Москва, г. Москва и Московская область, Россия
Цель статьи в том, чтобы провести анализ использования в речи научной терминологии. Анализ основан на восприятии терминологии в межъязыковых контекстах. Исследование целого ряда международных терминов показало специфику «употребляемости слова» в контексте профессиональной коммуникации, что служит предупреждением «ложных аналогий». В дополнение к значимости исследования в области сравнительной лингвистики в статье была подчеркнута универсальность лексического концептуального пространства. Выводы, сделанные в статье, определяют направления для дальнейших исследований в этой области и вносят существенный вклад в улучшение взаимопонимания ученых на международном уровне и ускорение научного прогресса.
научная терминология, полисемия, семантика, восприятие, познание, образность, «ложная аналогия», «употребляемость слова».
It’s a well-known fact that physicists in Russia, in addition to the subject they’re qualified, should have literacy in foreign languages (German, English, etc.) for reading foreign journals and special articles published abroad, as well as communicating with their co-partners and taking part in discussions with their foreign colleagues during different meetings and conferences. During years Russian scientists have been trying to increase their knowledge in languages in order to reach particular level of comprehension but, finally, they began to realize that some terms in their specific scientific fields, where they have good knowledge, are replaced, as they think, by synonyms or even other words, at least, with a slight
semantic change, taking into account that most of these terms have Latin or Greek origin. Everybody knows that Latin was the language of science in the Middle Ages — Sorbonne, Cambridge, Oxford students studied only in Latin. As for Russia, Latin was the language of sciences up to the 18th century. So a great number of terms came into science from Latin or Greek: such words as “atom, quantum, theory, energy, radiator, transmission, airplane, hydroplane, antenna, radius, radio”, and many others. We use these words while studying nuclear physics or mechanics, etc. The time passed and we have Natural Science Collages, actually, in every country and students’re still learning and using the same scientific terminology. And everybody’s sure that terms which are used in this or that scientific context are firm and constant, especially, if it concerns international borrowings, but at the same time, while reading special literature or discussing issues at international functions, every now again, specialists face a phenomenon when some terms are used in unusual meaning for them, at least they see it that way. To clarify this matter a group of scholars from the National Research Nuclear University MEPhI (Moscow, Russia) decided to investigate the phenomenon and find where it comes from, why scientists in Russia face difficulties in using this or that specific term and do it quite often: when they read scientific literature in English or discuss particular issues at international functions. From the social psychology we know that ‘any forms of communication are the specific forms of mutual activities’ (Andreeva 2001:93). S. Traweek (1992) uncovered some coping behaviors and described the culture of a highenergy physics community: ‘A community is a group of people with a shared past, with ways of recognizing and displaying their differences from other groups, and expectations for a shared future. Their culture is the ways, the strategies they recognize and use and invent for making sense, from common sense to disputes, from teaching to learning, it is also their ways of making things and making use of them ...’ (Traweek, 1992:437–438).
1. Andreeva G.M. (2001). Social psychology. Moscow: Aspect Press.
2. Cobern W.W. (1996). Worldview theory and conceptual change in science education. Science Education, 80, 579-610.
3. Cobern W.W. & Aikenhead G.S. (1998). Cultural aspects of learning science. In B.J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 39-52.
4. Hock H.H. (1986). Principles of historical linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
5. Lashley K.S. (1951). The problem of serial order in behavior. In L.A. Jeffress (Ed.), Cerebral mechanisms in behavior: The Hixon Symposium (pp. 112-136). New York: Wiley & Sons.
6. Maslov Yu.S. (1987). Introduction to linguistics. Textbook for philological higher education. Moscow: Higher School.
7. Planck M. (1915). Eight lectures on theoretical physics delivered at Columbia University in 1909. New York: Columbia University Press.
8. Smirnitsky A.I. (1956). Lexicology of the English language. Moscow: Academy of Science Press.
9. Sweitser A.D. (1973). Translation and linguistics. Textbook. Moscow: Voenizdat.
10. Traweek S. (1992). Border crossings: Narrative strategies in science studies and among physicists in Tsukuba science city, Japan. In a. Pickering (Ed.), Science as practice and culture. Chicago: March 20, 1998 University of Chicago Press.
11. Vinogradov V.V. (1944). On forms of a word. Moscow: Academy of Science Press. Dept. of literature and language, v. III, 1st edition.
