Ivashchenko Victoria

Ukrainian Language Institute of the NAS of Ukraine

THE MAIN STRANDS OF TERMINOLOGICAL RESEARCH AT THE TURN OF XXIst CENTURY

© Ivashchenko V. L., 2014

The paper determines and sytematizes the main lines of research into modern terminology bearing in mind its paradigmality, namely paradigm, cross-paradigm, aspectual, cross-aspectual and cross-disciplinary lines. The metalanguage of description of these lines is justified.

Keywords: terminology, line of research, paradigm line, cross-paradigm line, aspectual line, cross-aspectual line and cross-disciplinary line.

The paper determines and systemizes the main strands of modern terminological research according to two conceptions in term studying – engeneering (medical, judicial, mathematical, biological terminology etc.) and linguistic.

The terminology at the turn of XXIst century is the interaction of three main paradigmal strands or three research paradigms: 1) structural/taxonomic/traditional/formal/ inventorial – structural/traditional terminology; 2) functional – functional terminology; 3) cognitive/anthropocentric/cognitive and discursive/discursive and cognitive/ ambisemantic/functional and cognitive/cognitive and functional/neo-functional/cognitive and communicational/interpretational – cognitive terminology.

The terminology at the turn of XXIst century is represented by the following strands: 1) aspectual (onomasiological – onomasiological terminology containing motivological terminology; semasiological – semasiological terminology; historical – historical terminology; historiographical – history/historiography of the terminology; typological  – typological terminology; comperative – comperative terminology; correlative  – correlative terminology; contrast – contrast terminology; methodological – methodological terminology/methodology of the terminology; theoretical and terminographical – the theory of the terminography; stylistic – stylistic terminology; communication – communication terminology; translation – translation terminology); 2)  cross-aspectual (onomasemasiological – onomasemasiological terminology containing а dialectic terminology; comperative and correlative – comperative and correlative terminology; theoretical and methodological – theory and methodology of the terminology); 3) cross-paradigm (structural and functional, functional and cognitive/cognitive and functional); 4) cross-disciplinary paradigm (socioliguistic – socioterminology, sociocognitive terminology; civilizational direction; pedagogical – pedagogical terminology; technological – computer terminology, computer terminography, corporal terminology, corporal terminography; marginal).

Terms such as “Traditional/prescriptive/prestructural/comperative and historical linguistics” (theoretical and multiple theoretical approaches that are formed on the basis of prestructural/ comperative and historical linguistic peradigm) and “traditional/system and structural/norm centric/prescriptive terminology” (system approach), “centric terminology” (structural and functional approach that is formed on the basis of system and structural linguistic peradigm) are devided as well. Integrational terminology correlating with cognitive terminology to the certain extent becomes more popular nowadays.

Each direction is full of fundamental oppositions: “general – partial” and “theoretical – practical/applied” (common/general – specialized terminology and theoretical – applied terminology).

Thus we can qualify the terminology at the turn of XXIst century as multiparadigm with elements of the integral approach and interdisciplinary synthesis.