Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Language in Society.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 95.186.253.178 on Tue, 19 Jan 2016 15:50:48 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Lang. Soc.
12,
65-70.
Sociolinguisticissues in standardizinglinguisticterminology
RANKO BUGARSKI
University of Belgrade
ABSTRACT
Standardizationof terminology is a process calling for a thoughtfulcombination of adherence to linguistic principles and awareness of the sociocultural issues involved. The case of Serbo-Croatian linguistic
terminology currentlyused in Yugoslavia may serve as an example of the
different dimensions of sociolinguistic variationin this area. Especially in
culturally heterogeneous societies, the distinction between standardization
and unificationmust be observed. (Terminology, language standardization,
sociology of language, applied linguistics; Serbo-Croatian.)
Standardizationof terminology is an inherentlycomplex activity, especially in
culturallyheterogeneoussocieties. ' Yugoslavia is a case in point, as a federation
displaying considerable national, ethnic, linguistic and socioculturaldiversity.
There have been some projects in the past aimed at standardizingthe terminologies of certain technical fields; however, coordinatedwork along modem
lines is only starting.In linguistics, the frequentlyunsystematicand occasionally
quite haphazarduse of terms has caused much dissatisfaction. The linguists
themselves are likely to find this state of affairs irritatingrather than really
confusing, but communicationwith specialists in other disciplines and with the
general public can be seriously impairedas a result.
This paper focuses on usage within Serbo-Croatian.It should be borne in
mind, however, that similar - and in some cases perhapseven greater- problems exist in the establishmentand use of linguisticterminologyin Slovenian and
Macedonianalso, as well as in Hungarianand Albanian (as languages enjoying
full official status in the partsof Yugoslavia where they are spoken). The purpose
of the paperis to identify and briefly discuss the main dimensionsof terminological variation of a broadly sociolinguistic nature, with selected examples from
traditionaldescriptive grammarand modern theoreticallinguistics.
I. One importantdimension of variation is the sociocultural traditionof a
specific region, including historically derived attitudesin mattersof usage. The
most far-reachingsingle issue here is that of purismvs. internationalism.Due to
differences in historical and cultural development, a given region may on the
whole display markedpurist tendencies, while anothermay be less resistantto
the internationalizationof terminology - though other factors, some of which
0047-4045/83/010065-06 $2.50 ? 1983 CambridgeUniversity Press
65
This content downloaded from 95.186.253.178 on Tue, 19 Jan 2016 15:50:48 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RANKO
BUGARSKI
will be noted later, are at play too. Generally speaking, a preferencefor native
terminology is somewhat more pronouncedin the western than in the eastern
region of Serbo-Croatian,although native and borrowedforms often coexist in
both areas - sometimes in interestingways. Thus a computertends to be called
kompjutorin the west but kompjuterin the east, showing different culturally
induced derivationalpreferencesas between a Latin and an English model. But
there are also two native calques, rac'unaloand rac'unarrespectively, this time
reflecting such preferences within Serbo-Croatianitself. This yields a total of
four forms in currentuse.
In this connection an importantgeneral limitation should be noted. While
more or less acceptablenative alternativescan often be found for an international
term in its base form, it is frequentlydifficult or impossibleto deriveotherforms
from it, as the stem turnsout to be practicallynonproductive.For example, the
termpreoblika may in itself be acceptedas a calque for 'transformation',at least
by those who do not believe in the internationalizationof terminology;but this
base will simply not yield derivations corresponding to 'transformational',
'transformationalist',etc., which the adaptedinternationalform transformacija
will of course do quite easily. The same is true with respect to sklop as against
struktura'structure',to okruz'enjeas against kontekst'context', and so on. This
purely linguistic fact, so obviously damaging to the purist cause, has gone
largely unnoticedby those "guardiansof the language", both in the west and in
the east, who refuse to appreciate the notion that while inwardly integrative
trends may be justified on the general level of the national language, scientific
terminology is something different, which in order to be truly workablefor all
purposes must tend to integrate outwardly, in other words, to be largely
international.
2. Another major dimension of variation, closely related to the precedingin
the sense of being a partiallinguistic crystalizationof it, has to do with variants
of the standardlanguage. In standardor literary Serbo-Croatianthere are now
two establishedvariants;the Eastern(mainly Serbian,with Belgradeas its principal centre), and the Western (predominantlyCroatian,centred aroundZagreb).
A third major focus has emerged in the central and nationally mixed area of
Bosnia-Herzegovina, its culturalcentre being Sarajevo, but this constitutesnot
so much a distinct third variantas an idiom habituallyneutralizingthe distinctions elsewhere polarized as Eastern vs. Western. The details of this complex
situation, which would in any case scarcely affect the presentgeneraldiscussion,
cannot be covered here.2
What is to the point in this context, however, is thatlexical and morphological
polarization within the general language may cause certain sets of linguistic
terms, among others, to fall into different derivationalpatternsin the Western
and Eastern variants. Thus the masculine set fonem, morfem, leksem, semem
(phoneme, morpheme, lexeme, sememe) represents typically western forms,
contrastingwith the feminine set fonema, morfema, leksema, semema, which is
66
This content downloaded from 95.186.253.178 on Tue, 19 Jan 2016 15:50:48 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
STANDARDIZING
LINGUISTIC
TERMINOLOGY
the more common in the east. (Note, incidentally, that alofon (allophone) and
alomorf (allomorph) have no corresponding feminine forms ending in -a.)
Roughly the same distribution is characteristicof terms like lingvist/lingvista
(linguist), strukturalist/strukturalista(structuralist),etc. Adjectival derivations
like transformacijskiltransformacioni
(transformational)are similarly polarized,
the former alternativebeing again typically western and the latter eastern. An
interesting case is that of jezieni/jezieki (lingual), complicated beyond simple
variant distributionin furtherderivations like dvojeziuni/dvojezikki(bilingual),
where the choice may ratherdepend on the head noun: in the Easternvariant,
normallyusing -ki forms, dvojezixnigovornik(bilingualspeaker)is found beside
dvojezixkirexnik(bilingual dictionary). 'Bilingualism', however, is always dvojezicxnost- that is, unless bilingvizam is used. In the central region around
Sarajevo, doublets elsewhere more or less polarizedoften exist side by side, and
preference for one alternative over the other may there signal the user's
nationality.
3. The extent of variations also correlates significantly with the degree of
establishmentof the field. Not surprisingly,traditionaldescriptivelinguisticsand
normative grammar are on the whole more standardizedthan contemporary
linguistic theory. The terminology of transformational-generative
grammar,for
example, is still in the making, and there are numerousparallelforms which are
sometimes variantly polarized but often display a contrast of loan vs. native.
Hence, kompetencijabeside sposobnost (competence), performansabeside delatnost (performance);'speech act' may be eithergovorni akt or govorni cin. The
forms expressing the meaning 'communicative', on the other hand, retain the
internationalbase but show different suffixes: komunikativnilkomunikacijski/
komunikacioni- with a distributionabout as consistent as that of the English
forms communicative, communication (adj.), communicational. The verb for
'generate' falls into a grammaticalclass allowing two alternatives:generiratil
generisati; similarly, 'case grammar'may be eitherpaddeznaor padeska gramatika, with variationin the derived adjective. 'Native speaker'may appear,fairly
indiscriminately,as izvorni govornik or govorni predstavnik(the lattermeaning
literally 'speech representative').
Under the impact of the more modern approaches,certain traditionalnotions
are being reconsidered, sometimes with notable terminological consequences.
Thus in traditionalSerbo-Croatiangrammar'clause' was not distinguishedterminologically from 'sentence' (rec'enica),so that a complex sentence was said to
consist of, for example, a main and a subordinatesentence. Whenthe termklauza
was introduced,based on the English form clause, the alternativeklauzulawas
immediatelyoffered on the argumentthat Latin-basedloans should be takenover
in their Latinateratherthan their anglicized versions (cf. the case of kompjutorl
kompjuternoted above). But perhapsthe most strikingresultof this revitalization
of existing concepts is to be found in the terms meaning 'noun phrase'. Here
there are three different adjectives that may be attachedto three differentnouns,
67
This content downloaded from 95.186.253.178 on Tue, 19 Jan 2016 15:50:48 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RANKO
BUGARSKI
This content downloaded from 95.186.253.178 on Tue, 19 Jan 2016 15:50:48 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
STANDARDIZING
LINGUISTIC
TERMINOLOGY
This content downloaded from 95.186.253.178 on Tue, 19 Jan 2016 15:50:48 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RANKO
BUGARSKI
REFERENCES
Birnbaum,H. (1980). Language, ethnicityand nationalism:On the linguisticfoundationsof a unified
Yugoslavia. In D. Djordjevid(ed.), The Creation of Yugoslavia 1914-1918. Santa Barbaraand
Oxford: Clio Books. 157-82.
Hymes, D. (I977). Why linguistics needs the sociologist. Ch. 3 in Foundationsin sociolinguistics.
London:Tavistock.
Pap, L. (1976). Linguistic terminology as a source of verbal fictions. Language Sciences 39: 1-5.
Riggs, F. W. (1980). Special languages and terminology. SociolinguisticsNewsletterXI(2): 18-22.
Rondeau, G. (979). Une nouvelle branche de la linguistique appliquee: la terminologie. AILA
Bulletin 26: 1-15.
Sager, J. C., & Johnson, R. L. (I978). Terminology:The state of the art. AILABulletin 22: i- 1 i.
Schmalstieg, W. R., & Magner, T. F. (eds.) (1978). Sociolinguistic problems in Czechoslovakia,
Hungary, Romania, and Yugoslavia (= Folia Slavica I(3)). Columbus, Ohio: Slavica.
70
This content downloaded from 95.186.253.178 on Tue, 19 Jan 2016 15:50:48 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions