Mūsdienu latviešu terminogrāfijas raksturojums: vārdšķiriskais aspekts

Abstract

The problem discussed in the article is related to the discrepancy between the theory and practice of terminology in the part of speech aspect of terms. The traditional theory of terminology states that a term can be expressed only by a noun or a nominal subordinate word-group, but contemporary term dictionaries also include entry words expressed by other parts of speech (adjective, verb, adverb). The study examines and compares two target groups of dictionaries in the humanities and social sciences to identify parts of speech diversity and related trends. The research is valuable and important for decision-making in developing each new dictionary of terms. The article aims to provide a view into the diversity of parts of speech in the entry words of the contemporary Latvian term dictionaries. This is achieved by looking back at the previous terminology theory in the aspect of part of speech, comparing the inclusion of different parts of speech in term dictionaries and outlining the main issues of discussion for the further development of terminology theory and practice. The studies of theoretical knowledge are combined with the excerpting of entries in collecting material and the descriptive method in presenting the problem. Each statement is illustrated with a wide variety of examples. The theoretical part clearly shows the discrepancy between the traditional theory of terminology, which emphasises the nominal function, and modern theories, which emphasise the need to see terminology as a part of a natural, living, dynamic language open to change, where the aspect of information arrangement, information understanding and information transmission is also important. Therefore, the terms in the language are not strictly distinguishable from other linguistic units that form specialised discourse. It has been established that in practical use, there is a tendency to include entry words expressed by adjectives, verbs and adverbs in dictionaries of Latvian terms. It prompts a review of the theoretical views that have been valid until now. Searching for an answer to the research question, are other parts of speech (not only nouns) also used in practice, the next question arose – whether terminological clarity is lost if it is expressed with words of different parts of speech? The answer to this question can be found in the many dictionary entries, expressed with adjectives, verbs and adverbs. These features, which are already stable because they have been appearing for several decades, must be described and evaluated. Also, the presence of various parts of speech in the dictionaries of modern terms should be legitimised. It is possible that such an action would facilitate the harmonisation and approval of the new term dictionaries in the Terminology Commission.