Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary. Linguistic terms used in the etymological dictionary

The term linguistics comes from the Latin word lingua, which means "language". Therefore, linguistics is the science that studies language. It gives information about how language stands out among other phenomena of reality, what are its elements and units, how and what changes occur in the language.

In linguistics, the following sections are distinguished: 1. Lexicology, the subject of which is the word, is the study of the vocabulary of the language. Lexicology establishes the meaning of the word, the use of the word in speech. The basic unit of this section is the word.

2. Phraseology studies set expressions such as beat the thumbs used in this language.
3. Phonetics - a branch of science that studies the sound system of a language. The basic units of phonetics are sound, syllable. Phonetics finds practical application in orthoepy - the science of correct pronunciation.
4. The section of graphics, closely related to phonetics, studies letters, that is, the image of sounds in writing, and the relationship between letters and sounds.
5. Word formation - a section of the science of language that studies the ways and means of forming new words, as well as the structure of existing words. Morpheme is the basic concept of word formation.
6. Grammar studies the structure of the language. It includes two sections:
- a) morphology, which studies inflection and parts of speech available in a given language;
- b) syntax, studying phrases and sentences.
7. Spelling - a branch of science that studies the rules of spelling.
8. Punctuation studies the rules for using punctuation marks.
9. Stylistics - the doctrine of speech styles and means of linguistic expressiveness and the conditions for using them in speech.
10. Culture of speech - a section of linguistics that studies the practical implementation in speech of the norms of the literary language.

The sign aspect of natural language is usually understood as the correlation of linguistic elements (morphemes, words, phrases, sentences, etc.), and, consequently, the language as a whole, in one form or another and the degree of mediation with an extralinguistic series of phenomena, objects and situations in objective reality. . The sign function of language units includes, further, their ability to generalize the results of human cognitive activity, to consolidate and store the results of his socio-historical experience. Finally, the ability of language elements, by virtue of the meanings assigned to them, to carry certain information, to perform various communicative and expressive tasks in the process of communication, is summed up under the sign aspect of the language. Consequently, the term "sign", as well as the term "semiotic" synonymous with it, are polysemantic, different content is embedded in it and, in relation to natural language, it can be attributed to four different functions of linguistic elements: the designation function (representative), generalizing (epistemological), communicative and pragmatic. The direct connection of language with thinking, with the mechanism and logic of cognition, the unique property of human language to serve as a universal system for designating the entire diversity of the objective world - all this has made the sign aspect of language a subject of study for various sciences (philosophy, semiotics, logic, psychology, linguistics, etc.), due to the generality of the object, they are not always clearly delimited from each other.

The concept of a language system as a subject and object of linguistics is associated primarily with the definition of the openness and heterogeneity of this system. Language is an open, dynamic system. Language as a system is opposed to a specific language. Just as the models of its units are opposed to the very units that are generated by these model models. The system of a language is the internal organization of its units and parts. Each language unit enters the system as a part of the whole, it is connected with other units and parts of the language system directly or indirectly through language categories. The language system is complex and multifaceted, this applies to both its structure and functioning, i.e. use and development. The language system determines the ways of its development, but not the specific form, because in any language, its norm, one can find systemic (structural) and asystemic (destructive) facts. This arises both as a result of the unrealization of all the possibilities of the system, and as a result of the influence of other languages and social factors. For example, nouns in the Russian language potentially have a 12-element declension paradigm, but not every noun has the entire set of word forms, and there are nouns that have a large number of word forms [cf.: about the forest and in the forest, when the prepositional case splits into explanatory and local]; inflexible nouns in Russian are an asystemic phenomenon, an anomaly (outside the literary norm, the pressure of the system is easily detected when they say: "went to the meter", "ride in the meter", etc. The unrealization of the system is manifested not only in the fact that some facts are not covered by the paradigm, they are released from the system, but also in the structure of the paradigms themselves, in the presence of defective paradigms and model models.In modern systems theories, various types and types of systems are analyzed.For linguistics, systems that have the property of optimality and openness are important.A sign of openness and dynamism is characteristic of language as a system.The dynamism of a system is manifested in opposition to its linguistic tradition, fixed in the literary language, the stereotype of speech activity.Potentiality as a manifestation of dynamism and openness of a language system does not oppose it to language with its categories and specific units.

The origin of human speech is a very complex issue; it is studied not only by linguistics, but also by other sciences - anthropology and animal psychology, biology and ethnography. The origin of language cannot be considered methodologically correctly in isolation from the origin of society and consciousness, as well as the person himself. F. Engels wrote that a person, like countless classes, orders, families, genera and species of animals, arises through differentiation: when the hand “differentiated from the leg and a straight gait was established, then the person separated from the monkey, and the foundation was laid for the development of articulate speech and for the powerful development of the brain, thanks to which the gulf between man and ape has since become impassable. Both K. Marx and F. Engels emphasized that the emergence of language as a practical consciousness is possible only in society, as a result of production, labor activity. “First, labor, and then articulate speech along with it, were the two most important stimuli, under the influence of which the brain of the monkey gradually turned into a human brain, which, for all its resemblance to the monkey, far exceeds it in size and perfection. And in parallel with the further The development of the brain was followed by the further development of its closest tools - the sense organs.

Tribal languages were different even within relatively small territories, but as marriage and other contacts between clans expanded, and then economic ties between tribes, interaction between languages also began. In the subsequent development of languages, processes of two opposite types are found:

convergence - the convergence of different languages and even the replacement of two or more languages with one;

divergence - the splitting of one language into two or more languages that differ from each other, although they are related. For example, a language first breaks down into dialects, and then they develop into independent languages.

There are also several models of language development during their contact:

A) on the basis of the substrate (Latin substratum - litter, bottom layer). For example, the language of the indigenous population was forced out of use by the language of the conquerors, but left its mark on the language of the newcomers (material borrowings, word-formation, semantic calques, etc.). A striking example from the history of the development of languages is the modern Romance languages (French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese). There is a certain similarity in them, but there are also obvious differences, these are DIFFERENT LANGUAGES, because during their formation, folk Latin, from which they originate, was superimposed on different substrates (substrates) and was assimilated in different ways by different peoples.
C) on the basis of a superstratum - the layering of alien features on the original basis of the local language. The winner in the struggle of languages is the local language. A vivid example of superstratum influence is the French layers in the English language that penetrated into it after the Norman Conquest, preserved, due to the long dominance of the French language in England, at the level of vocabulary, phonetics, and spelling.

A special case is the formation of Koine, a common language that arises on the basis of a mixture of related dialects, of which one turns out to be the leading one, and is used for economic and other contacts.

Lingua franca (lat. "common language") - the transformation of one of the contacting languages into a more or less regular means of interethnic communication, not displacing other languages from use, but coexisting with them on the same territory. So, for many Indian tribes of the Pacific coast of America, the lingua franca is the Chinook language, in East Africa the East is the Arabic language. Until now, the role of the lingua franca in the communication of representatives of the former republics of the USSR is performed by the Russian language. In most countries of medieval Europe, the language of religion and science was medieval Latin - a language that continued the traditions of classical Latin.

). The tasks of morphology, therefore, include the definition of the word as a special linguistic object and the description of its internal structure.

Morphology, according to the understanding of its tasks prevailing in modern linguistics, describes not only the formal properties of words and the morphemes that form them (sound composition, sequence order, etc.), but also those grammatical meanings that are expressed within the word (or “morphological meanings "). According to these two major tasks, morphology is often divided into two areas: "formal" morphology, or morphemics, in the center of which are the concepts of words and morphemes, and grammatical semantics, studying the properties of grammatical morphological meanings and categories (that is, morphologically expressed word formation and inflection of the languages of the world).

Along with the designation of a certain area of linguistics, the term "morphology" can also denote a part of the language system (or "level" of the language) - namely, the one that contains the rules for constructing and understanding the words of a given language. Yes, the expression Spanish morphology corresponds to a part of the Spanish grammar, which sets out the corresponding rules of the Spanish language. Morphology as a branch of linguistics is in this sense a generalization of all particular morphologies of specific languages, that is, a collection of information about all possible types of morphological rules.

A number of linguistic concepts (especially generativist ones) do not single out morphology as a separate level of language (thus, syntax begins immediately after phonology).

The composition of the discipline

Morphology includes:

the doctrine of inflection in language, paradigms, inflectional types. This is an obligatory component of morphology, and it was with the compilation of paradigms (declension and conjugation tables) that linguistics in general (in ancient Babylon) historically began.
the doctrine of the structure of the word (morphemic, or morphology in the narrow sense). There are morphological concepts (Steven R. Anderson and others) that refuse to divide words into morphemes.
grammatical semantics, that is, the study of grammatical meanings. Traditionally (for example, in the 19th century), grammatical semantics was not included in morphology; in the “morphology” section of grammars, only methods of forming forms and paradigm samples were given, and information about semantics (“use” of forms) related to syntax. In the 20th century, grammatical semantics is already an integral part of morphology.
the doctrine of parts of speech, in the selection of which not only morphological (in the narrow sense), but also syntactic and semantic criteria are involved.
the doctrine of word formation, standing on the border of morphology and lexicology.
general concepts of morphology
morphological typology.

Morphology

The need for morphology

The close connection between the concepts of morphology and the word (in the same meaning the more precise term “word form” is often used) makes the very existence of morphology dependent on the existence of words in a particular language. Meanwhile, this concept is one of the most controversial in linguistics and, most likely, not universal. In other words, a word is such an object that, apparently, does not exist in all languages, which means that morphology as an independent section of grammar does not exist in all languages. In languages that do not have (or almost do not have) words, morphology cannot be distinguished from syntax: it has neither an independent object nor an independent problematic.

Without giving a precise definition of the word in this case, one can point to the most important property that constitutes its nature. Word is a syntactically independent complex of morphemes forming a rigidly connected structure. A word differs from a combination of words in that at least some of its elements cannot be used in a syntactically isolated position (for example, appear as an answer to a question); in addition, the elements within the word are connected to each other by much more rigid and strong bonds than the elements of the sentence (that is, the word). The greater the degree of contrast between the rigidity of intra-word and inter-word connections in a language, the more distinct and well distinguished unit is the word in this language. Such "verbal" languages include, for example, the classical Indo-European languages (Latin, Ancient Greek, Lithuanian, Russian). In these languages, morphemes within a word do not have syntactic independence, that is, parts of a word cannot syntactically behave in the same way as words. Wed some examples of different behavior of words and word parts in Russian.

syntactic autonomy.

there are words: - Is it tea or coffee? - Coffee
missing from parts of the word: - Is it tea or a teapot? - *Nick. Did he come or leave? - *At.

Possibility of omitting homogeneous elements.

the words have: [red and white] balls; in [January or February]
absent from parts of the word: kettle and coffee pot ≠ tea and coffee pot ≠ kettle and coffee

Possibility of rearrangement.

the words have: the ball fell ~ the ball fell
absent from parts of the word: call in ≠ go for

Possibility of substitution for pronouns.

the words have: take a teapot and put it [= teapot] on the stove
missing from parts of the word: *take a teapot and pour it [≠ tea] into a cup

These examples do not exhaust, of course, all the properties that oppose words and parts of words in the Russian language, but they give a visual idea of what was called the difference in the degree of rigidity of connections above. In languages like Russian, the word is indeed a "syntactic monolith": no syntactic rules (omissions, permutations, substitutions, etc.) can act inside the word. This fact clearly testifies in favor of the fact that morphological and syntactic rules should constitute two different "grammatical modules", and therefore, in the description of the language, morphology should exist as an independent section. The description of a word cannot and should not be made in the same terms as the description of a sentence.

Basic concepts of morphology.

Morphology studies the structure of meaningful units of a language. the main reason is the segmentation of the word form into smaller sign units.

Morphology is a branch of grammar that studies the grammatical properties of words. Following V. V. Vinogradov, morphology is often called "the grammatical doctrine of the word." The grammatical properties of words are grammatical meanings, means of expressing grammatical meanings, grammatical categories.

Extended concept: MFG is the science of forms.

Grammatical meaning - a generalized, abstract linguistic meaning inherent in a number of words, word forms and syntactic constructions, which finds its regular (standard) expression in the language, for example, the meaning of the case of nouns, verb tense, etc.

The grammatical meaning is opposed to the lexical meaning, which is devoid of a regular (standard) expression and does not necessarily have an abstract character. The grammatical meaning accompanies the lexical meaning, superimposed on it, sometimes the grammatical meaning is limited in its manifestation by certain lexical groups of words.

Grammatical meanings are expressed by affixal morphemes, function words, meaningful alternations, and other means.

Each grammatical meaning in the language receives a special means of expression - a grammatical indicator (formal indicator). Grammatical indicators can be combined into types, which can be conditionally called grammatical ways, ways of expressing grammatical meaning.

The grammatical way of affixing is to use affixes to express grammatical meaning: books-i; read-l-and. Affixes are auxiliary morphemes.

By position relative to the root, the following types of affixes are distinguished: prefixes, postfixes, infixes, interfixes, circumfixes.

The grammatical way of function words is to use function words to express the grammatical meaning: I will read, I would read.

On the other hand, morphosyntax instead of morphology is also preferable for languages in which, on the contrary, not morphemes behave like words, but sentences behave like words. In other words, intra-word and inter-word connections are also poorly distinguished in these languages, but not due to the weak bonding of morphemes to each other, but due to the stronger bonding of words to each other. In fact, interword links in such languages are so strong that it leads to the formation of word-sentences of considerable length. Languages of this type are often called "polysynthetic"; the signs of polysynthetism include a tendency to form compound words (especially verb complexes that include a subject and objects - the so-called incorporation), as well as a tendency to alternations on the interword boundary, which makes it difficult to separate one word from another. Compounding and especially incorporation are characteristic of many languages of the circumpolar zone - Eskimo and Chukchi-Kamchatka, as well as many American Indian languages \u200b\u200b(common both in the North and in Central America and in the Amazon). Alternations at word boundaries are also common to many American Indian languages; they are also a striking feature of Sanskrit.

What has been said about isolating languages can also be applied to the so-called analytical languages, that is, to such languages where, unlike isolating languages, there are grammatical indicators, but these indicators are independent words, and not morphemes (affixes). Grammatical meanings in analytical languages are expressed syntactically (with the help of various kinds of constructions), and there is no need for morphologically non-elementary words. Analytic grammar is characteristic of many languages of Oceania (especially Polynesian), for a number of major languages of West Africa (Hausa, Songhai); strong elements of analyticism are present in the new Indo-European languages (French, English, Scandinavian, modern Persian).

Thus, we can say that morphology is far from being universal - at least, the morphological (or "verbal") component of the description is far from being equally important for all languages. It all depends on how clearly word forms are distinguished in a given language.

Traditions of morphology description

It should also be noted that in different linguistic traditions the volume and nature of the tasks of the morphological component of the description may differ. So, sometimes grammatical semantics is not included in morphology at all, leaving behind it only a description of the sound shell of morphemes, the rules of alternation and the rules for the linear arrangement of morphemes in a word form (this area is often called morphonology, which emphasizes its especially close connection with the description of the sound side of the language). Given that some grammatical theories include morphonology within phonology, it does not appear paradoxical that there are descriptions of language where syntax begins, so to speak, immediately after phonology. Such a language does not necessarily belong to isolating or analytical - such a structure of the grammatical description can also be caused by the peculiarities of the author's theoretical views.

Further, grammatical semantics is also included in different theories of morphology in different volumes. The most accepted consideration is within the framework of the morphology of inflectional grammatical meanings; such an understanding of morphology, in which it is actually reduced to a formal and meaningful description of the paradigms of declension and conjugation, was still characteristic of the ancient grammatical tradition and was inherited by most European linguistic schools. At the same time, it should still be taken into account that until the beginning of the 20th century, and often later, the section "morphology" of traditional descriptive grammar contained only information about the rules for the formation of the corresponding grammatical forms, and information about their meaning should be sought in the section "use of case (resp ., temporary) forms", which was part of the syntactic part of the description. In modern grammars, information about the meaning of morphological grammatical categories is already almost unconditionally placed in the morphological part.

More difficult was the position of word-formation meanings, which in the classical Indo-European languages (which served as the basis for the European linguistic tradition) do not form paradigms and are less systematic and regular than inflectional meanings. On this basis, the description of word formation for a long time was not considered a task of morphology, but was either included in lexicology (that is, it was considered a purely vocabulary task requiring an individual description of each word), or it was separated into a separate area intermediate between morphology and vocabulary. This is how word formation is interpreted in all existing Academic grammars of the Russian language: according to the concept of the authors of these grammars, morphology includes only a description of inflection, however, both in the formal and in the content aspect.

Such a view of word formation can be motivated to some extent by the peculiarities of word formation in individual languages, but it cannot claim to be universal. There are languages in which inflection and word formation are very weakly contrasted (such is the majority of agglutinative languages); in addition, there are languages in which inflectional morphology is absent (expressed, for example, by analytical means), and word-formation morphology is developed. For all such languages, the exclusion of word formation from the morphological component is inexpedient, and often practically impossible. Therefore, in modern theories of language, the concept is still the most common, according to which the description of all meanings is included in the morphology, for the expression of which intra-word mechanisms are used (affixation, alternation, etc.), regardless of their grammatical status.

History of morphology

If grammatical semantics is a relatively young area of linguistics (integral concepts of grammatical meaning begin to appear only in the 50s-60s of the 20th century), then formal morphology is one of the most traditional areas of the science of language. Various concepts of formal morphology (often with the inclusion of minor elements of grammatical semantics) were developed in both ancient Indian and

When studying the Russian language at school, quite often there are linguistic terms that are not always clear to schoolchildren. We have tried to compile a short list of the most used concepts with decoding. In the future, schoolchildren can use it when studying the Russian language.

Phonetics

Linguistic terms used in the study of phonetics:

Phonetics is a branch of linguistics that deals with the study of sound structure.
Sound is the smallest particle of speech. Highlight sounds.
A syllable is one or often several sounds pronounced on one exhalation.
Stress is the allocation of a vowel sound in speech.

Orthoepy is a section of phonetics that studies the norms of pronunciation of the Russian language.

Spelling

When studying spelling, it is necessary to operate with the following terms:

Spelling - a section that studies the rules of spelling.
Spelling - spelling a word in accordance with the application of spelling rules.

Lexicology and phraseology

A lexeme is a vocabulary unit, a word.
Lexicology is a section of the Russian language that studies lexemes, their origin and functioning.
Synonyms are words that have the same meaning when spelled differently.
Antonyms are words that have the opposite meaning.
Paronyms are words that have the same spelling but different meanings.
Homonyms are words that have the same spelling but have different meanings.

Phraseology is a branch of linguistics that studies phraseological units, their features and principles of functioning in the language.
Etymology is the science of the origin of words.
Lexicography is a branch of linguistics that studies the rules for compiling dictionaries and their study.

Morphology

A few words about what Russian linguistic terms are used when studying the morphology section.

Morphology is the science of language that studies the parts of speech.
Noun - Nominal independent It denotes the subject that is being discussed and answers the questions: "who?", "What?".
Adjective - denotes a sign or state of an object and answers the questions: "what?", "what?", "what?". Refers to independent nominal parts.

A verb is a part of speech denoting an action and answering the questions: “what is he doing?”, “what will he do?”.
Numeral - indicates the number or order of objects and at the same time answering the questions: "how much?", "Which?". Refers to independent parts of speech.
Pronoun - indicates an object or person, its attribute, while not naming it.
An adverb is a part of speech denoting a sign of action. Answers the questions: "how?", "when?", "why?", "where?".
A preposition is a part of speech that connects words.
Union - a part of speech that connects syntactic units.
Particles are words that give emotional or semantic coloring to words and sentences.

Additional terms

In addition to the terms we mentioned earlier, there are a number of concepts that it is desirable for a student to know. Let's highlight the main linguistic terms that are also worth remembering.

Syntax is a section of linguistics that studies sentences: features of their structure and functioning.
Language is a sign system that is constantly in development. Serves for communication between people.
Idiolect - features of the speech of a particular person.
Dialects are varieties of one language that are opposed to its literary version. Depending on the territory, each dialect has its own characteristics. For example, okane or akanye.

Abbreviation is the formation of nouns by abbreviating words or phrases.
Latinism is a word that came to us into use from the Latin language.
Inversion - a deviation from the generally accepted word order, which makes the rearranged element of the sentence stylistically marked.

Stylistics

The following linguistic terms, examples and definitions of which you will see, are often encountered when considering

Antithesis is a stylistic device based on opposition.
Gradation is a technique based on forcing or weakening homogeneous means of expression.
Diminutive is a word formed with the help of a diminutive suffix.
An oxymoron is a technique in which combinations of words with seemingly incompatible lexical meanings are formed. For example, "a living corpse."
Euphemism is the replacement of a word related to obscene language with neutral ones.
An epithet is a stylistic trope, often an adjective with expressive coloring.

This is not a complete list of required words. We have given only the most necessary linguistic terms.

findings

When studying the Russian language, students now and then come across words whose meanings they do not know. To avoid problems in learning, it is advisable to have your own personal dictionary of school terms in the Russian language and literature. Above, we have given the main linguistic words-terms that you will encounter more than once when studying at school and university.

Linguistics, T. l. is of particular difficulty for study due to the consubstantiality of the language-object and metalanguage, i.e. due to the fact that the language-object and metalanguage completely coincide in terms of expression, outwardly they are one and the same language. T. l. includes: 1) terms proper, i.e. those words that are either not used at all in the target language or acquire a special meaning when borrowed from the target language; 2) peculiar combinations of words and their equivalents, leading to the formation of compound terms included in T. l. on the same rights with integrally designed units.

It is necessary to delimit the concept of T. l. as a system of general linguistic concepts and categories from another component of the metalanguage of linguistics - nomenclature- systems of specific names that are used to designate specific linguistic objects. So, for example, “ agglutination", " Inflection", " Phoneme", " Grammar" - these are terms that serve to express and consolidate general linguistic concepts, and "Saxon genitive on s", "Arabic" ain "" etc. are nomenclature signs, names of private objects, the number of which is immensely large. However, the boundary between nomenclature units and terms is fluid. Any nomenclature sign, no matter how limited in its use, can acquire a more general character if similar phenomena are found in other languages or if a more general universal content is found in the initially narrow names, then the nomenclature sign becomes a term expressing the corresponding scientific concept. . Thus, the term is the final stage in the study of a real language object.

T. l., like the terminology of any scientific field, is not just a list of terms, but a semiological system, that is, an expression of a certain system of concepts, which in turn reflects a certain scientific worldview. The emergence of terminology in general is possible only when science reaches a sufficiently high degree of development, i.e., a term arises when a given concept has developed and taken shape to such an extent that it can be assigned a completely definite scientific expression. It is no coincidence that the most important means of distinguishing a term from a non-term is to check for definitiveness, that is, to decide whether the term lends itself to a strict scientific definition. A term is part of a terminological system only if a classifying definition is applicable to it. per genus proximum et differentiam specificam(through the closest genus and species difference).

T. l. how a semiological system develops throughout the history of linguistics and reflects not only a change in views on the language, not only the difference in linguistic word usage in different schools and directions of linguistics, but also various national linguistic traditions. A metalanguage is always assigned to a given national language system. Strictly speaking, there is not one system of linguistics, but a large number of terminological systems for linguistics, which in different languages have their own plan of expression, which is inseparable from the plan of expression of the given language. Therefore, the regularities that exist in human language in general are also represented in any historically established system of linguistics. The absence of a one-to-one correspondence between the expression plane and the content plane, which is the reason for the existence in natural language of both synonymy and polysemy, in terminological systems gives rise to the existence, on the one hand, of doublets, triplets, etc., i.e. two, three and more terms, essentially correlated with the same referent, on the other hand, the polysemy of terms, when the same term has not one scientific definition, but several. This expresses the inconsistency not only of the term, but also of the word. O. S. Akhmanova’s Dictionary of Linguistic Terms lists 23 “synonyms” for the term “phraseological unit” registered in the scientific use of Soviet linguists by the 1960s. 20th century, 6 “synonyms” for the term “ sentence”, etc. Polysemy of terms, for example “ speech" (3 meanings), " form" (5 meanings), " phrase" (4 meanings), reflected by the same dictionary , clearly shows not so much the presence of different concepts called by one term, but different approaches, different aspects of studying the same language object.

Since T. l. is not a rationally organized, semiotically impeccable system, in linguistics there is a constant problem of streamlining terminology. Some researchers believe that in T. l. it is necessary to overcome the violation of the laws of the sign inherent in natural languages and build it on a purely rational basis, having found access to "pure, ideal objects", others rightly believe that since it is impossible to suspend the development of science while creating a new terminology, the task of streamlining T. l. should be reduced 1) to the study of real linguistic word usage, 2) to the selection of terminology and its description in dictionaries of linguistic terms, 3) to a comparison of national terminological systems in bi- and multilingual terminological dictionaries. When comparing the identified doublets, triplets, etc., it is necessary to strive for a clear identification descriptors, i.e., such words or phrases that would most adequately represent this concept, most accurately reveal the nature of this particular phenomenon, designated by this term. The identification of descriptors (for example, "phraseological unit" in relation to parallel functioning doublets, triplets and other correspondences of this term) already in itself plays a normalizing role in this terminological series. In the presence of doublets and "synonyms", there may be a desire to distinguish them, which allows terminologically to reflect the various aspects of the object (cf. differentiation of the concepts "subject - subject").

Since the system of T. l. is an open system, constantly replenished due to the need to reflect new noticed properties and aspects of the object with new monolexemic and polylexemic terms, when modeling this system, it is desirable to give preference to motivated terms that have a transparent semantic structure.

The viability of a particular terminological system is determined primarily by its orderliness and consistency in the relationship between content and expression. A terminological system that meets these requirements, for example, the so-called allo-emic terminology, can survive the scientific direction that gave rise to it (in this case, descriptive linguistics), and enter the modern metalanguage of this science.

Akhmanova OS, Dictionary of linguistic terms. Preface, M., 1966;
Ganiev T. A., On the system of phonetic terminology, in the book: Modern Russian lexicology, M., 1966;
White V. V., The main groups of linguistic terms and features of their production, in the book: Continuity in teaching foreigners the Russian language, M., 1981;
his own, Structural and semantic characteristics of terms in modern Russian (based on linguistic terminology). Candidate's abstract. dis., M.; 1982 (lit.);
Akhmanova O., Linguistic terminology, 1977(lit.);
her own, The methodology of metalinguistic lexicography, in book: Sprachwissenschaftliche Forschungen. Festschrift für Johann Knobloch, Innsbruck, 1985;
see also the literature under the article Metalanguage.