Semantic-component analysis and features of translation of anatomical terms-metaphors with modifier - name of mechanisms and their parts

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Semantic-component analysis and features of translation of anatomical terms-metaphors with modifier - name of mechanisms and their parts

Lytvynenko O.O.,

PhD (Philology), Associate Professor, Lecturer at the Language Training Department National University of Civil Defense

Kryvko R.M.,

Lecturer at the Fundamental and Language Training Department

National University of Pharmacy

The article considers the peculiarities of the translation of anatomical terms-metaphors with a modifier of the name of mechanisms and their parts on the material of English and Ukrainian languages. Theoretical bases of studying of terminological metaphor in modern linguistics have been specified, the works by Yu. Brazhuk, N. Tsisar, H. Usyk and T Kyrylenko, Yu. Mararenko and I. Tkachenko have been analyzed, as a result, the classification features of metaphorical binarms included in the layer of anatomical terminology are singled out. Binary terms such as palatine-lingual arch, aortic arch, femoral ring, tendon ring, oral siphon, artery siphon, intervertebral disc, fallopian tube, ear canal, cardiac tube, vascular plate spinal cord bone plate from bone plate gutter, “groove” and “ring”, “bracket”, “plate”, “roller”, “arc”, “disk”, “cylinder”, “tube”, “siphon”, “sail” have been studied.

As a modifier in such anatomical medical terms, the names of household items, premises, buildings and their parts, tools, clothing and mechanisms and their components are normally used. External similarity and functional similarity are typical. translation anatomical term metaphor

For the first time, a comparative analysis of metaphorical terms in the English-Ukrainian translation (taking into account their Latin equivalent as a basis) using semantic-component analysis on the material of the “New English-Ukrainian Ukrainian-English Medical Dictionary” (2020) and “Latin-Ukrainian explanatory dictionary of clinical terms” (2016). Translation transformations have been described, V. Karaban's classification has been used as a basis. The semantic- component analysis was carried out with the use of the eleven-volume “Dictionary of the Ukrainian language”, which establishes the primary lexical meaning, transformations and redistribution of seeds, the development of the connotative component. As a promising area for further research, we have chosen a similar study of pathoanatomical terminology.

Key words: anatomical metaphor, metaphorical binary, modifier, semantic-component analysis, term-metaphor.

СЕМНО-КОМПОНЕНТНИЙ АНАЛІЗ ТА ОСОБЛИВОСТІ ПЕРЕКЛАДУ АНАТОМІЧНИХ ТЕРМІНІВ-МЕТАФОР ІЗ МОДИФІКАТОРОМ - НАЗВОЮ МЕХАНІЗМІВ ТА ЇХНІХ ЧАСТИНИ

У статті розглядаються особливості перекладу анатомічних термінів-метафор із модифікатором назвою механізмів та їхніх частини на матеріалі англійської та української мов. Уточнено теоретичні засади вивчення термінологічної метафори в сучасному мовознавстві, проаналізовано роботи Ю. Бражук, Н. Цісар, Г Усик та Т Кириленко, Ю. Макаренко та І. Ткаченко, у результаті чого виокремлено класифікаційні ознаки метафоричних бінарм, що входять до шару анатомічної термінології.

Досліджено такі бінарми-терміни, як піднебінно-язикова дужка, дуга аорти, стегнове кільце, сухожилкове кільце, ротовий сифон, сифон артерії, міжхребцевий диск, маткова труба, слухова труба, серцева трубка, судинна пластина спиномозкова пластинка кісткова пластинка мозковий парус із модифікаторами «жолоб», «жолобок» і «кільце», «дужка», «пластинка», «валик», «дуга», «диск», «циліндр», «туба», «сифон», «парус».

Як модифікатор в анатомічних медичних термінах зазвичай використовуються назви предметів побуту, приміщень, споруд та їх частин, знарядь праці, одягу та механізмів та їх складників. Типовим варіантом для виникнення є зовнішня подібність та функційна схожість.

Уперше здійснено порівняльний аналіз термінів-метафор при англо-українському перекладі (ураховуючи їх латинський відповідник - як першооснову) із застосуванням семно-компонентного аналізу на матеріалі «Нового англо-українського українсько-англійського медичного словника» (2020 р.) та «Латинсько-українського тлумачного словника клінічних термінів» (2016 р.). Описано перекладацькі трансформації, за основу взято класифікацію В. Карабана. Семно-компонентний аналіз проведено із застосуванням одинадцятитомного «Словника української мови», за яким установлюються первинне лексичне значення, трансформації і перерозподіл сем, розвиток конотативного компонента. Як перспективний напрям для подальших наукових розвідок обираємо аналогічне дослідження патоанатомічної термінології.

Ключові слова: анатомічна метафора, метафорична бінарма, модифікатор, термін-метафора, семно-компо- нентний аналіз.

Introduction

Science is a specific type of human activity and aims to obtain new theoretical and practical knowledge about the laws of nature, society and thinking. Accordingly, today the question of the potential of scientific metaphor in all fields remains relevant, in particular in the performance of the nominative function.

On the one hand, modern medical terminology of the Ukrainian language belongs to the most progressive category of lexical composition, due to the unprecedented intensification in the field of medical development and the introduction of new treatments, using the latest technologies and equipment; on the other hand, the terminological tools of medicine, in particular anatomy, were formed over many centuries on their own linguistic basis, absorbing numerous borrowings. Today it is not a completely closed system and cannot be studied without comparison with Latin, the universal language of all physicians in the world, which concluded the Terminologia Anatomica (TA), a widely recognized international classification and standard of anatomical nomenclature.

Formulation of the problem

Each metaphor, including the metaphor-term, is a consequence of human mental and linguistic activity, and during the creation is based on a set of presupposing background knowledge, marked by the peculiarities of the national worldview. Hence the need for a comparative analysis of transformations of meaning in the translation of medical metaphorical vocabulary from Latin into English and Ukrainian has occured, as well as English-Ukrainian translation.

The topicality of scientific research is due to the lack of a comprehensive study of anatomical metaphorical binary terms, which would combine semantic-component analysis, which explains the emergence of metaphorical meaning in Ukrainian, comparative analysis of a similar phenomenon of metaphorization in Latin, as the type of transfer can be inherited studying the specifics of transformations in English translation.

The analysis of recent research and publications

The topic of medical terminological vocabulary is a relevant area for numerous studies of modern domestic linguists. Among the topics that attract the attention of linguists - the historical aspect of the formation and development of medical vocabulary (G. Dydyk-Meush, V. Nimchuk V. Peredriienko), dialect component (Ya. Vakaliuk), vocabulary of individual subsystems (R. Stetsiuk - cardiology, I. Korneiko - radiological medicine, O. Petrova - skin diseases, T. Lepekha - forensic terminology, N. Misnyk - clinical terminology); Greek-Latin medical terms (G. Krakovetska), translation transformations in Latin-English (O. Beliaieva and M. Malashchenko) and Ukrainian- English translation (Yu. Makarenko and I. Tkachenko).

A separate area of research is the study of meta- phorization processes in medical terms (Yu. Brazhuk, N.Tsisar, G. Usyk, and T. Kyrylenko). However, these works are usually ascertaining and do not contain a detailed semantic-component analysis.

The subject of the research is metaphorization as a means of learning the world and the scientific nomination.

The object is the peculiarities of Latin-English- Ukrainian translation of the metaphorical terms with the modifier name of mechanisms and their parts.

The purpose of our research is to identify the features of the English-Ukrainian translation of anatomical terms-metaphors, to conduct a semantic-component analysis of terminological metaphorical binaries on the material "New English-Ukrainian Ukrainian-English Medical Dictionary" (2020) and "Latin-Ukrainian Explanatory Dictionary of Clinical Terms" (2016).

To achieve this goal, the following tasks were set:

- to clarify the theoretical foundations of metaphor study in modern linguistics,

- to identify the specifics of the reproduction of binary terms in the translation aspect, carrying out a comparative analysis of metaphorical terms in Latin, English, and Ukrainian with the use of semantic- component analysis.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

The peculiarities of the semantic structure of the metaphorical compound components can only be clarified by a detailed analysis of the composition of the corresponding common word.

In modern linguistics, there is a general tendency to consider the meaning of the word as a complex structure, as a multilayered complex [12; 11]. The development of the problem of the semantic structure of the word is presented in the studies of linguists V. Kalashnik, M. Filon, N. Boyko, V. Ivashchenko, Y. Tehlivets and others.

Having considered modern concepts of semantic structure of commonly used words, we agree with the concept of three-component construction of lexical meaning, which consists of denotation, signification, and connotation, as well as the approach to dividing connotation into four components: emotional, expressive, evaluative and stylistic.

The psychological term “associative field” is related to the concept of semantic field or semantic environment in linguistics. One of the variants of the semantic environment of a word is the words related to it, i.e. those enter the valence relations.

Thus, the path to the formation of a binary (uncommon metaphor) is the violation of ordinary valence, or “violation of the category of probability of the next element” [1, p. 14]. At the same time the binary is “finding out the potential, but not realized the possibilities of language, expanding the possibilities of a word realization” [1, p. 15].

The direct meaning of the token “дуга” is “rounded curved line” [10, II, p. 431], accordingly «дужка» is diminutive form of «дуга» or “ a handle or any other part of an object having the shape of an arc” [10, II, p. 433. ].

If these possibilities are realized, non-valence relations in the metaphor turn into valence ones. During metaphor formation two elements are distinguished: the first one is the main, nominative, preliminary, direct meaning of the word, which undergoes metaphorization; the second is a derivative, secondary, figurative, new meaning.

The components of meaning come into contact with different semantic environments, because they are carriers of a common feature, due to which the author of the metaphor correlates two different objects. Due to their semantic environment, words are linked by secondary valence due to the fact that the components of their semantic environments coincide. When a metaphor is decoded by another subject, metaphorical valence can be traced through secondary valence.

In a binary, as a rule, one of the words is a modifier (something used figuratively), the second one is modified.

Scientific research on the processes of metaphori- zation in medical terms is a separate part of research. In particular, the analysis of the metaphorical component in medical terminology (based on anatomical and clinical terms) has been conducted by Yu. Brazhuk [3]. The author cites the leading thematic groups that become the basis for metaphorization, sometimes compares selected examples with international medical terminology, but does not resort to a detailed semantic-component analysis.

In a similar study, N. Tsisar considers the sources of metaphorization in medical terminology (such as the similarity of objects that are compared; functional similarity and simultaneous transfer of external similarity and functional similarity) with lexical-semantic groups of words that became the basis for term formation [14, p. 64].

The researcher also considers the terms binomials and three-component terms separately, trying to apply the classical semantic-component analysis, but it is limited to the list of semantics before the emergence of metaphorical valence, without explaining their movement and redistribution. In particular, the researcher identifies:

1) names of household items: glass, watering can, clock, crib, pillow, tire, bowl;

2) names of tools and their parts or elements: spindle, hook, needle, lock, anvil, ploughshare, spatula, hammer, sickle, knitting needle, nail;

3) names of buildings, premises, structures and their elements: gate, chamber, cage, cell, dome, labyrinth, bridge, tent, fence, partition, pyramid, roof, vault, stairs;

4) names of containers: wicket, box, bag, sack, bag;

5) names of relief forms: furrow, hump, bottom, valley, depression, canal, lake;

6) names of plants, fruits and their parts: bud, shoot, branch, seed, root, leaf, almond, stalk, apple;

7) names of animals and parts of animal organisms: wing, paw, mouse, shell, horn, tail;

8) names of persons by profession or activity: driver, goalkeeper, carrier, etc. [14, p. 64].

H. Usyk and T. Kyrylenko have suggested a lexical-semantic approach to the classification of metaphorical terms, dividing them into anthropological and non-anthropological groups [13, p. 63].

Researching English medical metaphors, H. Usyk and T. Kyrylenko do not ignore the structural characteristics and distinguish models “metaphor + term” and “term + metaphor”, and from the morphological point of view of the construction “noun + noun” and “noun + adjective”. However, the study is ascertaining, it does not contain semantic-component analysis, comparison of semantic processes in Ukrainian and English is not conducted, the comparison with the international nomenclature is also absent.

Thus, until present date, there is no thorough study that would comprehensively describe the processes of metaphorical valence in medical terminology, in particular in anatomical terminology, or a comparative analysis of equivalents of metaphorical terms-bi- naries in Ukrainian, English, and Latin (international nomenclature) has not yet been conducted.

The analysis of special literature proves that in modern translation studies there are a number of approaches to the classification of transformations in translating the terms.

Yu. Makarenko and I. Tkachenko are working on the translation of English medical terms: “Medical terminology can be translated by transcoding (transcription and transliteration), tracing, descriptive translation, variant equivalent, selection of equivalent. Due to certain differences in the grammatical and syntactic structure of the two languages, the translator often has to use various transformations when translating” [7, p. 269].

The authors then give the examples of typical translation: “In particular, medical terms belonging to the thematic subgroup of drugs are translated using the following methods:

1) transcoding: cyclooxegenasa - циклооксіге- наза, diclofenac - диклофенак;

2) selection of equivalent: analgesic agents - болезаспокійливий, opioid - синтетичний наркотичний препарат.

For translating anatomical terms Yu. Makarenko and I. Tkachenko suggest to use the following methods:

1) transcoding and matching: lateral ligament - латеральна зв'язка;

2) selection of equivalent: calcaneofibular ligament - п'яткова малогомілкова зв'язка;

3) descriptive translation: mucosal - що відноситься до слизової оболонки [8, p. 269].

Unfortunately, the authors do not detail the methods and do not give separate examples of translation of metaphorical binaries.

V. Karaban distinguishes three main types of translating the metaphorical terms: 1) a metaphorical word that has the same or very similar nature of imagery; 2) a metaphorical word that has a different character of imagery; 3) a non-metaphorical word that only conveys the denotative meaning of the English metaphorical word, not imagery [5, p. 204].

We completely agree with the author. Consideration of semantic processes that took place in the formation of anatomical metaphorical terms-binaries in the Ukrainian language, comparison with the English equivalent and the international version in TA we consider a promising topic for research.

Findings. Metaphors belonging to the semantic class of the "world of objects" are the most numerous groups among anatomical medical terms. As a modifier in such units are usually used the names of household items, premises, buildings and their parts, tools, clothing and machinery and their components. The longest metaphorical series among the latter form the tokens “gutter”, “groove” and “ring”, “bracket”, “plate”, “roller”, “arc”. External similarity and functional similarity are typical.

In the Ukrainian language, transference based on visual associations occurs in noun binaries with modifiers дуга and дужка.

When translating from Latin and English, a metaphorical word is used, which has the same character of imagery. In all terminological compounds with the specified modifier there are - дуга скронева, дуга аорти, дуга вісцеральна, дуга бронхіальна, дуга лобкова, дуга надбрівна, піднебінно- язикова дужка -arcus (Lat.), arch (Engl.), and дужка-дуга (Ukr.).

Modern Ukrainian anatomical terminological system has numerous metaphorical binaries with a modifier кільце (a ring), among those are стегнове кільце, сухожилкове кільце, кільце кон'юнктиви, кільце райдужки, кільце барабанне etc., transfer in which is carried out on the basis of visual similarity (in form). Hence, кільце (a ring) is an “object (usually made of metal) that has the shape of a circle” [10, IV, p. 161.].

All analyzed binaries retain the construction “noun + adjective” (Latin) and “adjective + noun” (English). The Ukrainian language borrows the English version of the morphological construction in translation, and also uses a translation of a metaphorical word that has the same character of imagery (annulus (Lat.) - ring (Engl.) - кільце (Ukr.)).

Modifiers such as труба - трубка (tube), жолоб - жолобок (gutter), and пластина - пластинка (plate) are one of the most productive among the metaphors of terms with the names of mechanisms and their parts, and TA contains Latin equivalents of such adjective terminological compounds.

The modifiers диск and циліндр are less productive for the formation of metaphorical binary.

When the binary is formed, the sema “channel in the human or animal body for communication between organs” is actualized. [10, XX, p. 288.]. The basis for the transfer is both the similarity in shape of a “long hollow object or device, usually of circular cross-section”, and the purpose - to connect, conduct air, liquids, sounds, and so on.

When translating all the above binary, the translation is used with a metaphorical word that has the same character of imagery: tuba (Lat.) - tube (Engl.) - труба (трубка) (Ukr.).

Metaphorical binary with a component пластина - пластинка (plate) are built on external similarities. Thus, in the token the element of the core sema “a flat, with a smooth surface, thin strip of any solid material, substance” remains relevant [10, IV, p. 565]. The basis for the emergence of visual associations is a specific form.

The construction of "noun + adjective" (Latin) and "adjective + noun" (English) is preserved in the given binaries. The Ukrainian language borrows the English version of the morphological construction in translation, and also uses a translation of a metaphorical word that has the same character of imagery (lamina (Lat.) and (Engl.) - пластина (пластинка) (Ukr.).

In the formation of the binary міжхребцевий диск the core sema “an object that looks like a flat circle” remains relevant [10, II, с. 283.], the form becomes the basis for transfer. The translation is made by a metaphorical word that has the same character of imagery (discus (Lat.) - disc (Engl.) - диск (Ukr.)).

Metaphorical binary еритроцитні циліндри is built on the same principle: using a modifier with the value “part or device having the shape of a cylinder” [10, XI, p 214.] the same metaphorical valence is formed, justified by the similarity of the cylindrical shape of the two objects.

Modifiers сифон and парус only form a few binaries.

In metaphorical terms, the oral siphon and the artery siphon in the modifier remain relevant core sema “curved tube with knees of different lengths, which pours fluid from one vessel to another, located below” [10, IX, p. 209.]. Accordingly, the emergence of metaphorical valence is based on functional and external similarities.

The translation is made by a metaphorical word that has the same character of imagery.

In the binaries, «піднебінний парус» and «мозковий парус» are based on visual associations, because the sail is “a large piece of canvas of a certain shape (triangular, rectangular, etc.) attached to the mast, with which the wind moves the ship; sail” [10, VI, p. 82].

Translation is used as a metaphorical word that has the same character of imagery: velum in English and Latin - парус in Ukrainian.

Conclusions and prospects for further research. Metaphorization is one of the universal ways of knowing reality. Scientific metaphor is a multifunctional phenomenon.

Metaphorical terms are an important factor in understanding the national specifics of the linguistic vision of the world around us, related to the culture of the people and reflect the results of its cognitive activity.

Metaphors belonging to the semantic class of the “world of objects” are the most numerous group among anatomical medical terms. As a modifier in such units are usually used the names of household items, premises, buildings and their parts, tools, clothing and machinery and their components. The longest metaphorical series among the latter form the words «жолоб», «жолобок» and «кільце», «дужка», «пластинка», «валик», «дуга». External similarity and functional similarity are typical in these variants.

As a promising area for further research, we have chosen a similar study of pathoanatomical terminology.

REFERENCES:

1. Басилая Н. Семасиологический анализ бинарных метафорических словосочетаний. Тбилиси : Изд-во Тбил. ун-та, 1971. 78 с.

2. Бєляєва О. Латинсько-український тлумачний словник клінічних термінів. Київ : ВСВ «Медицина», 2016. 222 c.

3.

4. Бражук Ю. Метафоричний компонент у медичній термінології (на матеріалі анатомічних і клінічних термінів). Studia Linguistica. 2012. Вип. 6. С. 224-228.

5. Калашник В., Корнейко І., Пилипенко М. Проблеми перекладу медичної термінології. Людина та образ у світі мови : вибрані статті. Харків: ХНУ ім. В.Н. Каразіна, 2011. С. 328-333.

6. Карабан В. Посібник-довідник з перекладу англійської наукової та технічної літератури на українську мову. Част. 2. Вінниця : Нова книга, 2001.324 с.

7. Комиссаров В. Лингвистика перевода. Москва : Международные отношения, 1980. 168 с.

8. Макаренко Ю., Ткаченко І. До проблеми перекладу медичних терміеів в науковому англомовному медичному тексті. Наукові записки Міжнародного гуманітарного університету. 2014. Вип 21. С. 268-271

9. Недбайло К. Транспозиції частин мови в перекладі з англійської мови на українську (на матеріалі художніх текстів) : автореф. дис. на здобуття наук. ступеня канд. філол. наук : спец. 10.02.16. Київ. 2009. 20 с.

10. Новий англо-український українсько-англійський медичний словник. Київ : Арій. 2020. 480 с.

11. Словник української мови: В 11-ти томах. Київ: Наукова думка, 1970-1980.

12. Стернин И. Проблемы анализа структуры значения слова. Воронеж : Изд-во Воронеж. ун-та, 1979. 156 с.

13. Телия В. Роль человеческого фактора в языке: Язык и картина мира. Москва : Наука, 1988. 215 с.

14. Усик Г., Кириленко Т. Метафора як спосіб утворення медичної термінології. Advanced Linguistics. 2020. № 5. С.62-67

15. Цісар Н. Метафора в медичній терміносистемі. Вісник Нац. ун-ту «Львівська політехніка». Серія «Проблеми української термінології». 2005. № 538. С. 63-67.

Размещено на Allbest.ru