Article citation info:
Turekhanova, A., Aitzhanova, G., Sultanova, L. Analysis
of lexical antonyms in the German and Russian railway language and their
classification. Scientific Journal of
Silesian University of Technology. Series Transport. 2015, 88, 115-120. ISSN: 0209-3324. DOI:
10.20858/sjsutst.2015.88.11.
Asima Turekhanova[1], Gulnara Aitzhanova[2], Lyudmila
Sultanova[3]
ANALYSIS OF LEXICAL ANTONYMS IN THE GERMAN and russian RAILWAY LANGUAGE
AND THEIR CLASSIFICATION
Summary. Technical
terminology is most intensively studied in the modern language science. The
subject of the study of the given work is German and Russian railway
terminology, namely, antonym, the least studied its lexis. Special attention is
given to antonym classification.
Keywords: semantic
relationship; space localization of objects; qualitative contrast; opposite
location of objects; nominative construction; contradictory antonyms; contrary
antonyms.
1.
INTRODUCTION
The object of the study is railway lexis encoding
concepts of objects by term units antonymous by meaning.
The
subject of the study is the body of terms with opposite meaning in its verbal
representation in the German and Russian languages.
The
objective of the study is revealing and analysis of lexical units with the opposite
meaning in the railway sublanguage and their classification.
In
the course of study comparative-typological and descriptive methods are applied
as the main methods of research.
1.1. Actuality of research
The relevance of the work is defined by the
absence of a comprehensive study of the German and Russian railway antonymy in
their comparative-typological perspective. The monograph by Chernyshova L.A.
"Industry terminology in the light of anthropocentric paradigm" [1]
has direct connection with the topic of our research. However, it explores the
cognitive mechanisms of lexical and grammatical features of antonyms in the
term formation using the material of the railway terminology in the English and
Russian languages.
1.2. Discussion
However,
before proceeding to the direct analysis of antonyms in the railway language,
it is important to focus on the characteristic of the term concept in general.
The science about terms (study of terms) is considered to be a relatively young
and at the same time, according to some linguists, rather well studied
scientific area. Thus, for example, if in the 70s of the last century it was
believed that “the science about language has no …quite reasonable consistent
theory of terms and term systems and therefore it cannot suggest developed,
strict technique of lexicographic and other descriptions of terms for needs of
practice” [2], then in the 80s it was possible to come across statements that
“current complaints about a suspense of many general theoretic problems are
already untenable” [3].
At
the end of the 20th century the situation began changing due to the advent of
cognitive approach to the analysis of terminological units. In the world
linguistics “terminological explosion” is observed, i.e. mass emergence of “new
terms, terminological fields and the whole terminological systems, and it makes
significant changes to existing terminological systems” [4]. Researchers state
that “every science, every rather developed branch of knowledge possesses its
own developed language” but the languages “are so little studied” [5]. At
closer examination of various terminological systems it is revealed the
necessity to revise a number of differential signs of the term which was
considered to be stable, firm and beyond any doubt. In the traditional study of
terms the lexis of the specialized language has a number of distinctive
features, such as: accuracy, a single meaning, brevity, needs no context,
stylistic neutrality, lack of synonymy. If a unit of specialized lexis does not
correspond to the features listed above, it cannot be attributed to the
category of terms.
A
similar understanding of the term existed in the German linguistic space too. A representative
of the Munich applied linguistics W.Wills, for example, analyzing the language
of science and technology, writes that the professional language “is
approaching the status of an ideal language which makes it possible to secure
reliable understanding of scientific relations” [6].
The
statement has repeatedly been criticized. B.N.Golovin calls in question the
legitimacy of requirements imposed to the term in a number of works. According
to him “some of these requirements are not complied with in the life of
science, while others are meaningless” and “nevertheless, a significant portion
of really functioning terminology…continues to serve the relevant branches of
knowledge” [7, 8]. In A.I.Moiseyev’s opinion, “signs commonly attributed to the
terms and terminology in general: accuracy of the meaning, unambiguity, etc. –
no more than their tendency or their desirable qualities, or, at last,
requirements to well-and rationally-structured terminology” [9].
Our
research also shows that not all the terms of the “railroad” sublanguage meet
traditional demands imposed to it by the study of terms, therefore it is
necessary to specify some disputable, from our point of view, statements
concerning essential features of the linguistic phenomenon under consideration.
Accuracy is composed of two principles –
unambiguity and single-form formulation, that is, every term has to express
only one concept not allowing possibilities for various interpretations.
Accuracy also means the lack of not only absolute doublets, but also partial
synonyms. The studied language material at the paradigmatic level allows to
claim that an array of specialized lexis belonging to the “railroad”
sublanguage, along with the wide layer of monosemantic terms, includes also
polysemantic lexis, homonyms, synonyms, antonyms characterized by blurred
boundaries and, hence, requires a context, and characteristics attributed to
them are rather desirable qualities
since their realization in the functioning term systems is impossible.
The
property of the human mind to think in contrasts, that is divide objects and
phenomena of the surrounding reality into halves and create opposites from
them, is reflected by the presence of antonymous terms in the technical
sublanguage. (Antonymy originates from Greek "against" and
"name, designation," semantic opposition).
In
linguistics it is believed that the problem of antonymy in the system of
terminology does not cause heated debates, as this "lexical-semantic
process (in contrast to the terminological polysemy and terminological
synonymy) occurs similar to analogous common language process" [10].
In
the common language antonyms are words opposite in meaning and this
relationship is not nominative but the result of splitting the neutral meaning
into two opposites. In nouns with the direct meaning, antonymy is seen less
often; it occurs, first of all, in nouns correlated with antonymous adjectives:
light - darkness, heat - cold, good - evil, poverty - wealth, width -
narrowness. The same is true with the verbs: to become poorer – to become rich,
to love – to hate, to start – to stop, etc.
2. RESULTS OF RESEARCH
The
analyzed language material shows that this type of semantic relations in the
studies of scientific and technical terminology is not a subject to debate, so
we cannot determine what place it occupies among other terminological systems.
The "railroad" sublanguage reveals the presence of a significant body
of terminological units, manifesting opposite meanings, interconnected among
themselves with various relations. This may be classic antonyms (free runner
(wagon), good runner (wagon) - bad runner (wagon), slow-running wagon =
Gutläufer - Schlechtläufer; a powerful locomotive - a low-power locomotive =
Großlokomotive - Kleinlokomotive, etc.), but more often the relationship among
technical terms cannot be brought under the strict concept of 'opposition',
that is lexical antonymy. Terms-antonyms, contrasting pairs of units, mutually
assume each other since antonyms they designate characterize one and the same
denotation from different points of view, thereby forming a single object
and a single concept [11].
Antonymous
pairs include two or three words in contrast to the structure of synonymous
series which is normally open and has a large number of words. In the Russian
language antonyms are the terms - word-combinations, in the German language
antonyms are mainly compound words.
Research
of the language material shows that terms are entering into antonymous
relations according to one essential differential feature. In the course of
study it was revealed that one and the same essence (meaning) includes terms
for the opposite spatial localization of the same object or spatial
localization of an action. In the nominative constructions of the given
category, lexical material verbalizes also temporal characteristics of some
reality fragments. Four types of opposites, singled out by us, reflect:
1. opposite location of objects in the
railway space (front - back, top - bottom, inside - outside, straight - curve,
initial - terminal) – departure track
(initial) - arrival track (terminal) = Ausfahrgleis
- Einfahrgleis; holding track - open track = Wartegleis - Fahrgleis; departure
platform - arrival platform = Abfahrtsbahnsteig - Ankunftsbahnsteig; make-up
yard – splitting-up yard = Zugbildungsstation - Auflösungsbahnhof; junction
station – non-junction station =
Knotenbahnhof – Nichtknotenbahnhof; head junction station – dead-end junction station =
Anfangsknotenbahnhof - Endknotenbahnhof; curved track - straight track = Bogengleis - Geleise in der Geraden;
frontal tipper – a wagon with overturning back body = Vorderkipper -
Hinterkipper; substructure way – superstructure way (permanent way) = Unterbau
- Oberbau; outer stretch of rails - inside stretch of rails = äußerer
Schienenstrang - innerer Schienenstrang, etc.
2. opposite direction of an action name
(back – front, left – right, oppositely directed) – left-hand movement –
right-hand movement = Linksbetrieb - Rechtsverkehr; reverse running - forward
running = Rückgang - Vorwärtsgang; return of goods to consignor – acceptance of
goods = Zurücknahme - Aufnahme; departure (train) – backing movement (shunting)
= Abfertigung - Zurücksetzung; making-up of trains, forming of trains – splitting up of trains =
Zugbildung – Zugauflösung, etc.
3. temporal features of a certain fragment of reality - slow, minimum
- maximum, increase - decrease: slow-acting braking – quick-acting braking = Langsambremse - Schnellbremse; decrease of
speed – increase of speed = Geschwindigkeitsabnahme - Geschwindigkeitserhöhung;
minimum speed - movement at a medium speed - maximum speed =
Kleinstgeschwindigkeit - Mittelschnellfahrt - Höchstgeschwindigkeit.
4. qualitative contrast of different
parts of railway reality - power, size, and shape (large - small, running -
holding): minimum slope (railway bed) - maximum slope = Mindesgefälle -
Maximalgefälle; bad runner - good runner = Schlechtläufer - Gutläufer
(characteristic of propulsion of goods wagon); poorly-pouring goods –
well-pouring goods = Schlechtschüttende Güter - Gutschüttende Güter; a powerful
locomotive - a low-power locomotive = Großlokomotive - Kleinlokomotive,
running, movement – layover, idle time = Lauf - Stillstand, empty running,
light running/ mileage – full running/ mileage = Leerfahrt - Vollfahrt, train
carrying empty stock, train of empties – train carrying full stock = Leerzug -
Vollzug, high-capacity container – low-capacity container - medium-capacity
container = Großbehälter – Kleinbehälter – Mittelbehälter, carrying capacity,
load limit, maximum load - minimum load = Höchstbelastung - Mindesbelastung, short rail track – continuous welded rail
track = Kurzschienengleis – Langschienengleis, etc. We define this type of
terms as classical antonyms.
As
one can see from the examples, contradictory (complementary) antonyms are
widely presented in the “railway” sublanguage. Along with this type contrary
antonyms also occur. Recall that contrary antonyms are the extreme members of
the series, between which there are average, intermediate members and
contradictory or complementary opposites complement each other to gender, so
that together they form a single concept and do not have the intermediate
member. The generic concept has two aspects, so the denial of one of them
provides the content of the other. Examples of contrary antonyms: the minimum
speed (rolling-stock) - normal speed - maximum speed = Mindestgeschwindigkeit -
Normalgeschwindigkeit - Höchstgeschwindigkeit; outside rolling bearing –
intermediate rolling bearing - front rolling bearing = Außenlager -
Zwischenlager Vorderlager; front axle – centre axle - rear axle = Vorderradsatz
- Mittelradsatz - Hinterradsatz; front (head) car (wagon) – centre trailer
(wagon) - intermediate trailer (wagon) - last (tail) wagon = Vorderwagen -
Mittelwagen - Zwischenwagen-Endwagen; span (bridge) – centre span (bridge) - intermediate
span (bridge) – last (terminal) span (bridge)
= Öffnung - Mittelöffnung - Zwischenöffnung - Endöffnung; outside rail -
inside rail - centre rail = Außenschiene - Innenschiene – Mittelschiene.
Proceeding
from the above examples, antonyms of the “railroad” sublanguage are subdivided
into four types: a) antonyms expressing qualitative contrast; b) antonyms
expressing the opposite spatial localization of objects; c) antonyms containing
temporal properties of objects and d) antonyms expressing spatial
opposite-direction of the name of an action.
3. CONCLUSION
Analysis
of lexical units of the railway sublanguage has revealed a wide presence of antonymy in the German and
Russian term systems. The classification of terms advanced by us seems to be quite
complete because according to our observations the concepts of one and the same
essence they are referred to are not only opposed to each other, but also
mutually suppose, complementing each other to generic so that together they
form a single concept. The generic concept has two aspects, so the opposition
of one to another provides the content of the other. Both real objects and
abstract concepts can stand behind the terms-antonyms. Nominative constructions
of this category of terms in the German language structurally belong to one and
the same part of speech and are presented by compound words Adv. (Adverb) + S
and Adj. + S, in Russian parts of speech mentioned above are word combinations.
References
1.
Чернышова Л.А. 2010. Отраслевая терминология в свете антропоцентрической парадигмы. Монография. Мoscow: Изд-во МГОУ. P. 206. [Chernyshova
L.A. 2010. Otraslevaja terminologija v
svete antropocentricheskojj paradigmy. Monografija. Moscow: Izd-vo MGOU. P. 206].
[In Russian: Industry terminology in the
light of the anthropocentric paradigm. Monography]. Available at:
http://do.gendocs.ru/docs/index-220580.html.
2.
Головин Б.Н. “О некоторых задачах и тематике исследования научной т научно-технической терминологии”. Ученые записки. Изд-во Горьковского университета. Горький, 1070. Вып.114: 17-26. [Golovin B.N. “O
nekotorykh zadachakh i tematike issledovanija nauchnojj t
nauchno-tekhnicheskojj terminologii”. Uchenye
zapiski. Izd-vo Gorkovskogo universiteta. Gorkijj, 1070. Vyp.114: 17-26]. [In
Russian: “On some problems and research topics of scientific and technical
terminology”. The researchers note.
Publishing House of the Gorky University].
3.
Авербух К.Я. 1985. „Стандартизация терминологии: некоторые итоги и перспективы (к 50-летию деятельности по стандартизации терминологии)”. Научно-техническая информация 1(3): 1-8. [Averbukh K.JA. 1985. „Standartizacija terminologii:
nekotorye itogi i perspektivy (k 50-letiju dejatelnosti po standartizacii
terminologii)”. Nauchno-tekhnicheskaja
informacija 1(3): 1-8]. [In Russian: “The standardization of terminology: some
results and prospects (to the 50th anniversary of the terminology
standardization activities)”. Scientific
and technical information 1(3): 1-8].
4.
Азимов А.Н., Ю.Д. Дешериев, Л.Б. Никольский, Г.В. Степанов, А.В. Швейцер. 1976. “Современное общественное развитие, научно-техническая революция и язык”. Вопросы языкознания 2: 3-11. [Azimov
A.N., JU.D. Desheriev, L.B. Nikolskijj, G.V. Stepanov, A.V. Shvejjcer.
1976. “Sovremennoe obshhestvennoe razvitie, nauchno-tekhnicheskaja revoljucija
i jazyk”. Voprosy jazykoznanija 2:
3-11]. [In Russian: “Modern social development, scientific and technological
revolution and the language”. Questions
of Linguistics 2: 3-11].
5.
Герд А.С. 2005. Прикладная лингвистика. Изд-во С. Петербургского университета. [Gerd A.S.
2005. Prikladnaja lingvistika. Izd-vo S. Peterburgskogo universiteta]. [In
Russian: Applied Linguistics.
Publishing house of the University of St. Petersburg].
6.
Wills W. 1979. Fachsprache und Ubersetzen. Terminologie als angewandte
Sprachwissenschaft. [In
German: Jargon and translate. Terminology
as applied linguistics]. München, New-York, London, Paris. 1979.
7.
Головин Б.Н. 1972. “О некоторых проблемах изучения термина”. Вестник МГУ. Сер. Филология 5. [Golovin B.N.
1972. “O nekotorykh problemakh izuchenija termina”. Vestnik MGU. Ser. Filologija 5]. [In Russian: “Some problems in the
study of the term”. Vestnik MGU. Ser. Philology
5].
8.
Головин Б.Н. 1981. Типы терминосистем и основания их различения. В кн.: Термин и слово. Межвузовский сборник. Горький. [Golovin B.N.
1981. Tipy terminosistem i osnovanija ikh razlichenija. V kn.: Termin i slovo. Mezhvuzovskijj sbornik.
Gorkijj]. [In Russian: The types of terminological base and distinguish them.
In the book: The term word.
Interuniversity collection].
9.
Моисеев А.И. 1990. О языковой природе термина. Словообразование. Стилистика. Текст. Казань. [Moiseev A.I.
1990. O jazykovojj prirode termina.
Slovoobrazovanie. Stilistika. Tekst. Kazan]. [In Russian: On the linguistic nature of the term. Word formation. Stylistics.
Text. Kazan].
10. Одинокова Г.И. 2006. К вопросу о типах антонимических противоположностей в терминологии. Ш Международные Бодуэновские чтения. И.А. Бодуэн де Куртенэ и современные проблемы теоретического и прикладного языкознания. Казань. 23-25 мая 2006г. Труды и материалы в 2т. Казан.гос.ун-т. под общ.ред. Галиулина К.Р., Г.А. Николаева. Казань. Изд-во Казан.ун-та. 2006. Т2. P. 217. [Odinokova G.I. 2006. K voprosu o tipakh
antonimicheskikh protivopolozhnostejj v terminologii. SH Mezhdunarodnye
Boduehnovskie chtenija. I.A. Boduehn de Kurteneh i sovremennye problemy
teoreticheskogo i prikladnogo jazykoznanija. Kazan. 23-25 maja 2006g. Trudy i materialy v 2t. Kazan.gos.un-t.
pod obshh.red. Galiulina K.R., G.A. Nikolaeva. Kazan. Izd-vo Kazan.un-ta.
2006. T2. P. 217]. [In Russian: To a question about the types of
antonymous opposites in terminology. International Boduenovskie Reading. Modern
problems of theoretical and applied linguistics. Kazan. 23-25 May 2006. Works
and materials in vol.2. Kazan. Publishing House. Kazan. 2006. T2. P. 217].
11.
Franziskus Geeb. Dissertation: 283 S. Semantische und
enzyklopädische Informationen in Fachwörterbüchern: Eine
Untersuchung zu fachinformativen Informationstypen mit besonderer
Berücksichtigung wortgebundener Darstellungen. Inst. für
Lexikographie und Computerlinguistik. Handelshøjskolen. 1998. P. 115. [In German:
Dissertation: P. 283. Semantic and
encyclopedic information in specialized dictionaries: A study of multiple
informative information types with special reference word bound representations.
Inst. For Lexicography and Computational Linguistics].
12.
ЭСЖТ. „Электронный словарь железнодорожных терминов”. [EHSZHT. „Ehlektronnyjj slovar zheleznodorozhnykh terminov”]. [In
Russian: “Electronic dictionary of railway terms”]. Available at:
http://www.rzdl7.by.ru/terms/2.htm#nm26. Немецко-русский железнодорожный словарь Под редакцией Фридмана Н.А. Москва. Издательство «Русский язык». 1988. UIC Railway
Dictionary English – Français – Deutsch. Paris. 2005. Internationaler
Eisenbahnverband.
Received 03.09.2014; accepted in revised form 17.05.2015
Scientific Journal of Silesian University of
Technology. Series Transport is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution
4.0 International License