Textual features of Japanese literary terminology

��������� �� http://www.allbest.ru/

Article

Textual features of Japanese literary terminology

Lidiia S. Anistratenko National Pedagogical Dragomanov University, Kyiv, Ukraine



Abstract

This paper describes and systematizes the textual features of the professional language of Japanese literary studies, presented in the classic Japanese literary treatises. Based on the material of 17 treatises, a quantitative relationship between general literary vocabulary and literary terminology in professional texts of Japanese literary studies has been established; the percentage of supra-disciplinary, disciplinary and interdisciplinary literary terminology has been established; stylistic means adopted in the texts have been identified and analyzed; a comparative analysis of the written discourse of Japanese literary studies in diachrony has been carried out; the specific features of the texts of Japanese literary studies have been revealed.

Using the method of quantitative analysis, it has been established that the ratio of the use of literary terminology to the total amount of vocabulary in the text does not have a clear gradation in time but rather is a manifestation of the individual style of the author of the treatise. The average terminological saturation of professional texts in Japanese literary studies is 20%. This indicator is considered low compared to the indicators of other disciplines.

The average indicator of terminological saturation of texts with individual analysed groups of terms, according to the results of the proposed study, is as follows: general scientific terminology - 18%, interdisciplinary terminology - 8%, terminology of other disciplines - 8%, supra-disciplinary terminology - 15%, disciplinary terminology - 51%.

The percentage indicators of the terms of various disciplines of Japanese literary studies, including lyrics, epic, drama, lyric-epic, lyric-drama, folklore, have also been established.

The predominance of terminological units in the discipline of lyrics (62%) has been revealed. We maintain that the significant saturation of literary treatises with the lyrics terms is caused by the fact that the lyrics were considered high art for centuries throughout the history of Japanese literature.

Keywords: Japanese literary terminology, inter-disciplinary terminology, terminology of professional texts, disciplinary terminology, general scientific terminology.



Introduction

The study of textual features of terminology is relevant given that the term �exists, acts and often imperceptibly changes its semantics� in professional texts (Nikitina, 1987: 50). That is, professional discourse is a natural environment for the existence of a terminological unit, in contrast to lexicographic sources, where the term is in artificial conditions. It is commonly known that Japanese literary studies have a rich history (the first written works date back to the VIII century), during which new terminological units were enunciated. In our opinion, the study of terms in the literary treatises of Japanese classics will contribute to understanding not only the terminological features of Japanese literary studies but also the peculiarities of the mentality of the Japanese, whose world-view is reflected in the classical texts of professional literary studies.

Literature Review.

According to our data, as of today there are works devoted to the study of general issues of terminology of Japanese literary studies (Irwin, 2008; Lamarre, 2013; Laukik, 2015), certain terms of Japanese literary studies (Atkins, 2013; Moretti, 2010), analysis of terms of Japanese literary studies in lexicographic sources (Anistratenko, 2015; Anistratenko, 2016). However, we have no knowledge of a separate study on the functioning of terminological units in the professional texts of Japanese literary studies.

In the study of terminological vocabulary in professional texts of Japanese literary studies, we will use the developments of theorists of terminology as a science (Felber, 1980; Kyjak, 2009; Kvitko, 1987; Lejchik, 2007).

We will also rely on the previous experience of researchers of different terminology systems (Abakumova, 2011; Adylova, 2017; Duda, 2015; Madzhaeva 2011; Soljanenko, 2017; Syndegha 2009; ��� 1941).

Aim and Objectives.

The aim of the article is to comprehensively describe and systematize the textual features of Japanese classical literary terms.

Main material

This aim involves solving the following objectives:

to establish the quantitative ratio of general literary vocabulary and literary terminology in professional texts of Japanese literary studies;

to establish the percentage of supra-disciplinary, disciplinary and inter-disciplinary literary terminology;

to identify and analyse the stylistic means used in the texts;

to carry out a comparative analysis of the written discourse of Japanese literary studies in diachrony;

to identify specific features of texts of Japanese literary studies.

Methodology.

Possible methods of study of professional texts of the Japanese literary terminology are as follows.

Statistical method (or linguo-statistical experiment, or quantitative analysis) is used to establish the quantitative and percentage composition of terminological units in professional texts of Japanese literary studies. Here are a detailed definition and algorithm of the statistical method. Linguo-statistical experiment is a method of quantitative linguistics aimed at obtaining quantitative characteristics of certain linguistic phenomena (frequency of phonemes, syllables, words, sentences, word length, sentence length, etc.) and establishing the reliability of statistical results. The first stage is to advance a certain hypothesis in accordance with the outlined aim and objectives. The second stage is to define (depending on the aim) the boundary of the general totality - the whole array of objects under study, united by certain qualitative and quantitative characteristics. The third stage is to process and statistically analyze the obtained results by separating variation series, compiling tables, diagrams, graphs, calculating the arithmetic mean. The fourth stage is to describe the laws established statistically, to interpret the obtained values, that is, a qualitative analysis of the phenomenon under study (Selivanova, 2006: 160, 307-308).

The second method use in this work is a functional analysis (to clarify the peculiarities of the use of terms in scientific texts) (Vakulenko, 2013: 18).

We have chosen the texts of poetic treatises written by the classics of Japanese literary studies as the source database for the study of Japanese literary terminology in the field of functioning. Such texts give new terms and form the semantics of a certain literary concept (Nikitina, 1987: 50). As a rule, literary treatises are written by professionals and addressed to professionals. Professional literary studies of Japan is presented in our source database by the texts of the following literary treatises:

Ki no Tsurayuki. �Kanajo. Kokin Wakash��. (�Preface. Collection of Japanese poems of ancient and modern times�, 905-913 �I�єV�u�Í��a�̏W�v); Ki no Yoshimochi. �Manajo. Kokin Wakash��. (�Preface. Collection of Japanese poems of ancient and modern times�, 905-913 �I�`���u�Í��a�̏W�v); Mibu no Tadamine. �Wakatei jisshu� (�Ten styles of Japanese poems�, 945 �. �p�������u�a�̏\��v);

Fujiwara no Kint�. �Waka kuhon�. (�Nine degrees / skill / of Japanese poetry�, 10- 11 th �������C�u�a�̋�i�v);

Fujiwara no Teika. �Kindai shuka� (�Beautiful poems of the new era�, 1209, ������Ɓu�ߑ�G�́v);

Fujiwara no Yoshitsune. �Kanajo. Shin Kokin Wakash��. (�Preface. New Collection of Poems Ancient and Modern�, 1205 �����njo�u�V�Í��a�̏W�������v); Go-Toba. �Manajo. Shin Kokin Wakash��. (�Preface. New collection of poems ancient and modern�, 1205 �㒹�H�V�c�u�V�Í��a�̏W���v); Motoori Norinaga. �Jasper comb of �The Tale of Genji��, 1796-1799 (�{���钷�u��������ʂ̏����v);

Ariga Nagao. �Literary theory�, 1885 (�L�꒷�Y�u���w�_�v); Tsubouchi Sh�y�. �Essence of prose�, 1885-1886 (�ؓ�疗y�u�����_���v); Futabatei Shimei. �Novel review�, 1886 (��t���l���u�������_�v); Masaoka Shiki. �Chat about Bash��, 1893 (�����q�K�u�m�ԎG�k�v); Taneda Sant�ka. �Ikusa-an diary�, 1940 (��c�R���΁u�ꑐ�����L�v); Naoya Shiga. �Rhythm�, 1959 (�u�꒼�Ɓu���Y���v); Nakamura Murao. �True prose and prose about the inner world�, 1925 (���������v�u�{�i�����ƐS�������Ɓv)

Akutagawa Ry�nosuke �My view on the theory of �vatakushi-shosetsu��, 1925 (�H�열�V��u�������_�ʌ��v);

It� Sei. �Literature history of modern Japan�, 1958 (�ɓ����u�ߑ���{�̕��w�j�v).

Results.

Definition of Basic Concepts and Terms Relevant to the Study of Textual Features of Japanese Literary Terminology.

The starting point of this study, which will be the basis for the analysis of textual features of Japanese literary terminology, is the statement of terminologists about �the existence of terminology in two fields (within the language science, implemented in texts of various genres): in the field of fixation (lexicographic genres: special dictionaries, collections of recommended terms, terminological state standards) and in the field of functioning (special literature: articles, monographs, collective monographs, and partly popular science works)� (Danilenko, 1977: 15). According to terminologists, the terms in the fields of fixation and functioning have qualitative differences. �The meanings of terms in dictionaries and texts often do not correspond to each other, which is sometimes a manifestation of negligence in the use of terms, and sometimes it is an indicator of dissatisfaction with existing dictionary articles� (Nikitina, 1987: 50).

At the same time, scientists emphasize that �the term of any field of knowledge expresses a special professional concept (scientific, technical, socio-cultural) if it is used in terms of special professional communication: in written texts or oral speech of professionals� (Danilenko, 1977: 39). In addition to the actual special professional discourse, there is a known usage of terminological units in other genres of literature, which, as a rule, are not addressed to professionals. It is natural that the use of terminological units in the literature aimed at the audience of non-professionals has its own features, different from the discourse, where the addressee and the addresser are professionals. A brief overview of the specifics of the use of professional vocabulary in texts aimed at non-professionals will be presented below. As terminologists point out, in contrast to special literature, in a work of art the word realizes a ���-terminological meaning, expressing a general idea or everyday concept (Danilenko, 1977: 38). The use of scientific terminology in popular science literature has its own specifics, which �seems to carry out a kind of �translation� of information from a special language, understandable only to those who are familiar with the system of concepts in this field of knowledge, into a language accessible to everyone� (Kvitko, 1987: 104). According to terminologists, in the popular science literature, information is inevitably lost when replacing more precise disciplinary terms, which have a smaller scope, with interdisciplinary and general scientific terms, the scope of which is wider but the content is less accurate, as well as with descriptions and non-terminological constructions as the task of such texts is to give only a general idea of the issue (Kvitko, 1987: 104-105). In the genre of educational literature, the use of scientific and technical terminology is characterized by strict normativity and has a number of features related to the age and educational level of readers (Kvitko, 1987: 93).

As we can see, terminologists unanimously state that the use of terms in educational publications, popular science works and works of art has its own specifics due to the purpose of these types of literature (Kvitko, 1987: 93). Summing up, we would like to note that the mentioned genres have the following features: 1) in fiction, the word implements the general idea or everyday concept; 2) in the popular science literature, the inevitable loss of information occurs when accurate disciplinary terms are replaced with inter-disciplinary and general scientific terms; 3) in the educational literature the number of use of terminological units is limited (Zhanghazinova, 2014 38; Kvitko, 1987: 93, 104-105).

Taking into account the peculiarities of the use of terminological units in the discourses �professional ^ non-professional� (popular science, educational literature) and �nonprofessional ^ non-professional� (works of art), which are expressed, as a rule, by the realization of the only partial or distorted (everyday) meaning of a certain term, we consider it necessary to pay the primary attention of our study to texts addressed to professionals, where the purity of the terminological meaning of a scientific concept is preserved. It should be noted that the texts addressed to non-professionals have a wide space for study and this is confirmed by numerous works of scientists: in the field of the use of terms in fiction (Ghrycaj, 2012; Khalinovsjka, 2003; Shatalina, 2009), in popular science texts and in educational literature (Asmukovych, 2014; Jacenko, 2007). However, given the limited scope of our study, let us focus on the analysis of professional texts of paramount (in our opinion) importance, leaving the study of the use of Japanese literary terminology in texts addressed to non-professionals for future studies.

Before proceeding directly to the solution of practical problems, it is necessary to dwell on the clarification of the semantics of terminological concepts, which will be used in the study of the functional features of the professional language of Japanese literary studies. The concept of supra-disciplinary, disciplinary and inter-disciplinary terminology remains controversial. The division of terms into general, inter-disciplinary and disciplinary is conditional and reflects the dialectical relationship of objects and phenomena of the material world (Kvitko, 1987: 23). Thus, there are different definitions of these concepts in the works of scientists.

V. M. Lejchik designates general scientific terms as general scientific concepts that have identical semantics in all fields of knowledge but specify these semantics, being part of the terminology of individual disciplines. According to V. M. Lejchik, inter-disciplinary terms are used in some fields of knowledge, specifying each time in their terminological systems: �Processing�, �instrument�, �class�, �unit�, �sign�, �information�. The so-called terms of broad semantics - lexical units (words) that are used in many terminological systems. However, if general scientific terms have the same semantics in any terminological system, which is only concretized, these lexical units have their own semantics, entering each of the terminological systems and retaining only a general, non-terminological meaning (for example, �staff composition�, �chemical composition�) (Lejchik, 2007: 127-128).

During the study of Japanese legal terminology, T. K. Komarnycjka uses the division of terminology into supra-disciplinary and disciplinary. Under the concept of supra- disciplinary terminology, the researcher understands �a legal term available in two or more different sectoral terminological systems <...> or in the texts of two or more regulations governing relations in different branches of law.� The legal term �is considered to function in the legal discourse in general, i.e. supra-disciplinary� (Komarnycjka, 2010: 90), while the disciplinary terms, according to T. Komarnycjka, are only those terms that function in the special legal discourse of a particular branch of law (Komarnycjka, 2010: 90).

Investigating the aviation terminology, I. V. Asmukovych represents the functional features of the professional language of aviation in four groups of terms: general scientific, inter-disciplinary, disciplinary and highly specialized (Asmukovych, 2014: 9-10).

As the above examples show, there is a lack of consensus among scholars in defining: firstly, a single division of terms into general scientific, inter-disciplinary, disciplinary and others (each researcher forms their own system of division of terminology); secondly, the lack of approved definitions of inter-disciplinary, supra-disciplinary terms. As we can see, the researcher forms her own system of division of terminological units of a specific disciplinary terminology into general scientific, inter-disciplinary and disciplinary.

Taking into account the experience of previous researchers and taking into account the specifics of the terminology of Japanese literature, we consider it possible to propose a division of the terminology of Japanese literary studies into general, inter-disciplinary, supra- disciplinary (general literary), disciplinary and terminology of other disciplines.

In these dictionaries, the authors provide a designation for a certain term as a component of a particular discipline of literary studies. Thus, in the case of indicating the authors of dictionaries on the affiliation of a terminological unit to only one discipline of literary studies, we classify such a unit as disciplinary. If the term is designated in two or more disciplines of literary studies, then we consider such unit as supra- disciplinary. Accordingly, units designated as functioning in both literary studies and other kinds of arts, philosophy, or science (for example, music, Buddhism, fine arts) are referred to as inter-disciplinary.

Under the concept of general scientific terminology, following V. M. Lejchik, we understand �concepts that have identical semantics in all fields of knowledge but specify these semantics, being part of the terms of individual disciplines� (Lejchik, 2007: 127-128). Following I. S. Kvitko, we designate inter-disciplinary terms as concepts of broad scope, which reflect the commonality of the objects of study and are part of the terminology of related sciences (literary-philosophical, literary-aesthetic) (Kvitko, 1987: 22). Under the concept of terms of other disciplines, we understand the terminological units not related to literary terminology, which occur in the material of our study. We consider general literary terminology to be supra-disciplinary, i.e. one that is used in immutable semantics in all disciplines of literary studies. Disciplinary terminology refers to such terminological units that are used only in a particular discipline of literary studies.

This raises the question of dividing the Japanese literary terminology into the disciplines, according to which we will determine the boundaries of a particular element in literary studies. We consider it expedient to reconcile our division of the studied terminology into the disciplines with the classification by genres of literature accepted in literary studies. The phenomenon of the literary genre is explained as a way of expressing artistic content; according to the specification of V. Y. Halizev, it is a set of �principles of the formal organization of works, determined by the properties of both the subject of image and artistic speech� (Ghalych, 2001: 251; Halizev, 1986: 9). Most scholars agree that there are three genres of literature - epic, lyric and drama (Ghalych, 2001: 251). Works that combine features of epic, lyrical and dramatic genres are called lyric-epic, lyric-dramatic, etc. (Ghalych, 2001: 324). This classification is dominant in European literary studies. Japanese literary studies are subject to a similar classification by genres of literature. Thus, having clarified the definition of concepts that will be used in the study of functional features of Japanese literary terminology, let us highlight the main stages of practical work on the textual features of the analysed terminology. Firstly, we will establish the percentage of terminological saturation of professional texts of Japanese literary studies with the help of quantitative analysis. Secondly, we will determine the proportional ratio of general scientific, inter-disciplinary, supra-disciplinary (general literary) and disciplinary terminological units and terms of other disciplines within the studied terminology. Thirdly, we will analyse the stylistic features of the texts of Japanese literary treatises. Fourthly, as part of the studied disciplinary terminology, we will set the percentage of units within the fundamental disciplines of Japanese literary studies: epic, lyric, drama, lyric-epic, lyric-drama and folklore.

Percentage of literary and general literary vocabulary.

Naturally, the professional texts of each individual disciplinary terminology have an individual proportion of terminological and general literary vocabulary due to the practical needs of the professional language. Thus, based on the English language materials, scientists have established the following indicators of terminological saturation of professional texts in the following disciplines: astronomy - 55%, economics - 35%, linguistics - 30%, mechanical engineering - 60% (Shevchenko, 2010: 15], aviation - 56% (Asmukovych, 2014: 14]. The percentage of professional vocabulary established by us in Japanese literary treatises is given below in the table.

Table 1 - Correlation of Terminological and General Literary Vocabulary in Professional Texts of Japanese Literary Studies

No.	Text	Number of meaningful word usage	General vocabulary	Literary terminology
1	Ki no Tsurayuki. �Preface (Kanajo). Kokin Wakashu� (�Collection of Japanese poems of ancient and modern times�), 905-913.	1696	1509 (89 %)	187 (11 %)
2	Ki no Yoshimochi. �Preface (Manajo). Kokin Wakashu� (�Collection of Japanese poems of ancient and modern times�), 905-913.	952	790 (83 %)	162 (17 %)
3	Mibu no Tadamine �Ten styles of Japanese poems�, (945)	544	359 (66 %)	185 (34 %)
4	Fujiwara no Kinto �Nine degrees / skill / of Japanese poetry�, (10-11 th).	216	110 (51 %)	106 (49 %)
5	Fujiwara no Teika. �Kindai shuka� (�Beautiful poems of the new era�), 1209.	728	568 (78 %)	160 (22 %)
6	Fujiwara no Yoshitsune. �Kanajo. Shin Kokin Wakashu�. (�Preface. New Collection of Poems Ancient and Modern�), 1205.	1096	997 (91 %)	99 (9 %)
7	Go-Toba. �Manajo. Shin Kokin Wakashu�. (�Preface. New collection of poems ancient and modern�), 1205.	888	781 (88 %)	107 (12 %)
8	Motoori Norinaga. �Jasper comb of �The Tale of Genji��, (1796-1799)	1056	993 (94 %)	63 (6 %)
9	Ariga Nagao. �Literary	1592	1433	159
	theory�, (1885)		(90 %)	(10 %)
10	Tsubouchi Shoyo. �Essence of prose�, (1885-1886)	1776	1368 (77 %)	408 (23 %)
11	Futabatei Shimei. �Novel review�, (1886)	1128	914 (81 %)	214 (19 %)
12	Masaoka Shiki. �Chat about Basho�, (1893)	440	378 (86 %)	62 (14 %)
13	Taneda Santoka. �Ikusa-an diary�, (1940)	280	241 (85 %)	41 (15 %)
14	Naoya Shiga. �Rhythm�, (1959)	952	762 (80 %)	190 (20 %)
15	Nakamura Murao. �True prose and prose about the inner world�, (1925)	1624	1364 (84 %)	260 (16 %)
16	Akutagawa Ryunosuke �My view on the theory of �vatakushi-shosetsu��, (1925)	1408	697 (49.5 %)	711 (50.5 %)
17	Ito Sei. �Literature history of modern Japan�, (1958)	1352	1142 (84.5 %)	210 (15.5 %)

Ratio of the use of literary terminology to the total amount of vocabulary in the text does not have a clear gradation in time but rather is a manifestation of the individual style of the author of the treatise. Thus, the highest terminological saturation is represented by in works of Akutagawa Ryunosuke (10th) - 50.5% and Fujiwara no Kinto (10-11th) - 49%. The average rate of terminological saturation of treatises of the ancient and medieval periods of Japanese literary studies is 22%, and of the modern period (from the beginning of the Meiji era) is 20.15%. We suggest that the reason for almost identical indicators of the proportional ratio of general literary and terminological vocabulary in professional texts of the tenth and twentieth centuries lies in the established tradition of composing literary works, which is reflected in the number of terminological units. Obviously, the observance of such a tradition is both conscious when the author clearly imitates the structure, stylistic nuance of an authoritative literary critic (for example, the preface (manajo) of Ki no Tsurayuki to the poetic anthology �Kokin Wakashu� became a model for imitation for Mibu no Tadamine, Ki no Yoshimochi and other authors), and the subconscious imitation by avant-garde poets of their predecessors, who wrote about the need to �throw out the achievements of the classics of the ship of modernity.� However, in our opinion, during the century of isolation of the country and adherence to exclusively traditional methods in the art, writers could not subconsciously deviate from the canonical rules of writing literary treatises or at least the part concerning the terminological and stylistic saturation of the work. Thus, the highest terminological saturation is represented in works of Akutagawa Ryunosuke (10th) - 50.5% and Fujiwara no Kinto (10-11th) - 49%.

The treatises of the authors of the XX - XXI centuries often have comparisons of literary phenomena or processes with the concepts of other sciences. Naturally, the appeal to the description of the concepts of other fields of knowledge involves the attraction of a certain number of terminological units that are not included in literary studies. The conscious use by the authors of the treatises of a certain array of terms of other fields of knowledge, both related (culture, art) and remote (medicine, politics) provided for the addressee's comprehensive erudition.

The presence of comparisons of literary concepts with other concepts of the surrounding world and, accordingly, the integration into the text of a literary treatise of extended detailed descriptions of concepts and terms from other disciplines, in our opinion, has an extralinguistic reason: the world-view of the Japanese is inseparable from nature and the surrounding world and presupposes a harmonious combination of several disciplines, as well as a vision of the qualities of one in another (for example, to see the Universe in a dewdrop, etc.). Along with the use of comparisons, we observe another stylistic feature of professional texts in Japanese literary studies: binding the text of a literary treatise to the historical background. Thus, the authors of the medieval period, before proceeding the direct presentation of literary thoughts, devote some part of the text to the description of the historical context: the reign of a certain emperor (contemporary to the author or from a past period). The authors of the �� century layout literary theoretical developments in the context of reflections on the development of scientific and technological progress. We also observe an appeal to the creative heritage of authoritative predecessors, which, of course, is a consequence of the cult of the teacher (sensei / ^^ /) in Eastern culture. Often, along with recognized artists, the authors of treatises mention the works of several of their colleagues, which, in our opinion, is a manifestation of collectivism.

General Scientific, Supra-Disciplinary (General Literary) and Highly Specialized (Disciplinary) Literary Terminology in Japanese: Correlation and Features.

Thus, using quantitative analysis, let us determine the quantitative and percentage composition of these groups of terms in the texts of Japanese literary treatises.

Table 2 - Correlation of General Scientific, Inter-Disciplinary, Supra-Disciplinary, Disciplinary Terminology and Professional Vocabulary of Other Sciences in Professional Texts of Japanese Literary Studies



The average indicator of terminological saturation of texts with individual analysed groups of terms, according to the results of our study, is as follows:

general scientific terminology - 18 %;

inter-disciplinary terminology - 8 %;

terminology of other disciplines - 8 %;

supra-disciplinary terminology - 15 %;

disciplinary terminology - 51 %.

As we can see, the highest average indicator refers to the disciplinary terminology, which confirms the axiomatic statement of terminologists that disciplinary terms due to the narrow scope of correlated concepts have a clear, precise meaning, and therefore are understandable only to professionals (Kvitko, 1987: 23), and therefore are mostly presented in texts addressed to professionals.

Some of the treatises we have studied have a lower indicator of disciplinary terminology than supra-disciplinary and general science terminology. It is obvious that the dominance of general scientific and supra-disciplinary terminology in such texts confirms the above opinion on the specific features of professional texts of Japanese literary studies, which lie in observing the tradition of composing the treatise, which, in its turn, requires the involvement of the historical and cultural context incorporated into the text of literary work with the help of general scientific, cross-disciplinary and terms of other disciplines.

The following are examples of terminological units of Japanese literary studies, declared in this article as general scientific, inter-disciplinary, terms of other disciplines, supra-disciplinary and disciplinary.

General scientific terminology is presented in the studied works of Japanese literary studies mainly by the following terms: hatsuansha no kangae (���Ď҂̍l��, �author's opinion� - Nakamura Murao), hatsuansha no sekaikan (���Ď҂̐��E��, �author's worldview� - Nakamura Murao), shurui (���, �type� - Akutagawa Ry�nosuke), hatsumeika (������, �inventor� - Naoya Shiga), hatsumei (����, �invention� - Naoya Shiga), bumon ni wakare (����ɂ킩��, �classify� -Tsubouchi Sh�y�), kakkantekina (�q�ϓI��, �objective� - Nakamura Murao), mondai (���, �problem� - Naoya Shiga), henshu (�ώ�, �variety� - Tsubouchi Sh�y�), kaika (�J��, �blooming� - Tsubouchi Sh�y�), seido (���x, �system� - Naoya Shiga), tokushusei (���ꐫ, �peculiarity� - Naoya Shiga), shukanteki (��ϓI, �subjective� - Nakamura Murao), bumen (����, �branch� - Nakamura Murao), s�z� (�n��, �creativity� - Naoya Shiga); te:zu (�e�[�Y, �thesis� - Naoya Shiga), riron (���_, �theory� - Naoya Shiga), taipu (�^�C�v, �type� - Akutagawa Ry�nosuke), gensh� (����, �phenomenon� - Nakamura Murao) etc.

Inter-disciplinary terminological units in the professional texts of Japanese literary studies are represented mainly by the following units: j�han (�d��, �reissue� - Tsubouchi Sh�y�) book publishing - literary studies, kikan (����, �period� - It� Sei) history - literature, rizumu (���Y��, �rhythm� - Taneda Sant�ka) music - poetry, sh�ch� (�ے�, �symbol� - Taneda Sant�ka) philosophy - art - literature, bun (��, "text" - It� Sei) linguistics - literature, geijutsusei (�|�p��, �artistry� - Akutagawa Ry�nosuke) art - literature etc. As we can see, the inter-disciplinary terminological units are mainly represented in our source database by terminological units of such sciences related to literary studies as art, linguistics, history and philosophy.

The concepts of other sciences in the studied terminology are also represented by a group of terminological units, which were organically woven into the texts of literary treatises mainly for the purpose of comparison, allegory, stylistic ornaments. Here are some examples of the following units: shimp�sha (�M���, �adept� -Masaoka Shiki) /religion/, saiko�daka (�̍z��, �ore mining� - Ariga Nagao) /metallurgy/, j�kikikan hatsumei (���C�@�֔���, �invention of steam engine� - Ariga Nagao) /physics, mechanical engineering/, suimo (���f, �hydrogen� - Ariga Nagao) /chemistry/, oto-nohamo:ni: (���̃n�[���j�[, �harmony of sounds� -Ariga Nagao) /music/, denkikigu(�d�C���, �electrical appliances� - Ariga Nagao) /physics/, j�cho (�, �emotions� - Ariga Nagao) /psychology/, sanso (�_�f, �oxygen� - Ariga Nagao) /chemistry/, ch�g�ku-no h�ritsu(�����̖@��, �Chinese laws� - Ariga Nagao) /jurisprudence/, uch�no gensh� (�F���̌���, �cosmic phenomena� - Ariga Nagao) /astronomy/, hitetsu to ganseki (��S�Ɗ��, �metals and stones� - Ariga Nagao) /geology/, nehan (����, �nirvana� - Taneda Sant�ka) /religion/, kisoh�ritsu gaku (��b�@���w, �fundamentals of jurisprudence� -Ariga Nagao) /jurisprudence/, nigirizumut� (�j�M���Y���}, �Nigilist Party� Ariga Nagao) /history, politics/, shihonsh�seki (���{�W��, �share of capital� - Ariga Nagao) /economy/, puroretaria katsud�ka (�v�����^���A������, �proletarian figure� - Naoya Shiga) /history, politics/, jiyunoky�s� (���R�̋���, �freedom of competition� - Ariga Nagao) /economy/, kotoba (���t, �word� - Motoori Norinaga) /linguistics/, netsudo (�M�x, �temperature� - Ariga Nagao) /physics/, ch�etsuteki (���z�I, �transcendent� - Naoya Shiga) /philosophy/ e tc. These terminological units are taken from a wide range of sciences (physics, chemistry, economics, jurisprudence, astronomy, etc.) that are quite distant from literary studies. Naturally, the terms of other sciences, presented in the texts of literary treatises, are not highly specialized but well-known concepts.

The following are examples of supra-disciplinary terminological units of Japanese literary studies, i.e. those that function equally in all disciplines of literary studies (poetry, drama, epic, etc.): sakusha (���, �author� - Fujiwara no Kint�, Tsubouchi Sh�y�, Motoori Norinaga), bungakusho (���w��, �literary work� -Masaoka Shiki, Naoya Shiga, Tsubouchi Sh�y�), wabun (�a��, �Japanese literature� - It� Sei), kanun (����, �medieval way of writing based on the Chinese literary language wen-yan� - Ki no Yoshimochi), purotto (�v���b�g, �plot� - Naoya Shiga), bungei sakuhin (���|��i, �literary work� - Masaoka Shiki, Tsubouchi Sh�y�, Motoori Norinaga), dokusha(�ǎ�, �reader� - Tsubouchi Sh�y�) etc. As is well known, supra-disciplinary terms constitute the backbone of any terminology, on which the terms with narrower semantics (disciplinary or highly-disciplinary) are strung.

Disciplinary terms, i.e. those that operate exclusively in one specific discipline of literary studies, are presented in our source database by the following examples: - gesaku (�Y��, verb.: �entertaining�, �humorous�) - entertaining literature (Tsubouchi Sh�y�) /epic �U��/;

- monogatari (����, verb.: �story�; from �mono-o kataru� - �to tell about something�) - a narrative Japanese prose of the Heian period (Tsubouchi Sh�y�) /epic �U��/; - rokkasen(�Z�̐�, verb.: �six immortals�) - six outstanding poets of the Heian period (Ki no Tsurayuki) /lyrics ����/; - soe uta(����/��/��) - a hint song, allegorical poem (Ki no Tsurayuki) /lyrics ����/; - tadagotouta (�B (�k,��) ����, verb.: �Song about ordinary things�) - a poem whose content is disclosed without involving any artistic media, tropes or images and symbols, but only with the help of words used in the literal sense (Ki no Tsurayuki) /lyrics ����/; - haijin(�o�l) - a Haikai poet (Taneda Sant�ka.) /lyrics ����/; - haikai (�o��, verb.: �comic lines�) - a genre of Japanese poetry with a strophic form of 5-7-5 (Taneda Sant�ka.) /lyrics ����/; - shosetsu (����) - narrative prose (Tsubouchi Sh�y�); - shofu (�ԕ�, verb.: �Bash� style�) - a Bash� (Sh�mon) school style (Masaoka Shiki) /lyrics ����/.

Correlation of Disciplinary Terms in Japanese Literary Studies.

Let us find out the quantitative ratio of terminological units in separate disciplines of Japanese literary studies. For the objectivity of the result, it is necessary to involve materials from literary dictionaries, which, in contrast to professional texts that are characterized by a predetermined topic of a particular discipline, have a neutral disciplinary connotation. Next, with the help of quantitative analysis, we will establish the percentage of terminological units of each of the above-classified disciplines of literary studies. Thus, having analysed 20 random pages of dictionaries (���{�ÓT���w�厫�T, 1985; �V�����{���w���T,1988; ���{���w���T, 1954), we have obtained the following average results of disciplinary affiliation of terminological units: Lyrics - 69 units (or 62 %), epic - 16 units (or 14 %), drama - 15 units (or 13,5 %), lyric-epic - 2 units (or 1,5 %), lyric-drama - 6 units (or 5 %) and folklore - 4 units (or 4 %).

The significant predominance of the share of terminological units in the discipline of lyrics is quite natural for Japanese literature and is due to the peculiarities of the history of Japanese literature, where, as we know, for centuries (since the VIII century) the lyrics was considered high art, while other disciplines were not valued: the prose was considered to be a frivolous entertainment of court ladies, and the folklore as a work of the common people did not often get into imperial anthologies (and, therefore, remained without the attention of literary scholars).

It is logical that for a long time the terms were mostly enunciated from the discipline of poetics, which in particular was contributed by the poetic schools, the existence of the Ministry of Poetry at the Imperial Court from the tenth century, etc. Thus, as we can see, the quantitative predominance of terminological units in the discipline of lyrics is mainly due to support for the development of poetry, in particular at the state level, while epic, folklore, some genres of drama developed in the underground and therefore, terminological units that serve these disciplines, were enunciated in smaller quantities, or were lost in the depths of ages because they were not recorded in written sources.

Discussion.

The indicator of terminological saturation of texts with individual analyzed groups of terms, according to the results of our study, is as follows:

general scientific terminology - 18 %;

inter-disciplinary terminology - 8 %;

terminology of other disciplines - 8 %;

supra-disciplinary terminology - 15 %;

disciplinary terminology - 51 %.

The terms of other sciences, which were included in the texts of literary treatises, are not highly specialised but well-known concepts that were organically woven into the texts of literary treatises, mainly for comparison and stylistic ornaments.

For the objectivity of the result, the quantitative ratio of terminological units in certain disciplines of Japanese literary studies was calculated based on literary dictionaries, which, unlike professional texts (which have a predetermined subject of a particular discipline), have a neutral disciplinary connotation. According to the results of quantitative analysis, we have the following ratio of terminology in the disciplines of Japanese literary studies: lyrics - 62%, epic - 14%, drama - 13.5%, lyric-epic - 1.5%, lyric-drama - 5%, folklore - 4%. The reason for the significant quantitative predominance of terminological units in the discipline of lyrics is seen in the history of Japanese literature, where, as we know, for centuries (since the VIII century) the lyric was considered high art.



Conclusions

According to the results of the quantitative analysis, the average terminological saturation of professional texts in Japanese literary studies is 20 %. In our opinion, the low aggregate indicator of terminological saturation of Japanese literary texts is due to stylistic features, namely, the frequent use of extended comparisons, which occupy a significant part of the treatise text and involve concepts from other disciplines of art. Following the example of traditional Japanese poetry authors, it is obvious that the comparisons in literary treatises are used in order to attract a wide range of traditional symbolic words, which are sure to evoke a number of associations with the educated reader. In our opinion, the low percentage of terminological saturation of Japanese literary treatises is also due to the depiction by the authors of the studied texts of modern or past historical background. Obviously, this style of writing is an imitation of the traditional epistolary style of the Japanese language, which involves the presentation of the theme of the work in the context of phenomena that have a rather indirect relationship to the main theme.



References

1. Abakumova, S. S., & Lukina S. L. (2011) Funkcionirovanie jekonomicheskih terminov v pis'mennom i ustnom diskurse [Functioning of economic terms in written and oral discourse]. Vestnik VGU. Serija: lingvistika i mezhkul'turnaja kommunikacija, 1, 166-170.

2. Adylova, Z. T. (2017). Systema shakhovykh nomeniv terminologhichnogho polja �debjut� [System Chess Nomina of Terminological Field �Debut�]. Naukovyj chasopys Nacionaljnogho pedaghoghichnogho universytetu imeni M. P Draghomanova: Serija 9 Suchasni tendenciji rozvytku mov, 16, 5-11.

3. Anistratenko, L. S. (2015). Afiksaljnyj sposib terminotvorennja v japonsjkij literaturoznachij terminologhiji [Affixal method of term formation in Japanese literary terminology]. Movni i konceptualjni kartyny svitu, 54, 8-13.

4. Anistratenko, L. S. (2016). Zapozychennja jak sposib terminotvorennja japonsjkoji literaturoznavchoji terminologhiji [Borrowing as a way of term formation of Japanese literary terminology]. Visnyk Kyjivsjkogho nacionaljnogho universytetu imeni Tarasa Shevchenka: Skhidni movy ta literatury, 22, 6-9.

5. Asmukovych, I. V. (2014). Funkcionaljno-semantychni osoblyvosti anghlijsjkoji fakhovoji movy aviaciji [Functional and semantic features of the English professional language for aviation].

6. Atkins, P. (2013). The Word Monosugoshi and Changing Perceptions of Nature in Medieval Japan. Japanese Language and Literature, 47(2). http://www.aatj.org/journal-47-2

7. Danilenko, V. P. (1977). Russkaja terminologija: Opyt lingvisticheskogo opisanija [Russian terminology: Experience of linguistic description]. Nauka.

8. Debejko, O. V. (2006) Systema zhanriv klasychnoji japonsjkoji literatury [System of genres of classical Japanese literature]. Visnyk Kyjivsjkogho nacionaljnogho universytetu im. T. Shevchenka, 11, 36-41.

9. Duda, O. I. (2015) Osoblyvosti funkcionuvannja kredytno-bankivsjkykh terminiv anghlijsjkoji movy u fakhovykh tekstakh [Features of the functioning of credit and banking terms in English in professional texts]. Naukovi vyklady, 1, 102-106.

10. Felber, H. (1980). International standardization of terminology. Standardization of Nomenclature: Series �International Journal of Sociology of Language�, 23, 71-77.

11. Ghalych, O. A., Nazarecj V. M., & Vasyljjev Je. M. (2001). Teorija literatury [Theory of literature]. Lybidj.

12. Ghrycaj, I. S. (2012) Vplyv kontekstu na pereklad terminiv u tvorakh khudozhnjoji literatury ta ZMI. [Influence of context on the translation of terms in works of fiction and mass media]. Naukovi zapysky /Nacionaljnyj universytet �Ostrozjka akademija�, 25-28.

13. Halizev, V. E. (1986). Drama kak rod literatury [Drama as a genre of literature]. Izdatelstvo MGU.

14. Irwin, M. (2008). Homomorphemic Diffusion in Japanese Nonce Lexemes. Japanese Language and Literature, 42(1). http://www.aatj.org/journal-42-1

15. Jacenko, N. O. (2007) Nazvy vijsjkovoji formy odjaghu v ukrajinsjkij movi [Names of military uniforms in Ukrainian].

16. Khalinovsjka, L. A. (2003) Aviacijna leksyka v naukovo-fantastychnij literaturi [Aviation vocabulary in science fiction]. Kuljtura slova, 62, 51-55.

17. Komarnycjka, T. K. (2010). Strukturno-semantychni ta funkcionaljni osoblyvosti suchasnoji japonsjkoji jurydychnoji terminologhiji [Structural-semantic and functional features of modern Japanese legal terminology].

18. Kvitko, I. S., Lejchik, V. M., Kabancev, G. G. (1987). Terminovedcheskie problemy redaktirovanija [Terminological problems of editing]. Vyshha shkola.

19. Kyjak, T. R. (2009). Fakhovi movy jak novyj naprjam linghvistychnogho doslidzhennja [Professional languages as a new direction of linguistic research]. Inozemna filologhija, 121, 138-142.

20. Lamarre, T. (2013). The Pursuit of Harmony: Poetry and Power in Early Heian Japan. Japanese Language and Literature, 47(2). http://www.aatj.org/journal-47-2

21. Laukik, P. A., Rajat, P. (2015). Japanese Terminology Referred to Continuous Improvement, IJSRD International Journal for Scientific Research & Development, 3(2).

22. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277572352_Kaizen_Its_Applications_- _A_Japanese_Terminology_Referred_to_Continuous_Improvement

23. Lejchik, V. M. (2007) Terminovedenie: predmet, metody, struktura [Terminology: subject, methods, structure]. Izdatelstvo LKI.

24. Madzhaeva, S. I. (2011) Terminy v medicinskom diskurse [Terms in medical discourse]. Vestnik Cheljabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta: Filologija. Iskusstvovedenie, 60 / 33(248), 92-94.

25. Masaoka, Shiki (2013). Khajdzhin Buson (�Poet khajku Buson�) [Haijin Buson (�Haikai Poet Buson�)]. Japonsjkapoetyka: khrestomatija, 176-178.

26. Moretti, L. (2010). Kanazoshi Revisited: The Beginnings of Japanese Popular Literature in Print. Monumenta Nipponica, 65(2), 297-356. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/426304

27. Nikitina, S. E. (1987) Semanticheskij analiz jazyka nauki: Na materiale lingvistiki [Semantic analysis of the language of science: On the material of linguistics]. Nauka.

28. Selivanova, O. O. (2006) Suchasna linghvistyka: terminologhichna encyklopedija [Modern linguistics: terminological encyclopaedia]. Dovkillja-K.

29. Shatalina, O. F. (2009) Funkcionuvannja literaturoznavchoji terminologhiji u tvorakh I. Ja. Franka [Functioning of literary terminology in the works of I. Y. Franko]. Uchjonye zapiski Tavricheskogo nacional'nogo unstituta imeni V. I. Vernadskogo: Filologija. Socialnye kommunikacii, 22(61) / 3, 42-45.

30. Shevchenko, L. L. (2010) Motyvacijni osnovy ta bazovi modeli semantychnogho procesu terminologhizaciji [Motivational bases and basic models of the semantic process of terminology]. Movoznavstvo, 1, 76-85.

31. Soljanenko, O. L. (2017). Osoblyvosti tvorennja ta vzhyvannja abreviatur medychnoji terminologhiji v anghlomovnykh istorijakh khvorob [Formation and Usage Features of Medical Terminology Abbreviations in English Case Reports]. Naukovyj chasopys Nacionaljnogho pedaghoghichnogho universytetu imeni M. P Draghomanova: Serija 9. Suchasni tendenciji rozvytku mov, 16, 217-225.

32. Syndegha, R. Je., & Ivashhyshyn O. M. (2009). Strukturni osoblyvosti ta funkcionuvannja terminiv v anghlomovnykh tekstakh z problem komp'juternykh nauk ta informacijnykh tekhnologhij [Structural features and functioning of terms in English texts on computer science and information technology issues] Naukovi zapysky: Serija �Filologhichna�, 11, 351-357.

33. Vakulenko, M. O. (2013). Metodologhichni zasady vyvchennja naukovoji terminologhiji [Methodological principles of studying scientific terminology]. Terminologhichnyj visnyk, 2(2), 16-21.

34. Zhanghazinova, R. T. (2014). Literaturoznavcha terminologhija pochatku �� st.: leksyko- semantychnyj aspekt [Literary terminology of the early twentieth century: lexical and semantic aspect]. Naukovipraci, 221/209, 29-32.



��������

literary terminology japanese

� ����� ������� �� ��������������� ����������� ���������� ������ ���� ���������� �����������������, �������������� � ��������� ��������� ���������������� ���������. �� ������� 17 �������� �������� ������� ������������ ������������������ ������� �� ��������������� ��������㳿 � ������� ������� ���������� �����������������; ����������� ������� �����������, �������� �� ���������� ��������������� ��������㳿; �������� � ������������� ���������� ������, ���� � �������; �������� ����������� ����� ���������� �������� ���������� ����������������� � ��������; �������� ���������� ���� ������ ���������� �����������������.

�� ��������� ��������������� ������ �����������, �� ������������ �������� ��������������� ��������㳿 �� �������� ������� ������� � ����� �� �� ����� �������� � ���, �, ������, � ������ �������������� ����� ������ ��������. ������� ������������ ����������� ������� ������ ���������� ����������������� ������ 20%. ����� �������� ��������� ��������� �������� � ����������� ����� �������.

�������� �������� ������������ ���������� ������ �������� ������������ ������� �������, �� ������������ ������������� ����������, �����: ��������������� ���������� - 18%�, ���������� ���������� - 8%, ���������� ����� ������� - 8 %, ����������� ���������� - 15%�, �������� ���������� - 51%.

����� ���� ��������� �������� ��������� ������� ����� ������� ���������� �����������������, ������� �����, �����, �����, ���-�����, ���-�����, ���������. �������� ����������� ������������� ������� ����� ����� (62 %). ������ ����������� ���������������� �������� �������� ����� ����� ���������, �� ���� �����, ��� ������, �� �������� ������ �񳺿 ����� �������� ��������� ���� ����� ��������� ������� ����������.

������ �����: �������� ��������������� ����������, ���������� ����������, ���������� ������� ������, �������� ����������, ��������������� ����������.

��������� �� Allbest.ru