ISSN 0798 1015

Vol. 39 (# 02) Year 2018. Page 21

Anthropocentric features of the scientific-technical term formation (case study of nanotechnology terms)

Características antropocéntricas de la formación de términos científico-técnicos (estudio de casos de términos de nanotecnología)

Aleksey Valeryevich RAZDUEV 1

Received: 16/12/2017 • Approved: 21/12/2017

Contents

1. Introduction

2. Method

3. Results and discussion

4. Conclusion

Acknowledgements

References

1. Introduction

Cognitive linguistics is one of the newest and rapidly developing directions of contemporary linguistics which is aimed at studying the mechanisms of human mental activity, in particular, the specificity of processes of obtaining, processing, storing and transferring of knowledge. Cognitive linguistics considers the language from another angle, studies it in different interpretations and correlations with the man, human thought and intellect. At present, this science is almost entirely based on the “human factor”, anthropocentric approach, on the switching of the researchers’ interests from the object to the subject of cognition, i.e., on the analysis of the principle of “man in the language” (Benveniste 1974; Serebrennikov 1988) and language functions in relation to the man. Today, the transition is obvious from the “theoretic study of language elements by means of their inventory and classification to the study of language phenomena from the point of view of anthropocentrism” (Sorokina 2007: 4). At the end of the XXth century we have witnessed “an anthropocentric shift” in linguistics (Vorozhbitova 2003: 43). Anthropocentrism implies placing the man as a perceiving subject in the center of the world map, and the latter is verbalized by different types of lexis and texts. Scientific-technical sphere is characterized by the presence of special scientific world map reflecting special objects, processes and phenomena which are nominated by the man with the help of scientific-technical terms. Terminology of a certain field of knowledge is an indicator of its evolution, origin and development of the corresponding scientific knowledge. The scientific-technical terms systematized within the framework of terminological systems can show a contemporary level of scientific knowledge and technical development. One of such scientific-technical spheres is nanotechnology. It is a rapidly developing science, a branch of technology that deals with the dimensions at the nanoscale, especially the manipulation of individual atoms and molecules (Bhushan 2010). Nanotechnology is marked by special, still forming, terminology which has certain anthropocentric features, which are the object of the research.

2. Method

In the study the focus is on the English-language nanotechnology terminology as one of young developing scientific-technical terminologies (see Latu 2015 c). Methodology of the research includes a combination of general and special scientific search methods, collection and processing of linguistic data. General scientific methods embrace the principles of development, determinism, systemacy, interdisciplinarity, anthropocentrism which form the methodological basis of contemporary terminology studies. A set of special scientific methods is used, such as the method of random selection of terms, methods of contextual, distributional and content-analysis, method of reconstruction of term formation models, methods of component, etymological and definitional analysis and cogniolinguistic modelling. The methods of quantitative, qualitative and statistical analysis aimed at the verification of the data obtained, are not less important for the research. About 10,000 nanotechnology terminological units in the contemporary English language have served as the material for the research. These terms have been selected from specialized sources including text and electronic terminological dictionaries, scientific works (books, articles, etc.) and specialized Internet sites devoted to the development and production of nanomaterials and nanostructures, machinery for nanosynthesis, etc.

3. Results and discussion

Scientific-technical sphere is of special interest for scientists belonging to different fields of knowledge due to its objective character, exactness, urgency, importance for people and the society we live in, significance for future generations, etc. Among other scientists, linguists study special scientific-technical lexis, its semantic and word-formative (morphological, morphological-syntactic and syntactic) peculiarities, as well as ways of its normalization and standardization.

Nowadays nanotechnology (sometimes shortened to “nanotech”) is one of the most popular and innovative scientific-technical spheres all over the world. Nanotechnology is an open and relatively new field of knowledge that has been formed on the basis of other science fields, such as biology, chemistry, physics, material science, and engineering. Nanotechnology studies objects, phenomena and processes conducted at the nanoscale (from 1 to 100 nanometers) (Bhushan 2010). Nanotechnology comprises some peculiarities of both fundamental and applied science and technology, reflects the latest achievements of other sciences. Nanotechnology is the way discoveries made at the nanoscale are put to work. This science deals with the theoretical foundations, practical methods of research, analysis and synthesis, as well as the methods of production and application of products with a certain atomic-molecular structure by means of controlled manipulation of individual atoms, molecules, and nanoparticles in a useful way. Nanotechnology is characterized by special young age and forming terminology. During its formation, this terminology obtains certain anthropocentric features, which have not yet been studied from a linguistic perspective. The English-language nanotechnology terminology has been chosen as the material for the research due to the fact that it is the contemporary English language where this terminology appears, develops and is borrowed in one form or another by other languages.

Today, many linguists are the advocates of the anthropocentric approach to the study of language and linguistic phenomena, and this approach supposes the comprehension of language in a close contact with the man (Boldyrev 2015 a; Boldyrev 2015 b). Nanotechnology as a scientific-technical sphere and corresponding special lexis are not an exception. In particular, in the framework of scientific-technical activity the man (the subject) becomes an active participant of various nominative processes: primary (naming, nomination proper) and secondary (renaming, rethinking and naming) nomination (Gak 1977; Gak 1998; Serebrennikov 1977; Teliya 1977; Ufimtseva 1977; Kubryakova 1986; Latu 2015 b, etc.). The subject is the source of formation of different nominative units based on common and special types of lexis, and all the models of term derivation (morphological, morphological-syntactic and syntactic ones (Grinyov-Grinevich 2008)) are anthropocentric per se. A terminological unit (especially, a scientific-technical term) is often formed on the basis of the subject’s knowledge and as a result of the subject’s actions (including the knowledge of collective subjects, such as a group of scientists). It functions for a period of time in speech and written texts in the framework of scientific-professional communication, gets its definition and widespread use in the scientific-technical sphere, obtains scientific recognition in one or several countries, and is fixed in glossaries and other types of dictionaries, terminology standards, etc.

Anthropocentrism in the scientific-technical terminology is shown both implicitly and explicitly, and mainly its features are hidden in the underlying form of the term (see Latu, Razduev, Monogarova 2016; Latu 2015 a). First of all, anthropocentrism is reflected in the choice of the length of terminological units. In terms of one- or multicomponent scientific-technical terminological units, the chicken or the egg causality dilemma is not relevant: one-component terms, terminological units with lesser number of components (terminological elements) appear in general before multicomponent terms, terms with greater number of components. Multicomponent terms are built on the basis of simple (one-component) terms. One-component terms are used for the designation of new scientific-technical (nanotechnology) notions, as well as generic / superordinate notions (for example, synthesis), while multicomponent ones are employed for the verbalization of subordinate notions, already known, existing and developing in the sphere of nanotechnology (gas-phase synthesis with vapour condensation).

The formation of multicomponent terms is conditioned by the aspiration of the subject as a source of nominative activity for reflecting as many as possible objective main, salient features of the notion (Alimuradov, Latu 2008; Croft, Cruse 2004; Jackman 1996; Johnson-Laird 1983, etc.), revealing its essence, and at the same time the choice of corresponding terminological elements (lexical means) and their quantity necessary for a certain interpretation of the scientific-technical notion is subjective and individual, it is based on the preferences of the subject – the author of the term, when he or she chooses a lexical unit from a set of possible variants, synonymic rows, etc., use this or that common language or special word-formative model. For example, a group of ions can be called a cluster, a group of ions (N+Prep.+N) or an ionic group (Adj.+N), and only the last two terms underline the feature of the “composition of ions” (not atoms, molecules or other particles), that is implied in the term cluster and is brought out of its definition: a compact isolated group of interconnected atoms, molecules and ions, which has special features, to a certain extent different from the features of its components [http://thesaurus.rusnano.com/wiki/article947].

The choice of necessary terminological elements and their quantity, word-formative model is subjective and individual, it is based on the preferences of the subject (even collective) as the author(s) of a term, on knowledge and experience, including the language one, on the experience of other scientists and other scientific-technical spheres.

There are two opposite tendencies in the English-language nanotechnology terminology. On the one hand, the subject forms a multicomponent scientific-technical term and, on the other, tries to reduce its length, to exclude less semantically significant components, in particular, with the aim of economy of language / speech means while keeping the notion (ellipsis, blending, compounding, abridgement, abbreviation): multi walled (carbon) nanotube, nanobionics (nano- + bio- + electronics), nanotech (nanotechnology), molmac (molecular machine), SWCNT (Single-Walled Carbon Nanotube), laser (light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation), etc.

Nomination in the scientific-technical sphere implies the choice of a primary (in many cases – main, salient) feature it is based on, according to which the formation and development of the meaning of the term is occurring.

From the viewpoint of anthropocentrism, important salient features in the English-language nanotechnology terminology on which terminological nomination is based include: size / scale (about 43.5% of the corpus of selected nanotechnology terms; microhardness, nanotechnology, microscale / nano-scale friction, micromolecule, atomic-scale addressing); material (about 9.5% of terms; inorganic / organic nanoparticle, carbon nanotube, carbon nanomaterial, nanofiberglass); peculiarities of application / functioning (about 5.5% of terms; cryochemical synthesis, chemical nanomaterial, biological nanomaterial, electrochemical supercapacitor, multifunctional nanoparticle); special physical characteristics (about 5.3% of terms; magnetic nanoparticle, magnetic nanofluid, ferromagnetic nanomaterial); aggregate state (about 5.1% of terms; gas-phase nanotechnological process, chemical vapour deposition, liquid-phase epitaxy); space / locus (about 3.5% of terms; extracellular / intracellular matrix, intramolecular interaction, field ion microscope, lab-on-a-chip); light (about 3,3% of terms; dynamic light scattering, fluorescent nanoparticle, atomic fluorescence analysis); form / structure (about 3.1% of terms; continuous / short nanofibers, straight nanotube, curved nanotube, Y-junction carbon nanotube); quantity / intensity (about 2.2% of terms; low-energy / high-energy electron microscopy, high-energy / low-energy electron diffraction, high performance liquid chromatography); weight / mass (about 2% of terms; light molecule, medium molecule, heavy molecule); temperature (about 2% of terms; freeze drying, hot / cold atom, low temperature sintering); colour (about 2% of terms; blue shift, grey goo, pink goo, white emitter), etc. (Novichkov 2009; http://thesaurus.rusnano.com, http://nanodic.com), etc.

It should be noted that in case of the terms with two or more components several salient features can be used at the same time, for example, nuclear magnetic resonance (nuclear – “size / scale”, magnetic – “special physical characteristics”), carbon nanotube (carbon – “material”, nano- – “size / scale”, tube – “form / structure”), nanoporous material (nano- – “size / scale”, porous – “special physical characteristics”, material – “material”), etc.

In the process of term formation, the subject can use a direct indication of a linguistic personality of the scientist: a name or a surname of the scientist (proper name) that is used as a terminological element. On the one hand, these are features of anthropocentrism (and even egocentrism), when a scientist gives the name to a created nanotechnology object, discovered process or phenomenon. On the other hand, the subject tries to immortalize the other scientist’s name, to express recognition among scientists, to show a profound respect for them on the part of other scientists. Due to its specificity, the salient feature of “proper name” is classified as a separate group of features (about 4.5% of the corpus of selected terms). These are examples of eponymic nomination (Nprop.(-Nprop.+N(+N)): Abrikosov vortex, Auger electron spectroscopy, van der Waals interaction, Miller indices, Stranski-Krastanov growth mode, Frank-van der Merve growth mode, Ehrlich-Schwoebel barrier, Schwoebel barrier, Rayleigh scattering, Fresnel lens, Hall-Petch relationship, Josephson effect, Krafft temperature, Langmuir-Blodgett method, Lennard-Jones potential, Mössbauer effect, etc. It is obvious that the subject can use both appellative lexis and proper names in the nomination process. Sometimes they face a choice between the eponymic term and its synonym without a proper name, for example, Vollmer-Weber growth mode – island growth mode.

In the process of scientific-technical term formation the subject (specialist) less frequently expresses his or her attitude, subjective evaluation on the basis of personal experience, perception, feelings and sensations, and the corresponding terminological unit gets a positive or negative connotation, emotional-evaluative colouring (about 3.5% of the corpus of selected terms). For example, abnormal wear, abnormal wear particle, abnormal grain growth, critical size of island, critical micelle concentration, critical concentration of coagulation, giant magnetoresistance, great blue-shift, normal grain growth, normal qubit, normal core, supramolecule, superfoam, superconducting core, etc.

Тhe choice between terminological elements during the construction of a nanotechnology multicomponent term in a written text or speech is also conditioned by its context. Classifying and main terminological elements (Latu 2015 b) can be borrowed both from everyday communication (common words, for example, nanoscale object, Raman effect, surface diffusion) and special spheres (special lexis, for example, nanoreactor, nanowhisker, supercapacitor). Due to the specificity of texts and communication in the sphere of nanotechnology, designations of special objects, processes and phenomena prevail. Moreover, the choice of terms and terminological elements by the subject is also conditioned by their collocation with both common and special lexis.

On the one hand, in terms of anthropocentric term formation, a very important point is the construction of synonymic rows of terms by the subject (that is characteristic for young age, forming terminologies, such as nanotechnology terminology), when one nanotechnology notion has several verbalizators in the language which are semantically close, for instance: nanomachine, nanorobot, nanobot, nanoid, nanite, nanomite, etc. Then terminology is ordered, unified and standardized, and in the end only one term verbalizes the corresponding notion. On the other hand, the creation of explicit and implicit semantic oppositions is also important for the term formation process (see Alimuradov, Latu 2010), when the subject opposes the meaning of one term to the semantics of another, forms a new special unit on the basis of opposition to the already existing one, thus, contributing to the development of scientific knowledge. The implicit semantic opposition (the case of a terminological lacuna, when an opposite term does not exist) is often replaced by the explicit one after a while. For example, carbon nanotube – non-carbon nanotube, short nanotube – long nanotube, hot atom – cold atom, high-energy ball milling – low-energy ball milling, etc.

Anthropocentrism in the term formation process is shown in the implementation of the transfer of meaning – metaphorization and metonymization (metaphtonymization), when the subject uses certain characteristic, familiar images of the naïve world map for reconsideration, applies some names of usual, everyday and frequently used objects, processes and phenomena in the course of term formation in relation to similar objects, processes and phenomena in a special sphere owing to their similarity, likeness, resemblance of their features and characteristics (Boldyrev 2014; Budayev, Chudinov 2008; Lakoff, Johnson 2003; Punter 2007; Searle 1979, etc.). In this case we deal with the secondary nomination process.

Metaphor is quite often regarded as a universal cognitive mechanism, when one field of human knowledge (including everyday life) is considered in the light of another one on the basis of analogy or similarity. Secondary nomination does not only reflect human knowledge about the world, but also forms different types of attitude of the subject to the fragments of this world (evaluation). One can distinguish the anthropomorphic type of metaphor due to the fact that it is characteristic for humans to learn the laws of nature through their personal biological and social experience (see Lyaschenko 2015). In case of secondary nomination, the selection of a nanotechnology term or terminological element in a written text or speech is conditioned by its metaphorical and/or metonymical (metaphtonymical) context. This context is understood as a specific metaphorical and/or metonymical use of a word, certain realization of a figurative meaning of a lexeme (a term), transfer of its meaning by similarity and/or contiguity in a phrase or sentence, which is sufficient for its interpretation. In case of semantic terminological derivation, the subject uses main, salient features of the notion which are peculiar to human beings, for example, intellect, intelligence, quick-wittedness, and transposes them to an inanimate object or objects: smart dust, smart material, smart actuator, smart yarn, intelligent bionanomaterial, intelligent nanodevice, intelligent dust particles, artilect (artificial intellect) [http://thesaurus.rusnano.com; http://nanodic.com, etc.]. “Smart” materials are capable of relatively complex behaviour due to the application of nanocomputers and nanomachines, for example, special features, response to the requests or changes of the environment. It should be noted that the image / feature “smart” is important and necessary for the subject, and the corresponding term (terminological element) has a positive connotation. Nowadays, there is an opposite term with a negative connotation that emphasizes the opposite features: non-smart materials. As it has been mentioned above, the subject can use certain lexical units from common lexis, the names of surrounding artefacts while naming special objects, processes or phenomena: nanosandwich, nanotube cap, nanopillar, nanoink, nanopowder, nanowire, nanoribbon, nanobelt, nanopores, etc.

Moreover, the term formation process in the sphere of nanotechnology follows the path of metaphtonymization, i.e., besides metaphorization the subject uses the metonymical model “Part-Whole”, when the name of a part of an object is used instead of the name of a whole object: electronic nose (e-nose), electronic tongue (e-tongue), electronic skin (e-skin), etc.

4. Conclusion

Anthropocentric component is obligatory for the scientific-technical term formation process. The sphere of nanotechnology as one of the priority directions of the development of contemporary science and technology around the world and its terminology is not an exception. This terminology takes an important place among actively developing scientific-technical terminologies, it is open, relatively young and forming. The English-language nanotechnology terminology that verbalizes scientific-technical (nanotechnology) objects, processes and phenomena has certain anthropocentric features which are shown both explicitly and implicitly.

The man as the subject of all nominative processes is the most important element of anthropocentric term formation: the subject gives the initial name to a nanotechnology object, process or phenomenon and/or gives the denomination based on reconsideration (change of meaning). The formation of one-component terms is primary in general, and the construction of multicomponent terms is conditioned by the desire of the subject to reflect to the maximum certain objective and subjective main, salient features of the scientific-technical notion, to reveal the essence of the latter. Owing to the use of main, salient features one can distinguish one notion from another. The characteristic “size / scale” is the most frequently used salient feature in the sphere of nanotechnology in the modern English language. Other salient features which are important for the man as the source of nominative activity and a participant of the communicative activity include: “material”, “peculiarities of application / functioning”, “special physical characteristics”, “aggregate state”, “space / locus”, “light”, “colour”, “form / structure”, etc. In the course of time multicomponent terminological units can be abridged / abbreviated in different ways following the principle of language or speech economy. The choice between terms in the process of terminological nomination can be conditioned by the context. The construction of synonymic rows, as well as explicit and implicit semantic oppositions by the subject is also important in terms of the anthropocentric term formation. Besides, in the process of constructing terminological units the subject (specialist) can more or less explicitly express his or her subjective opinion, viewpoint, evaluation (positive or negative) about an object, process or phenomenon in the sphere of nanotechnology. Eponymic nomination presupposes a direct indication of the scientist as a linguistic personality. Secondary nomination is not less significant; it is based on the reconsideration of the existing lexical units of common and special types of lexis (in particular, terms) on the basis of the transfer of meaning by similarity (metaphor) and contiguity (metonymy). In some cases, the subject uses metaphorization and metonymization in combination (metaphtonymization).

Acknowledgements

The author expresses his gratitude to the Russian Science Foundation (project No. №15-18-10006 “Cognitive Study of Anthropocentric Nature of Language” at G.R. Derzhavin Tambov State University) and the Grants Council (under RF President) for the financial support of the research.

References

Alimuradov, O.A., Latu, M.N. (2008). Some peculiarities of terminological nomination: a cognitive-semantic approach (based on the material of the Chinese and English martial art terminology). Philological Sciences. The Issues of Theory and Practice, 1 (1), II, 6-13.

Alimuradov, O.A., Latu, M.N. (2010). Some peculiarities of semantics modelling of terminological units. Terminological oppositions (based on the material of the English-language military terminology). Irkutsk State Linguistic University Bulletin, 3, 6-15.

Benvenist, E. (1974). General linguistics. c Progress, 446.

Bhushan, Bh. (Ed.) (2010). Springer Handbook of Nanotechnology. London: Springer, 1954.

Boldyrev, N.N. (2014). Metaphorical interpretation of relations between the man and the surrounding world. Cognitive Studies of Language, 18, 42-48.

Boldyrev, N.N. (2015 a). Cognitive approach to the research of anthropocentric nature of language. CognitiveStudiesofLanguage, 21, 38-45.

Boldyrev, N.N. (2015 b). Anthropocentric nature of language in its functions, units and categories. Issues of Cognitive Linguistics, 1 (42), 5-12.

Budayev, E.V., Chudinov, A.P. (2008). Metaphor in political communication: monograph. Moscow: Flinta: Nauka, 248.

Croft, W., Cruse, A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 376.

Dictionary of nanotechnology and related to nanotechnology terms. URL: http://thesaurus.rusnano.com/wiki/article947 (accessed on 25.08.2017).

Gak, V.G. (1977). To the typology of linguistic nominations. Language nomination. General issues, 205.

Gak, V.G. (1998). Language transformation: monograph. Moscow: Yazyki russkoy kul’tury, 768.

Grinyov-Grinevich, S.V. (2008). Terminology studies. Moscow: Academiya, 304.

Jackman H.J.D. (1996). Semantic Norms and Temporal Externalism: Doctorate dissertation. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, 257.

Johnson-Laird P.N. (1983). Mental Models (Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 528.

Kubryakova, Ye.S. (1986). Nominative aspect of speech activity. Moscow: Nauka, 159.

Lakoff, G., Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors We Live By. London: University of Chicago Press, 256.

Latu M.N. (2015 a). Peculiarities of logical categories representation in the underlying forms of technical terms. Issues of cognitive linguistics, 2, 100-106.

Latu, M.N. (2015 b). Nomination in the developing terminological systems: monograph. Pyatigorsk: Sneg, 192.

Latu, M.N. (2015 c). Some productive mechanisms of coining new technical terms in developing terminologies. Asian Social Science, 11 (6), 157-162.

Latu, M.N., Razduev, A.V., Monogarova A.G. (2016). Representation of defining features in technical terms and definitions. Man in India, 96 (10), 4107-4117.

Lyashchenko, O.A. (2015). Anthropomorphic metaphor in the English structural geology terminological system. Philological Sciences. Theoretical and Practical Issues, 4 (46), I, 113-115.

Nanodic.com. All About Nano. http://www.nanodic.com (accessed оn 20.08.2017).

Novichkov, N.N. (2010). English-Russian nanotechnology dictionary: 80000 terms and abbreviations. Moscow: ARMS-TASS, 1100.

Punter, D. (2007). Metaphor. London: Routledge, pp. 158.

Searle, J. (1979). Metaphor. Metaphor and Thought. A. Ortony (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 92-123.

Serebrennikov, B.A. (1988). The role of human factor in the language. Language and Thought. Moscow: Science, pp. 242.

Sorokina, E.A. (2007). Cognitive aspects of the lexical projection (to the basics of the cognitive terminology study): monograph. Moscow: MGOU, 235.

Vorozhbitova, A.A. (2003). Actualization of the philosophical-linguistic heritage as a reflection of the “anthropocentric shift” in Philology in the end of the XXthcentury. Anthropocentric Paradigm in Philology, Part 2: Philology, 43-48.

1. G.R. Derzhavin Tambov State University, Russia, 392000, Tambov, ul. International, 33; E-mail: arazduev@bk.ru