7. Marco Teórico Referencial
7.10 Sistema de Educación Relacional Fontán SERF
Research and Development Center-2, Federal State Research Institute of the Federal Penitentiary Service of the Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia;
Department for Humanities, Moscow Finance and Law University (MFUA), Moscow, Russia
Abstract
As exemplified by the historical background of the formation of legal terms and notions, there were found characteristic features of the formation of Chinese industry-specific terminology that constitute a particular case of its general mainstream. The issue of the formation and development of Chinese terminology is primarily studied from the point of view of Chinese terminologists in conformity with the features of Chinese. When analyzing Russian-, English- and Chinese-language research literature, emphasis is placed upon Chinese terminological sources. This allowed gaining some insight into a wide range of fixed mental connotations of the Celestial Empire’s population in relation to “a law and law”. There were identified characteristic features of Chinese terminology, including linguistic, cognitive, and other problems that are typical of its modern stage of development.
Key words: a law, terminology, law, character, punishment, connotation Introduction
Modern global processes introduce an international and global element into any national terminology. The number of terms particularly denoting social international ties is increasing due to the growth and intensification of international cooperation. Research works on the issues of national terminology schools and terminology in general, which are published in Chinese, Russian and English, potentially bring Chinese terminology studies together and extend it to a wider international level (Detrie, et al., 2001; English and Chinese and Russian and Chinese Lexicon on Linguistics, 2008; Ochirov, 2013; Russian Terminology Science 1992–2002, 2004; A Dictionary of Modern Linguistics, 2000). All of this underlines the urgency to study and pay special attention to both Chinese and international terminologies.
Literature Review
The following authors (Riggs, 1993; Huang Ting, 2010) write about the unique character and complexity of communicating the meaning and sense of terms, in particular those of humanitarian and social sciences. They stress the need to develop and comply with certain linguo-cognitive and socio-cultural rules when forming international terms (Lakoff, 1998; Temmerman & Loening, 2000; Sharafutdinova, 2006; Vasilyeva & Ochirov, 2017). The terminological issues of a national language and its language situation related to its social differentiation and linguistic norms are studied (Averbukh, 2006; Lotte, 1982; Grinev, 2008; Ochirov, 2015; Tatarinov, 2003; Shelov, 2003). The development issues of national terminology are considered with the aid of applied sociolinguistics which is increasingly gaining in importance (Leychik, 2009; Temmerman & Loening, 2000). Scholars are also interested in neuropsychic processes of the term-formation activities of man. They attempt to “penetrate” into this process and to establish the psychological patterns of studying Chinese as a socio-cultural factor (Vasilyeva & Erdyneeva 2016; Vasilyeva, Russian and Chinese,2018). A possible operationalization procedure of the formation process for new national terms is proposed, and a thesis of the legality of subjective and objective term formation principles, including the so-called three-position relations of operationalizable verbal material, is substantiated. The perceptual process, including a psychological and neuro-linguistic aspect of terminological nomination (associativity, perception, memory, visuality, instrumentality of term), also arouse interest (Ye Qi-song Four 2010; Temmerman & Loening, 2000). The explication process of neuro-linguistic intentions of term is studied through abstraction, manipulation, identification in the context of acquisition and use of native or foreign languages (Galinski & Christian, 2005; Kristensen L., Wang et al., 2012). Chinese terminologists study the foreign theory and practice of terminology studies, including Russian studies, and comparatively assess Russian and Chinese terminology studies (English and Chinese and Russian and Chinese Lexicon on Linguistics, 2008; Essays on Lexicon, (2007); Zheng Shupu & Liang Ailin 2010; Wu Li-Kun, 2009). In their turn, foreign terminologists take an interest in Chinese terminology (Detrie, et al., 2001; Essays on Lexicon, 2007; ISO/NC 37, 2004). Chinese experts
Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods ISSN: 2251-6204
Vol. 9, Issue 1, January2019
Page 38
comparatively analyze the English-speaking scholars’ experience of assessing Russian terminology studies. It is difficult here to overestimate the role of such Russian-speaking Chinese terminologists as Zheng Shupu, Wu Li-Kun, Ye Qi-Song and others. Terminological discourse is supplemented to include the issue of term mentalization. It is supposed to analyze the contensive and conceptual mental reality by operationally applying the framework of categories and concepts of traditional logic and the relevant framework of concepts of logical semantics (Vasilyeva & Shvetsov, 2010; Zheng Shupu (2005). The philosophical, theoretical and real issues of law are analyzed with due regard for discussions concerning the interaction of such phenomena as “law” and “a law”. Moreover, scholars focus their attention on the subjective and practical problems of the functioning of the legal framework of the Chinese penitentiary system and the legal status of the country’s homeland security bodies (Bykov, 2014). There is systematically analyzed the interaction of law as a notion and a phenomenon and its regulatory form – a law, and other types of positive and existing law in the context of the information society (Bachilo, 2013).
Purpose and Objectives
To establish the basic term creation level at which the modern Chinese terms “law” and “a law”, as well as their senses and meanings, are formed. To identify the distinctive features and characteristics of Chinese terminology and their impact upon the formation of Chinese international terms.
Methods
There were applied diachronic and synchronic, contextual, and comparative research principles, as well as the denotative and connotative understanding of term when studying the formation and evolution of Chinese terminology studies. Furthermore, the original method of “the terminological triad” was explicitly used in the course of studies to understand the formation process of Chinese terms.
Results and Discussion
Fundamental Issue of Terminology Studies, its Object and Subject
The main objects of research of terminology studies are special lexical items, with terms being most notable ones among them. They are studied from the point of view of typology, origin, form, content, functioning, use, arrangement, and creation. The subject of terminology studies is associated with the place of term in language, language of science, language for specific purposes, with its substantival and constitutive properties. The fundamental issue of terminology studies is a matter of correlation between the terminological lexicon and the common language lexicon. The correlation has two sides: phylogenetic and ontogenetic ones. The landmark linguistic studies are primarily conducted in accordance with the phylogenetic approach since the linguistic factors of term and terminology are studied. The ontogenetic aspect of term and terminology is formed by extra-linguistic factors represented by a complex intertwinement of ordinary and special ways of thinking. Term Study Level
The attribution of term to a certain social and professional sphere, which involves studying terms as linguistic units that are inherently burdened by social functions and directly dependent on continually changing social factors, is studied at the socio-linguistic level (Abaev, 1995; Lotte, 1992). The phenomenon of transformation of ordinary thinking into scientific thinking is studied at the psycho-linguistic level. The manifestations and role of a people’s culture, which are reflected and ingrained in term and terminology, are studied at the linguo- culturological level.
Terms “Law”, “a Right” from Ancient Times to Modern Age
Old Chinese gives various interpretations of the words “law” and “a law”. According to the first complete Chinese dictionary “Shuowen Jiezi” (“Explaining Graphs and Analyzing Characters”) (Spiritual Culture of China (2008), 734), which was compiled in the era of the Han dynasty (206 BC–220 AD), the character 法 fǎ “law” in Old Chinese is written as 灋 and consists of three characters: 1st – 水, on the left –氵 shuǐ “water”, 2nd
– 廌 zhì “unicorn” and 3rd – 去 qù (here) “to punish”. The dictionary provides the following explanation in
this regard
灋，刑也平之如水，从水；廌，所以触不直者去之，从去
fǎ, xíng yě, píng zhī rúshuǐ, cóng shuǐ; zhì, suǒyǐ chù bù zhí zhě qù zhī, cóng qù.
Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods ISSN: 2251-6204
Vol. 9, Issue 1, January2019
Page 39
The first phrase in this sentence – 灋，刑也 fǎ, xíng yě – demonstrates that in Ancient China 灋 fǎ “law” means
刑 xíng “punishment”. The next phrase 平之如水，从水 píng zhī rúshuǐ means that law is the symbol of “justice”. The third phrase 廌，所以触不直者去之，从去 zhì, suǒyǐ chù bù zhí zhě qù zhī, cóng qù says that the unicorn has a meaning of “clearly ascertaining truth and untruth”. Legend has it that 廌 zhì “unicorn” is a magical creature, which is called 獬豸 xièzhì in the Book of Deities and Miracles; the magical unicorn creature (the symbol of justice) is gifted by nature with an ability to find and to attack the guilty and to spare the innocent.
In Ancient China, apart from the meaning of 刑 xíng “punishment”, the character 法 fǎ “law” is used with the meaning of 律 lǜ “a law”. The Tang Dynasty Criminal Code with Explanations (The Chinese Criminal Code of 653) says that 法亦律也，故谓之为律 fǎ yì lǜ yě, gù wèi zhī wèi lǜ “law is also a law, therefore it is dubbed as such”. In Chinese “law” and “a law” form a two-syllable word 法律 fǎlǜ that is translated as “law”, “a law”; it is rarely found in ancient literature and mainly present in the modern language. The words 法 fǎ “law” and
律 lǜ “a law” were oftentimes used as one word at the end of the Qing dynasty (1644-1911) under the influence of the western continental legal system that had penetrated into China through Japan and with due regard for the need for reforms at that period.
In modern China, the notion 法律 fǎlǜ “law” implies a code of conduct that is determined or recognized by the state and relies upon the state’s compulsory force that ensures its observance. The code of conduct has historically reflected the ruling class’ will determined by specific material conditions of life and established the rights and obligations to define, to protect and to develop social relations and public order that are beneficial to the ruling class. In modern China, the word 法律 fǎlǜ “law” may be interpreted both in its broad and narrow senses. When used in the broad sense, it means a body of statutory provisions, i.e. it includes all regulations in the Chinese legal system. When used in the narrow sense, it means laws and fundamental laws adopted by the National People's Congress and the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. Chinese scholars usually interpret “law” in its broad sense as 法 fǎ “law”, while “law” in its narrow sense as
法律 fǎlǜ “a law” (Spiritual Culture of China, 2008; Unabridged Chinese and Russian Dictionary (1983- 1984).
Conclusions
The synchronic study of structural types does not always provide reliable information concerning the efficiency of particular term formation means and models. Different term formation means may lead to one structural type of terms. However, it is possible to create terms belonging to different structural types using one term formation means. It is common knowledge that there is a certain link between the structure of a term and the time when it emerged, between the degree of development of a certain branch of knowledge and the term formation means in the above-mentioned branch. To resolve such issues, it is necessary to conduct a diachronic analysis of separate term formation means of such terms with due account for the time when the terms, which were formed using the above-mentioned means, emerged. A special feature of Chinese term creation lies in the fact that “noun” constitutes its initial basis. The remaining parts of speech serve as components of term. The nominative character is intrinsic only to nouns. A Chinese word has few syllables, therefore terms are polysyllabic. Terms are formed by borrowing. Borrowing increases the number of semantic components of a word and extends their connotation range. There is a peculiar problem with synonymy in Chinese that foregrounds the issue of translation. It gives rise to other features of the Chinese language and Chinese terminology and difficulties with the formation of international terms.
Key Features of Chinese Term Formation
The formation of compound terms (compound-word terms, word-combination terms, affixal terms and acronym terms), which is performed within the scope of the general rules of nominal word formation of terminology, should be regarded as one of the main ways of replenishing the term formation of modern Chinese. From the structural point of view, it is a trend to create primarily polysyllabic words, to use adjectives, verbs and numerals and other types alongside with noun terms in accordance with Feng Zhiwei’s classification (Feng Zhiwei, 1997). Almost all lexico-semantic processes (polysemy, homonymy, synonymy, antonymy), which are basically characteristic of the common lexicon of Chinese, are contained in the term formation of Chinese, though the implementation of such processes in terminology has its specifics. The legal
Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods ISSN: 2251-6204
Vol. 9, Issue 1, January2019
Page 40
terms “law” and “a law” in Chinese have their connotative meanings that have been preserved at the mental level up to now. An analysis of the historical evolution of the legal terms “law” and “a law” is illustrative of the prevalence of a linguo-culturological factor and, it may be added, a socio-cultural one. We have noted that the socio-linguistic level of term creation is the least typical one in Chinese terminology. It is likely attributed to the deeply entrenched traditionalistic features of Chinese culture. The Chinese terms “law” and “a law” have a large interpretation field that was formed back in the remote historical past under a number of socio- cultural and, less frequently, social and political factors.
References
1. Abaev, V.I. (1995) Selected Works. Volume 2. General and Comparative Linguistics. Moscow
2. Avebukh, K.Ya. (2006) General Theory of the Term. – Мoscow: Publishing House of the Moscow Region State University.
3. English and Chinese and Russian and Chinese Lexicon on Linguistics (2008). Edited by Wang Fuxiang, Wu Han-Ying. – Beijing: Publishing House Wai Yu Jiao Xue Yu Yan Jiu (in Chinese, English) 英汉·俄汉现代语言 学词汇/王福祥主编；王福祥，吴汉樱. - 北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008.1
4. Bachilo, I.L. (2013) On the Methodology of Establishing a Connection between the Phenomena “Law” and “a Law" and the Role of Legal Conscience in this Process. An Approach to the Issue through the Prism of the Theory of Information Law // Matters of Law, 2013, No. 2 (18), 46–60
5. Unabridged Chinese and Russian Dictionary on the Russian Graphic System in Four Volumes (1983–1984). Approximately 250,000 Words and Expressions. Supervised by Oshanin I.M. Moscow.
6. Bykov, A.V. (2014) Features of the Penitentiary System of the People’s Republic of China // Activities of the Law Enforcement Authorities in the Field of Law Enforcement in the Far Eastern Region. Proceedings of the International Research and Practical Conference. Far Eastern Law Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, Heilongjiang Vocational College of Public Security Police Officer of the People’s Republic of China, 115–116
7. Vasilyeva, K.K. Russian and Chinese Scholars on the Problems of the Formation and Development of International Term Creation // Modern Science: Topical Issues of Theory and Practice. Series “Humanitarian Sciences” – 2018, 96–101
8. Vasilyeva, K.K., Ossor Ochirov (2017) The Mentality as the Image of the Cognitive Properties of the Other // Proceeding of the 2nd International Conference on Contemporary Education, Social Sciences and
Humanities (ICCESSH 2017) Atlantis Press
9. Vasilyeva, K.K., Erdyneeva K.G. (2016) Learning Chinese as a Social and Cultural Factor of Developing Creativity in Primary School Children // Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 233 ( 2016 ) 433 – 439 Annual International Scientific Conference Early Childhood Care and Education, ECCE 2016, 12–14 May 2016, Moscow, Russia
10. Vasilyeva, K.K., Shvetsov, M.Yu. (2010) Term Creation and Mental Reality // International Cooperation in Terminological Research / under the scientific editorship of Vasilyeva, K.K., Zheng Shupu. — Chita: Poisk 11. Galinski, Christian (2005) Semantic Interoperability and Language Resources: Content Development under the Aspect of Global Semantic Interoperability [A], in Maria A. Wimmer [ed.], E-Government: Knowledge Transfer und Status. Wien: Osterreichische Computer Gesellschaft, (OCG Schriftenreihe Band)
12. Grinev, S.V. (2008) Terminology Studies. Moscow
13. Detrie C., Siblot P., Verine B. (2001) Termes et concepts pour l’analyse du discours. Une approche praxematique. Paris: Champion. Practical Approach. Paris: Champion)
14. Spiritual Culture of China (2009) Encyclopedia in Five Volumes. Historical Thought. Political and Legal Culture. Editor-in-Chief Titarenko, M.L., Moscow
15. Spiritual Culture of China (2008) Encyclopedia in Five Volumes. Literature. Language and Writing. Editor- in-Chief Titarenko, M.L., Moscow
16. Essays on Lexicon, Lexicography (2007) Terminography in Russia, American and Other Cultures. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
17. Ye Qi-song Four (2010) Difficulties of Term Translation (in Chinese) // International Cooperation in Terminological Research / under the scientific editorship of Vasilyeva, K.K., Zheng Shupu. — Chita: Poisk P. 206–210
Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods ISSN: 2251-6204
Vol. 9, Issue 1, January2019
Page 41
18. Lakoff G. (1998) Cognitive Semantics // Meaning and Mental Representation / Ed. by U. Eco. - Bloomington: Indiana University Press
19. Kristensen L., Wang L., Peterson K., Hagoort P. (2012) The Interface Between Language and Attention: Prosodic Focus Marking Recruits a General Attention Network in Spoken Language Comprehension. Cereb Cortex
20. Leychik, V.M. (2009) Terminological Studies: Subject, Methods, Structure. Moscow: Librocom
21. Lotte, D.S. (1982) The Issues of Borrowing and Arranging Foreign Terms and Terminological Elements. Moscow. Science
22. Ochirov O.R. (2015). Questions of Chinese Terminology Studies: from the “Harmonization of Names” Tradition to the Contemporary Theory. Bulletin of N.L. Lobachevskiy Nizhny Novgorod University, 3, 192– 199
23. Ochirov O.R. (2013) The Formation of Chinese Terminology Studies and Modernity // Bulleting of the Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia. — Series: Linguistics. — 2013. — No. 4. — P. 116–125
24. ISO/NC 37. (2004) Proposal for an MOU/MG Statement Concerning Semantic Interoperability and the Need for a Coherent Policy for a Framework of Distributed, Coordinated Repositories for all Kinds of Content Items on a World-Wide Scale [M] (ISO/TC 37 N496) ISO/TC 37
25. Riggs, F. (1993) "Social Science Terminology: Basic Problems and Proposed Solutions" in Terminology: Applications in Interdisciplinary Communication [C]. Ed. By Sonneveld, Helmi B. & Loening, Kurt L., Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company
26. Russian Terminology Science 1992–2002. (2004) Termnet Publisher. Vienna:
27. A Dictionary of Modern Linguistics (2000). Edited by D. Crystal. — Beijing: Publishing House “Shang Wu Yin Shu Guan”, 442 p. (in Chinese, English) 现代语言学词典/(英)克里斯特尔 编. –北京:商务印书 馆
28. Tatarinov, V.A. (2003) History of National Terminology Studies. Volume 3.-Moscow: “Moscow Lyceum” 29. Temmerman, R. & Loening , K.L., ed. (2000) Towards New Ways of Terminology Description — The Sociocognitive Approach [M], Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company
https://doi.org/10.1075/tlrp.3
30. Wu Li-Kun (2009) Research on Russian Terminology Studies. — Beijing: Publishing House “Shang Wu Yin Shu Guan” (in Chinese) 俄罗斯术语学探究/吴丽坤.- 北京: 商务印书馆,2009
31. Zheng Shupu (2005) Modern Russian Terminology Studies — Beijing: Publishing House “Shang Wu Yin Shu Guan” (in Chinese) 俄罗斯当代术语学/郑述谱著.-北京:商务印书馆, 2005
32. Sharafutdinova, N.S. (2006) Linguo-Cognitive Fundamentals of Research and Engineering Terminology, Ulyanovsk: Ulyanovsk State Technical University
33. Feng Zhiwei (1997) Introduction to Modern Terminology — Beijing: Publishing House “Yuyan” (in Chinese) 现代术语学引论/冯志伟著.- 北京:语言出版社, 1997.
34. Huang Ting (2010) The Translation Equivalence of Law Terms on the Example Sachenrecht in BGB//