Discourse Of Currency Regulation Of Russion Federation: Terminographiс Ascpect

Abstract

The article is devoted to actual problems of terminography. It is shown that a characteristic feature of modern terminographic development is the necessity to take into account the “discursive”, or “corpus”, factor. Despite the seemingly stable terminological vocabulary, discursive factors often lead to vagueness of meanings. These reasons determine the need for timely and relevant terminography in a narrow professional field. The subject of the analysis in the article is a terminographic description of the modern currency discourse of the Russian Federation. The aim of the research is to formulate the semantic dominants of discourse, explicators of basic categories. The article describes one of the possible solutions in the formation of the vocabulary as a whole and in the selection of keywords in particular - the use of specialized concordance programs. This allows you to determine the absolute frequency index of the terminology element and on this basis to identify a set of key (dominant) words, terminological combinations of several elements that are subjectively perceived as a single whole. Concordancer also allows creating and analysing a lexical-grammatical profile of a word-term, including analysis of collocations; identification of the tendency of the word-term to form speech turns / idioms, binomial constructions. It was hypothesized that the status of lexical dominants of discourse in case of reference to legislative texts can be assigned to the names of the subjects - active participants in the exchange control process, names of documents while selecting the elements of the future dictionary, etc.

Keywords: Pretermunitermmulticomponent termterminographyconcordance

Introduction

Against the background of the rapid increase in the volume of information and reduction of the period of its unconditional relevance, the problem of creating special dictionaries - reference books offering a system description of special vocabulary used in the process of coding information, as a special case of terms, acquires special significance in the field of professional communication. A characteristic feature of the modern stage of terminographic development is the need to take into account the “discursive” or “corpus” factor. The results of the study of the lexical compatibility of elements of a special language (LSP) reveal a direct dependence of the semantic word structure on the semantic (conceptual) structure of a specific text or set of texts (corpus) as a whole, and at the same time the typical context of the word (its “compatibility”) sets the rules text interpretation (Tummers, Speelman, Kris, & Geeraerts, 2014).

Globalization and its direct consequence — the diffusion of modern discursive practice noted at different levels, or the desire to borrow words and meanings on the one hand, and the internal instability inevitable in this case — on the other, is a kind of complicating generally difficult situation factor. Under the internal instability of discourse as a system, we understand the change of actively used vocabulary that is observed in limited time periods (a kind of “fashion” for words). If in “free” (artistic, publicistic, etc) discourses, the noted tendencies do not lead to communicative conflicts and can be considered as evidence of the creative nature of “activities with language” (N. Chomsky), then in the case of discourses that imply a terminological system, the interpretation of a text becomes a problem. So, in connection with the changes occurring in the economic life of Russia, including those related to the introduction of new legislation, it is necessary to quickly adapt the activities of a financial organization to new conditions. The success of the adaptation process is determined by the adequacy of the interpretation of the relevant texts, the provision of which is part of the tasks of the terminography.

The terminological system serving the Russian-language economic discourse over the past decades has repeatedly been the object of description; however, the created dictionaries are mostly bilingual (Anikin, 1993; Zhdanova & Vartoumian, 2001; Kovalenko, 1994; Korolkovich & Korolkovich, 2000; Fedorov, 2000), i.e. solve fundamentally different tasks. In addition, within the boundaries of the socio-communicative space, called the modern economic discourse, a discourse of currency regulation in the Russian Federation stands out in a relatively independent segment, the description of which is the task of the near future.

Problem Statement

The development of general principles of describing languages for specific purposes has a long history in domestic and world practice. The main achievements in this field of research are reflected in a number of monographic - theoretical and practice-oriented research (Bergenholt & Tarp, 1995; Leichik, 2009; Lotte, 1961; Slozhenkina, 2013; Churilina et al., 2018).

The focus on the corpus approach to the description of terminological systems (Bowker, 1996; Heyer, Kanter, Niekler, & Overbeck, 2016), characteristic of the current stage of development, allows to focus on both universal and unique features, determined by the specifics of the discourse served, with a unique set of concepts. It gives the reason to rethink the very principles of terminography (Roche, 2012).

The tasks of the terminographic description of the modern currency discourse of the Russian Federation include (1) identifying a set of keywords - the names of basic concepts, more or less well-established financial and legal categories, and the formation of a vocabulary; (2) the defining of criteria for the subsequent systematization of lexical material. None of these tasks can be solved without a preliminary research of the corresponding thesaurus.

Research Questions

The emerging stage of the formation of Russian currency regulation discourse does not yet have a formed system of special vocabulary. This is spontaneous, at the same time as a result and as a tool for the development of the economic sector, a folding association of special words. In the classification developed by Leichik (1995), such associations are called “terminologies” (as opposed to term systems); they are characterized by disorder, incompleteness, synonymy and uncertainty of the semantic structure of the terms.

A unit of terminology can be acknowledged as the term itself in the usual sense (Uniterm - short, single-word naming), and quasi-formation - pretermin, or a special nomination, correlated with a certain denotate, reproducible but not meeting the requirements of brevity, accuracy. It is argued that the semantic definiteness of the uniterm makes it independent of context (Lotte, 1961). For the sake of fairness, the decrease in the number of uniterms is noted by researchers as the leading trend in the development of the term system is explained as “the need to nominate complex composite concepts, clarify professional objects and concepts as knowledge of their essence” (Kudinova, 2011, p. 58; Hertog, Kris, Kockaert, & Speelman, 2012), as well as judgments about “the progressive development of analytism in the Russian language” (Fedulenkova, Ivanov, Kuprina, Ivashchenko, & Perov, 2011).

Purpose of the Study

The aim of our study is to formulate the principle of selecting keywords - the semantic dominants of discourse, explicators of basic categories.

In the situation of the absence of “mobile” terminological dictionaries and reference books, corpus of special texts can serve as useful sources of information about the terminology of discourse. However, there are currently no finished corpuses. We see the solution to the problem in the use of specialized concordance program terms for the classification of terms.

Using the concordance program allows you to determine the absolute frequency index of the terminology element and on this basis to determine a set of key (dominant) words, as well as to identify typical clusters - terminological combinations of several elements that are subjectively perceived as a whole. Concordancer allows you to create and analyze a lexical-grammatical profile of a word-term, including:

- analysis of collocations, i.e. typical context of the use of the word-term, significant from a statistical point of view;

- revealing the tendency of the word-term to form speech turns / idioms, binomial constructions.

In the case of referring to a limited range of tasks to a segment of socio-communicative interaction, the object of description may be the lexical composition of a limited number of texts (documents).

The main law regulating the norms of circulation of currency values in the Russian Federation is Federal Law of December 10, 2003 No. 173-F3 “On Currency Regulation and Currency Control”. Separate relations are regulated by the norms of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses, as well as by laws of the relevant authorities responsible for currency control. At present, the procedure, terms, and forms of accounting are established by Bank of Russia Instruction No. 181-I, dated 16 August 2017, ‘On the Procedure for Residents and Non-residents to Submit Documents and Information to Authorised Banks, on Single Accounting and Reporting Forms Related to Foreign Exchange Transactions’.

The listed documents in the aggregate constituted a special corpus describing the terminology of currency control as part of the modern economic discourse of the Russian Federation.

Research Methods

In the process of research with the use of a concordance program, the following were consistently used: the body research method; variants of distributional and component analysis of lexemes; as well as statistical techniques.

The effectiveness of the use of a concordancer at this stage of work is determined by the fact that (1) it makes it possible to determine the frequency index of the element and (2) allows to get an idea about exhaustive of the immediate environment of the word.

Findings

At the hypothesis formulation stage, we assumed that the status of lexical dominants of discourse in case of reference to legislative texts can be assigned to the names of subjects - active participants in the currency control process (resident, non-resident), as well as the names of documents (statement, contract, agreement, certificate and under. ), in addition, during the element selection of a future dictionary, a numerical indicator was taken into account — the frequency of occurrence of the lexical unit in the corpus.

A detailed definition of the terms resident and non-resident is given in paragraphs 6 and 7, respectively, Article 1 Chapter 1 of the Federal Law, dated 10 December 2003, No. 173-F3 “On Currency Regulation and Currency Control”. The semantic structure of the term resident includes such components as:

- ′physical entity′ - ′legal entity′,

- ′citizen of the Russian Federation′ - ′foreign citizen′ - ′stateless person′,

- ′permanently residing in the Russian Federation′ - ′having a residence permit′ - ′being a representative outside the Russian Federation′,

- ′diplomatic representations′ - ′Russian Federation′ - ′constituent entities of the Russian Federation′ - ′municipal formations′,

- ′legislation of the Russian Federation′.

The semantic structure of the term non-resident does not enter into the expected direct antonymic relationship with the term resident, as it includes additional semantic components: ′organizations′, ′accredited′, ′interstate′, ′intergovernmental′.

Comparison of terms by the index of frequency of occurrence in the texts indicates the domination of the “positive” variant by the resident (frequency index 1094 versus 559 for the term non-resident).

A typical syntactic model for the nominative form of the term resident is a construction with modal words should, can and have a right; forms of indirect cases in the near contextual environment have lexemes currency (foreign), account (settlement), operation, write-off, crediting.

The nominative form of the term non-resident in the texts under consideration is practically not claimed (frequency index - 5). In the immediate environment of the most frequency form of the genitive case (frequency index 288) are lexemes debt, expense, funds (cash), in favour.

Exporter, importer, agent, principal / trustee can be rightfully attributed to the number of binomial structures with the element resident; and commissioner, agent, bank are among the binomial structures with the element non-resident.

Thus, a comparative analysis of two semantically related words-terms allows us to state the absence of simple opposing relations (lexical antonymy) between them.

The results of a corpus study indicate that in the text of the Federal Law, dated 10 December 2003, No. 173-F3 “On Currency Regulation and Currency Control”, the word-terms agreement and contract, contrary to the requirements imposed on terminological systems, enter into synonymous relations. This observation was confirmed in the process of analyzing the Bank of Russia Instruction No. 181-I, dated 16 August 2017: the analysis of the twenty most frequent collocations of words-terms agreement (Figure 01 ) and contract (Figure 02 ). In this case, the frequency of occurrence of two terms is quite comparable: the cumulative index of the frequency of the term agreement is 762, the term contract is 606.

See Full Size >

See Full Size >

Comparison of Figure 01 . and Figure 02 . allows to discover practically the identity of contexts, which we consider as the basis for qualifying the relations between the considered words as terms as absolute synonymy (synonyms-duplicates). The revealed ratio calls into question the expediency of the parallel use of terms.

Let us consider the method of work on the compilation of a vocabulary on the example of the document name record.

The cumulative index of the frequency of the lexeme in the corpus (the Bank of Russia Instructions are used, the length of the document is 45,188 words) - 157: two word forms are marked – record (ICH-28), statements (ICH-129).

In all marked cases of use, the lexeme statement is an element of the complex phrase statement / bank control record (N1/2/4 + N2 + Аd2). The stability of lexical compatibility allows us to attribute the identified superword education to the category of special vocabulary, i.e. consider as a vocabulary unit (multi-term term).

At the next stage, the problem of identifying the compatibility of a multicomponent term typical of a text is solved, for which it is necessary to expand the left and / or right contexts. Working with a concordancer makes it possible to establish that the right context for the element in question is insignificant, the entire semantic charge lies on the context that precedes the inclusion of the element (left context).

The result will be presented in the form of a simple list:

- UK Bank shall transfer, at the request of the resident, bank control record

- UK Bank maintains the bank control record

- the specified information is entered by UK bank in bank control record

- the single bank control record is conducted

- to formed on the bank control record

- UK Bank makes such changes in the bank control record

- under such a contract one bank control record is formed and maintained

- accepts the specified bank control record

- The authorized bank has the right to number and bind the bank control record

- sign an electronic document containing a bank control record

- The authorized bank on the date of entry into force of this Instruction must bring the bank control record

- making changes to the bank control record

- UK Bank shall form in electronic form the bank control record and fill out section 1 of the bank control record in the order of forming and maintaining a statement of currency control

- section I of the bank control record, necessary for the formation by UK bank

The above list of fragments reflects the typicality of the anticipating context. So, there are two main options. If the nominative form (N1) is used in the left context, verbs and verbal formations with the semantics ‘inclusion’ / ‘exclusion’ (lead, form, transmit) are consistently marked. As for the form of indirect cases, they are preceded by an indication of the structural component of the document (clause, section).

Conclusion

Thus, at the stage of vocabulary formation, working with a concordancer allows to solve two key tasks: (1) to identify, on the basis of statistical indicators, a set of lexical elements necessary and sufficient for the described discourse - thesaurus lexical dominants; (2) based on elements of distributive analysis and analysis of grammatical models of reproducible multicomponent combinations of words, reveal potential terms.

References

1. Anikin, A. V. (1993). English-Russian Dictionary of Economics and Finance. St. Petersburg: Economic school.
2. Bergenholt, H., & Tarp, S. (1995). Manual of Specialised Lexicography. The Preparation of Specialised Dictionaries. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
3. Bowker, L. (1996). Towards a Corpus-based Approach to Terminography. Terminology, 3, 1.
4. Churilina, L. N., Kozlovskaya, N. V., Vlavatskaya, M. V., Makusheva, Zh. N., & Kivaev, A. D. (2018). Author's and educational lexicography: theory and practice. Novosibirsk: ANS "SibAK".
5. Fedorov, B. G. (2000). The New English-Russian Banking and Economic Dictionary. St. Petersburg: Limbus Press.
6. Fedulenkova, T. N., Ivanov, A. V., Kuprina, T. V., Ivashchenko, V. L., & Perov, S.E. (2011). Phraseology and terminology: faces of intersection. International Journal of Experimental Education, 9, 74-76.
7. Hertog, D., Kris, H., Kockaert, H., & Speelman, D. (2012). The Prevalence of Multiword term candidates in a legal corpus. In 10th International Conference on Terminology and Knowledge Engineering. Copenhagen, Denmark.
8. Heyer, G., Kanter, C., Niekler, A., & Overbeck, M. (2016). Modeling the dynamics of domain specific terminology in diachronic corpora. In 12th International Conference on Terminology and Knowledge Engineering. Copenhagen Business School.
9. Korolkovich, V. A., & Korolkovich, V. F. (2000). English-Russian Business Dictionary. Moscow: Lawyer.
10. Kovalenko, E. G. (1994). The English-Russian Dictionary of Banking Terminology. Moscow: Science and Technology Center.
11. Kudinova, T. A. (2011). On the question of the nature of a multicomponent term (using the English sublanguage of biotechnology as an example). Bulletin of Perm University, 2(14), 58-62.
12. Leichik, V. M. (1995). Formation of the modern language of the economy and its term system. Terminology, 2-3(1), 134-135.
13. Leichik, V. M. (2009). Terminology Studies: Subject, methods, structure. Moscow: Book House "LIBROKOM".
14. Lotte, D. S. (1961). The Basics of the construction of scientific and technical terminology. Moscow: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR.
15. Roche, C. (2012). Should Terminology Principles be re-examined? In Proceedings of the 10th Terminology and Knowledge Engineering Conference (pp. 17-32). Madrid.
16. Slozhenkina, Yu. V. (2013). The Basics of terminology. Linguistic aspects of the theory of the term. Moscow: URSS.
17. Tummers, J., Speelman, D., Kris, H., & Geeraerts, D. (2014). Beyond the textual company of words: What corpus setting tell us about lexical collocability. In 7th Biennial Inter-Varietal Applied Corpus Studies Conference. Newcastle.
18. Zhdanova, I. F., & Vartoumian, E. L. (2001). English-Russian Economic Dictionary, English-Russian Economic Dictionary. Moscow: Russian language.