiction, its evolution, and its reception by contemporary

audiences” [DLT, p. 181].

The term "literary criticism" in the Dictionary of Literary Terms (DLT) is defined

as follows: “The term literary criticism (from the Latin terminus –

boundary sign, border,

limit) refers to a concept in the science of literature that is established in the commonly

accepted verbal expression” [DLT, p. 407]. V.

Grigoriev highlights the typical features of

literary criticism terms within the humanities. He points out that these terms lack the

clarity and organization found in those of natural sciences and technical disciplines [DLT,

p. 408]. This situation is attributed to several factors: 1) the complexity and uniqueness

of the subject matter; 2) the high susceptibility of even "fundamental literary concepts" to

historical change; and 3) the need to introduce occasional terms into the literary

criticism terminology system [DLT, p. 408]. Grigoriev notes that the terminology system

of literary criticism is open and frequently incorporates concepts from other fields, which

expands the terminological framework and complicates its systematic description.

Literary criticism borrows the most terms from linguistics, semiotics, and mathematics

[DLT, p. 408]. Grigoriev asserts that using terms from "relatively more precise sciences"

benefits the terminology system of literary criticism only if these terms are meaningfully

integrated and align with the existing system. He believes that striving for accuracy

enhances scientific development. Streamlining terminology helps resolve issues in

professional communication and improves research and teaching methods. According to

Grigoriev, the most organized subsystems within literary criticism terminology are

versification and, to some extent, poetics [DLT, p. 408]. The structure of these subsystems

has positively impacted research methods in these areas.

V. Grigoriev argues that the terminology system of literary studies is generally

disorganized and underdeveloped, which often results in the borrowing of terms from

other fields. However, he contends that merely borrowing terms from "relatively more

rigorous" sciences will not resolve the issues of disorder within literary studies

terminology. Grigoriev states, “The advancement of science benefits from the thorough

development and organization of the terminological system. Both superficial adaptation

of familiar concepts into new but unstructured terminological forms

–

such as the trendy

use of mathematical and cybernetic terminology

–

and the dismissal of literary

terminology or the belief that it is entirely satisfactory are equally flawed” [DLT, p. 409].

The continued relevance of studying literary criticism terms is demonstrated by

the emergence of dissertations focused on various aspects of the literary criticism

terminology system. Contemporary scholars argue that this system cannot be uniform, as

the terms are designed to describe a specific object

–

literary texts. To fully capture the

object of study, a literary criticism term should emdiv "a certain unity of philological,

linguistic, and cultural elements related to the portrayal of a literary work" [Degtyareva,

2002, p. 3]. I.A. Degtyareva examined the substantive elements of terms in Russian and

English literary criticism, identifying several common features shared by these terms.

Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika

–

Зарубежная лингвистика

и лингводидактика

–

Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics

Issue

–

2

№

4 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701

356

The researcher asserts that a literary criticism term is “a significantly more

complex unit than terms used in the natural and exact sciences” [Degtyareva, 2002, p. 3],

because it not only represents a scientific concept but also conveys aesthetic information

intended to affect the reader. This characteristic results in an expanded meaning for

literary criticism terms, allowing for varied interpretations within different literary

movements and among different scholars using the same term [Degtyareva, 2002, p. 3].

Consequently, dictionary definitions cannot fully capture the scope of a literary criticism

term. The meanings of such terms can vary significantly across the works of different

literary scholars, leading to a degree of imprecision.

It is observed that literary criticism terms are influenced by ideology, which

impacts their precision. To account for changes in meaning, each term should be

examined from a diachronic perspective [Degtyareva, 2002, p. 4]. Additionally, personal

perspectives of literary scholars significantly affect these terms. As Degtyareva notes,

"The variety of expressive contexts and manipulations with meanings arise because each

author, writing at the end of the 20th century, often adds their interpretation to a term’s

original meaning, showcasing their individuality in texts where the term appears.

Literary criticism, more than many other fields, offers ample opportunity for authors to

express their unique viewpoints, especially in non-dictionary critical articles"

[Degtyareva, 2002, p. 6].

The researcher recognizes that the terminology of literary studies is also an “open

integrative system.” This is due to the ongoing development and integration of scientific

knowledge, which has led to a noticeable trend towards synthesizing methods and

techniques for a more precise and comprehensive description of the subject matter. This

characteristic is evident in the literary studies terminology system, which is shaped by a

range of “linguistic, sociolinguistic, and even psychological factors” [Degtyareva, 2002, p. 6].

CONCLUSION

Based on a comparison of the features of terminology systems in linguistics and

literary studies as noted by various researchers, the following conclusions can be drawn:

Both terminology systems are part of the humanities sublanguage. Currently, in

line with the anthropocentric approach in linguistics, it is valid to discuss the

"autonomization" of the metalanguage and terminology system of linguistics within the

humanities sublanguage. In contrast, the metalanguage and terminology system of

literary studies do not form a completely isolated, independent terminology system from

the humanities sublanguage.

Both systems are open and exhibit a tendency to borrow terms from other fields,

with literary studies showing a greater extent of borrowing compared to linguistics.

In both terminology systems, terms often have multiple definitions.

The unique aspect of linguistic terms is that they are designed to describe natural

language, while also being a part of it, as they belong to the sublanguage of general

literary language. Although the influence of literary language patterns on the terminology

system of linguistics can help reduce ambiguity and imprecision, it cannot eliminate

these issues in constructing a linguistic terminology system.

In contrast, literary criticism terms are distinguished by their aesthetic and

evaluative content. The evolution of their meanings is heavily influenced by ideology,

making the diachronic analysis of these terms not just an auxiliary tool but a crucial

element for fully understanding their meanings.

Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika

–

Зарубежная лингвистика

и лингводидактика

–

Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics

Issue

–

2

№

4 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701

357

A key trend noted by contemporary researchers in both literary criticism and

linguistics is the increasing overlap between specialized terms and everyday language.

This trend is aligned with the anthropocentric paradigm, reflecting the integration and

humanization of knowledge.

REFERENCES:

1.

DLT

–

Dictionary of literary terms / edited by L. I. Timofeev and S. V. Turaev.

–

Moscow: Prosveshchenie, 1974.

–

510 p.

2.

Nurbek Abdug‘appor o‘g A. et al. Translation Specifics and Equivalence in

Professional English Terms //Open Academia: Journal of Scholarly Research.

–

2024.

–

Т

.

2.

–

№. 6. –

С

. 81-86.

3.

Ayakulov, N. (2019). Anglicisms in sports terminology of the Uzbek language

and its difficulties in translation. European Science Review, 9(10), 54-57.
https://doi.org/10.29013/ESR-19-9.10-54-57.

4.

Ayaqulov Nurbek Abdug‘appor o‘gli, "LINGUISTIC STUDIES IN FIELD

TERMINOLOGICAL SYSTEMS." British View 8.8 (2023).

5.

Воркачев С.Г. Лингвокультурология, языковая личность, концепт:

становление антропоцентрической парадигмы в языкознании // Филологические

науки. 2001. № 1. С. 64–

72.

6.

Аякулов Н. А. СЕМАНТИЧЕСКИЕ ОСОБЕННОСТИ СПОРТИВНЫХ ТЕРМИНОВ

В МУЛЬТИСТРУКТУРНЫХ ЯЗЫКАХ //Страны. Языки. Культура. –

2020.

–

С. 59

-61.6.

Лейчик В. М. Терминоведение: предмет, методы, структура /

7.

В. М. Лейчик. –

Москва: Изд

-

во ЛКИ, 2007. –

256 с.

8.

Никитина С. Е. Семантический анализ языка науки / С. Е. Никитина. –

Москва: Наука, 1987. –

112 с.

9.

Суперанская А. В. Общая терминология: вопросы теории / А. В.

Суперанская, Н. В. Подольская, Н. В. Васильева. –

Москва: ЛИБРОКОМ, 2012. –

246 с.