LANGUAGE MISTAKES IN TERMINOLOGICAL STANDARDS (ON THE EXAMPLE OF DSTU 3017: 2015 «INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTATION. BASIC TYPES. TERMS AND DEFINITIONS»)

Svitlana Lytvynska

Information about the author: Candidate of Philological Sciences, National Aviation University

e-mail: svitlana.lytvynska@npp.nau.edu.ua

Khrystyna Stetsyk

Information about the author: Candidate of Philological Sciences, National Aviation University

e-mail: khrystyna.stetsyk@npp.nau.edu.ua

Title: CONCERNING PROBLEMS OF THE MODERN TERMINOLOGY SCIENCE

Rubric: TERM AND LANGUAGE PRACTICE. PROFESSIONAL LANGUAGE PERSONALITY

Language: Ukrainian

Abstract: The article focuses on language norms compliance in the texts of terminological standards (on the example of DSTU 3017: 2015 «Information and documentation. Basic types. Terms and definitions»). Cases of violation of the lexical and grammatical norms of the modern Ukrainian language in the formulation of definitions of terms are analyzed. It was found that, despite the presence of clear instructions established in the national standard on compliance with the rules of the Ukrainian word usage in the formulation of definitions,  in many cases the design of national terminological standards – choice of words, their change, sentence construction – does not meet the norms of Ukrainian literary language, leads to a decrease in the general culture of the publication. In the text of DSTU 3017: 2015  «Information and documentation. Edition. The main types. Terms and definitions” shows a deviation from the norms associated with the use of words that are absent in the Ukrainian language, artificial, linguistic calque of Russian words. Certain non-normative tokens fixed in the  standard do not correspond to the tendency of development of the modern Ukrainian language process – conscious distance, separation from the Russian language, strengthening of positions of specific Ukrainian variants. Violation of language norms in the standard are words used  without taking into account the nuances of their meaning, the rules of compatibility with other lexical language units. The analyzed standard is not without such a stylistic defect as pleonasm – semantic redundancy, which contradicts the brevity and accuracy – important  communicative features of scientific and official business speech. In the formulation of explanations of certain terms, a violation of logic was revealed – a combination of words that differ in generic and specific semantics was recorded. There are linguistic errors at the grammatical  level: in the text of the standard it is not always correct to choose the endings of singular forms, not in all positions the use of impersonal verb forms ending on -no, -to is motivated. Cases of non-observance of the laws of melodiousness – rules of alternation of prepositions at / in are revealed.

Keywords: national terminological standard, term, language norm, language mistakes.

References

1. Busel, B. (Ed.) (2005). Velykyi tlumachnyi slovnyk suchasnoi ukrainskoi movy: Blyzko 250 000 sliv. Kyiv; Irpin: Perun (in Ukr.).
2. Hinzburh, M.D. (2017). Mova tekhnichnykh standartiv yak okremyi funktsiinyi shar fakhovykh mov. Terminolohiia  dokumentoznavstva ta sumizhnykh haluzei znan: zb. nauk. pr., Issue 10, 28–38 (in Ukr.).
3. Hinzburh, M., Levina, S. & Kornilovska, I. (2006). Dosvid terminolohichnoho ekspertuvannia ta redahuvannia normatyvnykh dokumentiv. Styl i tekst, Issue 7, 134–143 (in Ukr.).
4. Holovashchuk, S.I. (2004). Slovnyk-dovidnyk z ukrainskoho literaturnoho slovovzhyvannia. Kyiv: Nauk. dumka (in Ukr.).
5. Horodenska, K., Yermolenko, S., Symonenko, L., & Turchyn, Ye. (1994). Metodychni rekomendatsii shchodo movnoho oformlennia derzhavnykh standartiv. Kyiv (in Ukr.).
6. Hrynchyshyn, D., Kapeliushnyi, A., Serbenska, O. & Terlak, Z. (2006). Slovnyk-dovidnyk z kultury ukrainskoi movy. Kyiv: Znannia (in Ukr.).
7. DSTU 3017:2015. Vydannia. Osnovni vydy. Terminy ta vyznachennia poniat [Chynnyi vid 01.07.2016] ( 2016). Kyiv: DP  «UkrNDNTs» (Informatsiia ta dokumentatsiia) (in Ukr.).
8. DSTU 3966–2009. Zasady i pravyla rozroblennia standartiv na terminy ta vyznachennia poniat [Chynnyi vid 30.10.2009] (2009). Kyiv: Derzhspozhyvstandart Ukrainy (in Ukr.).
9. Kysliuk, L. (2018). Slovotvirna nominatsiia v suchasnii ukrainskii movi: systemauzus-idiolekt [Synopsis of doctoral thesis]. Kyiv: Institute of the Ukrainian Language (in Ukr.).
10. Kunch, Z., Holubinka, N. (2004). Pasyvni diieslivni konstruktsii v ukrainskomu naukovomu movlenni. Visnyk Nats. un-tu «Lvivska  politekhnika». Seriia «Problemy ukrainskoi terminolohii», 503, 24–26 (in Ukr.).
11. Lytvynska, S., Kharchenko, S. (2011). Movni osoblyvosti terminolohichnykh standartiv. Terminolohiia dokumentoznavstva ta sumizhnykh haluzei znan : zb. nauk. pr., Issue 5, 44–49 (in Ukr.).
12. Meizerska, I. (2010). Do pytannia pro normatyvne vzhyvannia skladenykh pryimennykiv u suchasnii ukrainskii movi. Kultura slova, Issue 73, 134–137 (in Ukr.).
13. Rytsar, B. & Mykulchyk, R. (2007). Typovi pomylky u proiektakh terminolohichnykh standartiv. Standartyzatsiia. Sertyfikatsiia. Yakist, 4, 27–32 (in Ukr.).
14. Rytsar, B. & Mykulchyk, R. (2006). Osnovni pomylky rozrobnykiv terminolohichnykh standartiv (na prykladi proiektiv DSTU). Visnyk Nats. un-tu «Lvivska politekhnika»: Seriia «Problemy ukrainskoi terminolohii», 559, 121–126 (in Ukr.).
15. Selihei, P. (2013). Typy bahatoslivia v naukovykh tekstakh. Ukrainska mova, 4, 22–44 (in Ukr.).
16. Symonenko, L. & Khoinatskyi, M. (2000). Movni problemy derzhavnykh standartiv na terminy ta vyznachennia. Visnyk Knyzhkovoi palaty, 1, 16–18 (in Ukr.).
17. Tur, O.M. (2016). Movni pomylky v DSTU 8302:2015 «Informatsiia ta dokumentatsiia. Bibliohrafichni posylannia: zahalni polozhennia ta pravyla skladannia». Bibliotekoznavstvo. Dokumentoznavstvo. Informolohiia, 4, 51–55 (in Ukr.).
18. Farion, I. (2003). Slovotvirni normy v konteksti natsionalno-kulturnykh oriientatsii. Volyn–Zhytomyrshchyna, 10, 250–267 (in Ukr.).