DEFINING AND APPLYING THE TERMINOLOGICAL MINIMUM IN ESP CONTEXTS

Аннотация

This article covers the issues of terminological minimum compilation for the passage of ESP lessons in non-philological universities. Teaching students the terminology minimum, which is structured in English in a particular specialty, contributes to the increase in the professional competence of students and the formation of lexical skills. The article reveals the concept of the terminological minimum, as well as the formal specifications and criteria for the formation of the terminological minimum.

Тип источника: Журналы
Годы охвата с 2022
inLibrary
Google Scholar
 
Выпуск:
Отрасль знаний
f
40-45

Скачивания

Данные скачивания пока недоступны.
Поделиться
Урунова S. . (2025). DEFINING AND APPLYING THE TERMINOLOGICAL MINIMUM IN ESP CONTEXTS. Журнал мультидисциплинарных наук и инноваций, 1(6), 40–45. извлечено от https://inlibrary.uz/index.php/jmsi/article/view/132669
Crossref
Сrossref
Scopus
Scopus

Аннотация

This article covers the issues of terminological minimum compilation for the passage of ESP lessons in non-philological universities. Teaching students the terminology minimum, which is structured in English in a particular specialty, contributes to the increase in the professional competence of students and the formation of lexical skills. The article reveals the concept of the terminological minimum, as well as the formal specifications and criteria for the formation of the terminological minimum.


background image

https://ijmri.de/index.php/jmsi

volume 4, issue 7, 2025

40

DEFINING AND APPLYING THE TERMINOLOGICAL MINIMUM IN ESP

CONTEXTS

Shakhlo Urunova

Andijan state technical institute

E-mail:

urunovashahlo23@gmail.com

Abstract:

This article covers the issues of terminological minimum compilation for the passage

of ESP lessons in non-philological universities. Teaching students the terminology minimum,

which is structured in English in a particular specialty, contributes to the increase in the

professional competence of students and the formation of lexical skills. The article reveals the

concept of the terminological minimum, as well as the formal specifications and criteria for the

formation of the terminological minimum.

Keywords

: lexical minimum, terminological minimum, prescriptive and descriptive approach,

glottodidactic tool, selection criteria.

Introduction.

In order to develop a linguistic system of professional language teaching, it is

important that students strictly choose the language material that will enable them to maximally

activate the process of mastering the English language in relation to the chosen specialty. It is

necessary to choose the most frequent lexical units, typical syntactic constructions, arrange them

in a certain form, which will be the basis for easy assimilation of readers and subsequent use in

active communication. All this requires consistent adherence to the printmaking in the

description of language and speech materials, developing the ability to self-study on the basis of

a conscious and practical method, allowing the acquired knowledge and formed skills to be

actively transferred to unfamiliar language and speech materials in new conditions of real

communication. In this regard, the teaching of the terminological vocabulary of the English

language occupies one of the main places in the teaching of its specialty in a foreign language to

students of the non-philological direction. All this suggests that the need to choose a lexical

minimum is scientifically justified.

Material and methods

In this article, we have used methods of description, conceptual analysis, comparison and

contrast. Based on the analysis, the concept is generalized and concretized.

Discussion and results

Currently, the question of the choice of lexical material, taking into account the language of

specialization, is the main issue in linguistics. In the works of academic N. M. Şanskiy, G. G.

Gorodilova, S. G. Barkhudarov, L. G. Sayakhova, N. Z. Bakeeva, V. I. Zimin, L. N. Novikov

and others, the issues of lexical minimum selection are considered. These scientists noted that the

further development of educational lexicography, the development of the theory and practice of

compiling various educational dictionaries, in the first place, the development of a complex and

aspect-minimum of the active type, which is primarily aimed at the communicative.

The concept of the terminological minimum is associated with the term "lexical minimum" in the

methodology. Many methodist scientists emphasize that one of these two concepts does not

differ from the other, scientist O.L.Yarashenko (2014) says that there is a partial difference

between these two concepts . Although these two terms are related to one another, their


background image

https://ijmri.de/index.php/jmsi

volume 4, issue 7, 2025

41

methodological structure, the scope of their adoption, functions and the methods of their

presentation must be a clear limit. That is, according to the peculiarities of the sources of the

every language units, when the general words are compared with special words-terms, it is worth

considering that they can be used by potential special occupants and differ in special features.

If we analyze the reasons for the origin of these two concepts, we will see that they were not

studied as a scientific concept separately, otherwise only their general characteristics were

studied. The term

lexical minimum

appeared due to the volume of requirements of a specific

educational program, the concept of a

terminological minimum

arose for the lack of necessary

educational materials for LSP ( Language for special purposes) .

The term "lexical minimum" is often used in educational contexts and considered as the choice

of the vocabulary source in accordance with the level of learners (Lukasik, M.2017). In

particular, such a lexicon is important and necessary in teaching LSP. In the lexicographical

dictionary, such a definition is given: "lexical minimum-the words chosen according to the level

of application and the proximity of meanings are used in the conduct of communication in the

language and significant for language study purposes. Such a lexical choice focuses mainly on

words that are used a lot from statistical gist, as well as stylistic neutral and have a strong

semantic meaning, and such words help the learner to communicate in everyday communicative

situations (Hartmann, R.R.K./ G. James 2002).

M. Lukasik (2018) gave a definition to the

terminological minimum

as a practical tool in the

selection of a special lexicon intended for teaching learners of different levels of special purpose

language learning (LSP) courses .

Compiling a special lexical minimum in the English language is based on the traditions of

compiling lexicography of general words. But the developers of a special terminological

minimum are faced with special problems, in particular, depending on the level of the students of

a particular stage, they have to deal with such tasks as to determine the volume of the

terminological minimum, develop the structure of the terminological minimum, determine the

specific characteristics of the interpretation of the meaning of a special lexical units,

scientifically substantiate the vocabulary necessary and sufficiency for mastering, determine the

principles and criteria for the selection of the lexical minimum, etc.

Mark Lukasik (2018) states that when isolating the terminological minimum, it is based on 2

approaches, these are both prescriptive and descriptive approaches (Fig 1) .

According to the prescriptive (traditional) approach, the terminological minimum is obtained as

special official standardized lexical units, which is the terminological vocabulary of a particular

special field or science. Also terminological minimum is defined as a unit of special lexical

competence, a measure of assessing the degree of knowledge of terms, as well as a resource

covering the basic terms of a certain sphere. From this point of view, we can conclude that the

terminological minimum as a lexical competence of the student that helps in the differentiation

of language learners with initial knowledge belonging to a special branch of science and as well

as a to LSP, meanwhile in the evaluation of this competence as a factor of the terminological

minimum assessment.

According to the social-cognitive criteria of the prescriptive approach, the terminological

minimum is interpreted as the lexical minimum which is informative tool of lexical units in

special texts.


background image

https://ijmri.de/index.php/jmsi

volume 4, issue 7, 2025

42

As a resource terminology minimum is used to produce (glotto) didactic materials (textbooks,

course materials, etc.), lexicographic works (dictionaries, minimum dictionaries), terminological

tools (terminological databases), other programs.

As a glottodidactic tool, the terminological minimum is of great importance in increasing the

linguistic competence of students in various professional situations. The terminological

minimum is included in the program of classes in the higher educational institutions of technical

education, that is, in universities and technical schools of the non-philological direction, where

more LSP is taught. Terminological minimum comes also in the form of glossary in textbooks

and materials intended for self-study.

In the descriptive approach, the terms are not standardized. The terminological minimum is

selected as a result of the statistical analysis according to this approach.

S.Grucha (2004), who supports the descriptive approach, developed a universal measure of

terminological minimum structure. The scientist allocates 3 stages in the compilation of the

terminological minimum: 1) compilation of a list of the most commonly used terms 2)

verification and introduction of the collected terminological material 3) addition of not-used

terms.

We consider the case, which is attached to the opinion of the scientist Marek Lukasik (2018), and

in addition to it, the main design manners that should be taken into consideration in choosing

terminological minimum for ESP (English for specific purposes) as follows:

-main subject area or a field and its development should be taken into account

-special features of the special lexicon within the same field

-users of terminology and their requirements

-type of terminological minimum that needs to be established (prescriptive, descriptive)

-availability of resources for terminological minimum

- verification of sources (terminographic analysis)

- reflected conceptual continuity

-inclusion or exclusion criteria of lexical terms in the terminology system

- methods of separation and verification of lexical terms

-data management

-macro-and microstructure of the terminological minimum

- product ( terminological lexicography) distribution ( marketing strategies)

-user feedback

-linguacultural peculiarities of terminological minimum

-psycholinguistic features of terminological minimum in teaching process

In addition to the above idea, we can say that in the compilation of the terminological minimum,

it is necessary to study the nature of this terminological system and study the etymology of terms

and their meaning.

The next feature, which should be taken into the next account, is the difference in terms of

different lexical units in LSP, that is, the differences between terms and nomenaclature, between

terms and professional words, the difference in standardized and non-standardized terms, as well

as abbreviations (abbreviations) that can be found in texts of a special specialty,

internationalization of terms and other peculiarities can be the basis for our minimum

compilation.

The conceptual system of some fields belongs only to a certain lingua-cultural area or is within

the framework of a single geographic region, which includes terms related to culture (for

example, legal terms) or terminological regionalisms (for example, terms related to a certain

cultural crafts).This brings problems in the compilation of a monolingual and multilingual

terminological minimum according to the conceptuality. The inconsistency of conceptual

meanings is not only related to culture, but also can be seen in such directions as science or

technology (Lukasik M.2018).

G.Bedny notes that scientific terms have different semantic meanings in different languages, and

different peculiarities in interpretation process. He investigate the terminological problems in


background image

https://ijmri.de/index.php/jmsi

volume 4, issue 7, 2025

43

the science of psychology, he says that many problems are observed in the interpretation and

translation of terminology from Russian into English and this terminology had been developed in

Russia in a special social-cultural direction (Bedny G. 2015).The diversity of terminology in the

technical sphere arises from the development of a local technical culture and the local influence

of brand names, which later became terms.

As we have already noted, the main emphasis when compiling any lexicography is on the

extirpation of users. X.K.Simonsen (2000) states that the degree of success of any product

depends on the assessment of the users. In addition to the user characteristics (their general

knowledge, level of experience, language proficiency, their motivation etc.).), as well as related

to knowledge (extension/ verification of real knowledge), related to communication (text

production/ reception of text), as well as additional lexicographic needs of the user should be

studied ( Tarp S. 2008).

According to the prescriptive approach the users of the terminological minimum are

professionals of a certain specialty, state bodies, terminologists, linguists (cognitive linguists),

experts in the field of computer science, dictionaries, translators and, of course, teachers.

If terminological minimum performs the descriptive role, then the list of users can include all

LSP learners, students, specialists, semi-specialists and non-specialists. The

descriptive

terminology used for teaching language is divided into active and passive types, depending on

the skills of students .As a didactic tool, it can be used as a course material.

When choosing a lexical minimum in teaching a foreign language, the scientist J.Jalalov (2012)

says that it is necessary to sort out the vocabulary , relying mainly on 3 principles, and they are

the following: "selection source", "selection criteria" and "selection unit" . When we say" source

of choice", it is understood that the formed lexical is separated from the language system, and the

lexical minimum is obtained from the sources in oral and written speech. Accordingly, we can

conclude that the terminological minimum is obtained from sources which belong to a

particular specialty in the form of oral and written texts like ads, brochures, menus, tables,

recipes used in everyday life, songs, articles in journals and magazines, films, film trailers,

photos, documentaries, interviews, various broadcasts.

When we say "selection criteria", the measurements and indicators that are relevant in

determining the completeness of the lexicon are considered.Alim J.We can say that the

statistical , methodological and linguistic criteria are the basis of the terminology minimum

compilation, while Jalolov takes into account the idea of the lexical minimum selection criteria

list.We can see this in a clearer form in the app below.

When we say "selection criteria", we consider the measurements and indicators that are relevant

in determining the completeness of the lexicon. We can say that the statistical, methodological

and linguistic criteria are the basis of the terminological minimum compilation, taking into

account the idea of the scientist J.Jalolov (2012) which is about lexical minimum selection

criteria. We can see this in a clearer form in the figure below (fig 2).


background image

https://ijmri.de/index.php/jmsi

volume 4, issue 7, 2025

44

Topics selected within a

specific field of study to

develop professional

competence, taking into

account the learners’

needs, age, and interests."

Criteria of choosing terminological minimum

Statistical criteria

Methodical criteria

Linguistic criteria

According to the

frequency and

widespread usage of

terms

The combination of terms

with other words, their

morphological formation,

semantic unambiguity,

restriction of synonyms,

stylistic neutrality, and

participation in sentence

structure.

Figure 1.

Criteria of choosing terminological minimum

According to the statistical criteria, the indicators of the frequent application of words in the

compilation of the terminological minimum are taken into account. This criteria was developed

for the first time.

In the methodical criteria the aim of teaching and the idea of the speech topics is taken into

account. Hence, the main purpose of compiling terminological minimum is the formation of

professional competence in students of a certain specialty and the topics, texts on which to study

are selected within the framework of the specialty.

In compilation of terminological minimum, we sorted out such criteria as the combination of

terms with other words, word-building structures, one meaningfulness, the limitation of

synonyms, the method of cognition to be neutral and its participation in sentence-building which

belong to the linguistic criteria. The terminology according to the combination criterion should

give the feature of getting more unity with other words. For example,

manipulators used in

industry.

According to the word formation criterion, for example, it is envisaged to forge several

lexical units from one term. It should be noted that in the terminology minimum compilation,

only one of the words belonging to the synonym series is obtained. The selection unit of

terminological minimum is considered to be by dividing terminological combinations equal to

one meaning of the terms, as a unit of selection.

Compiled terminological minimum goes through the stages as methodical classification,

distribution and statistical presentation, in the dynamic stage it serves for the formation of the

student's skills.

Conclusion

To sum up, terminological minimum performs different roles as prescriptive and descriptive

ones. In teaching ESP we need the descriptive type, as it is important in the formation of

professional competence of students and as a glottodidactic tool it is used in compiling text

books, dictionaries, e-learning courses, testing tools, glossaries.

We can conclude from the mentioned above that some problems are observed in selection

terminological minimum and they are as follows:

1. Some terms have special linguistic features like multi-semantic meaning of terms make it

difficult to compile a terminological minimum.

2. Some terms related to the culture bring problems in the compilation of the multi-lingual

terminological minimum.


background image

https://ijmri.de/index.php/jmsi

volume 4, issue 7, 2025

45

3. Different meaning of terms in different language complicate the interpretation process, as well

as working out the minimum.

4. Taking into account the feedback of users is also considered to be an obstacle in composing

the terminological minimum.

The minimum selection criteria as statistical, methodical and linguistic criteria should be studied

carefully and perfectly before composing terminological minimum.

References:

1.

Grucza, S. (2004), Didactics of translation. Terminological preparation of specialized

teaching texts. In: J. Lewandowski (ed.), Specialist languages 4.

2.

Hartmann, R.R.K./ G. James (2002), Dictionary of Lexicography. London/ New

terminological lexicography theory and practice. Warsaw, 243-267.

3.

Jalalov J. Methods of teaching foreign languages: textbook for students of higher

educational institutions (faculties) of foreign languages. - Tashkent: Teacher, 2012.- The 432s.;

4.

Łukasik, Marek. (2017). Lexical Minimum (Re)Defined. Applied Linguistics. 23. 47-63.

10.32612/uw.20804814.2017.3.pp.47-63.

5.

Marek Lukasek (2018) New pathsways to terminological minimum/ Unversity of

Warsaw-Applied Linguistics Papers 25/ 2, 2018, 133-168

6.

Simonsen, H.K. (2000). Design, Development and Compilation of a bilingual

multifunctional Intranet-based Differential Telecom Lexinome at a major Danish Telecoms

Group. In: U. Heid/ S. Evert/ E. Lehmann/ Ch. Rohrer (eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Euralex

International Congress, EURALEX 2000 Vol.2. Stuttgart.(93)

7.

Tarp, S. (2008), Lexicography in the Borderland between Knowledge and Non-

Knowledge. General Lexicographical Theory with Particular Focus on Learner!s Lexicography.

Tübingen

8.

Yaroshenko, O.L. (2014), Principles of lexical minimum selection for teaching general

technical English to engineering students. In: “Advanced Education” 2, New York 104–110.

Библиографические ссылки

Grucza, S. (2004), Didactics of translation. Terminological preparation of specialized teaching texts. In: J. Lewandowski (ed.), Specialist languages 4.

Hartmann, R.R.K./ G. James (2002), Dictionary of Lexicography. London/ New terminological lexicography theory and practice. Warsaw, 243-267.

Jalalov J. Methods of teaching foreign languages: textbook for students of higher educational institutions (faculties) of foreign languages. - Tashkent: Teacher, 2012.- The 432s.;

Łukasik, Marek. (2017). Lexical Minimum (Re)Defined. Applied Linguistics. 23. 47-63. 10.32612/uw.20804814.2017.3.pp.47-63.

Marek Lukasek (2018) New pathsways to terminological minimum/ Unversity of Warsaw-Applied Linguistics Papers 25/ 2, 2018, 133-168

Simonsen, H.K. (2000). Design, Development and Compilation of a bilingual multifunctional Intranet-based Differential Telecom Lexinome at a major Danish Telecoms Group. In: U. Heid/ S. Evert/ E. Lehmann/ Ch. Rohrer (eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Euralex International Congress, EURALEX 2000 Vol.2. Stuttgart.(93)

Tarp, S. (2008), Lexicography in the Borderland between Knowledge and Non- Knowledge. General Lexicographical Theory with Particular Focus on Learner!s Lexicography. Tübingen

Yaroshenko, O.L. (2014), Principles of lexical minimum selection for teaching general technical English to engineering students. In: “Advanced Education” 2, New York 104–110.