Comprehensive Analysis Of Single - Component Terms Of International Humanitarian Law (On The Material Of English And Russian Languages)

Abstract

The article considers the most common ways of forming single-component terms of international humanitarian law (IHL) in English and Russian. To study the basic terms and concepts used in legal communication in the frame of the IHL as the latest branch of international law, we used the main international conventions, protocols, the UN Charter, etc. We analyzed the terms of the IHL that nominate certain international rules and principles related to protecting the rights of people who do not participate or have ceased participating in hostilities, which include the civilian population, military medical personnel, journalists, the wounded, prisoners of war, aircraft and shipwreck victims, and other people entitled to certain guarantees to protect their lives. In addition, we have studied the terms, nominating and distinguishing emblems used to identify protected people, civil defense, places and objects of cultural value. We believe that all these factors require linguistic support and put forward before the researchers tasks of studying the features of special language tools used in this branch of law.

Keywords: Language for special purposes in the field of international humanitarian lawlegal terminologycomprehensive analysisconversionsingle-component terms

Introduction

The study of legal terminology, which is essentially humanitarian, is currently acquiring special significance, as business contacts in the field of law have expanded significantly throughout the world. The expansion of interstate relations in the field of law has led to an increase in the number of special lexical units (both traditionally national and borrowed) that ensure professional communication. The study of theory and practice of professional communication in the field of international humanitarian law is relevant, since legal communication in international armed conflicts requires a thorough study of special legal language functioning.

The methodological basis of the study comprised scientific works in the field of theory and practice of language for special purposes of Russian and foreign authors, in particular Anisimova et al. (2018, 2019), Bowker (2015), Danilenko (2016), Dugalich et al. (2018), Grinev-Grinevich (2008), Khomutova (2017), Khramchenko (2019), Komarova (2015), Leychik (2014), Malyuga and Orlova (2018), Popova (2016), Shelov (2018), Syleimanova and Sabitova (2017), Volodina (2019) and Zakirova (2014).

Problem Statement

The objective of this article is to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the single-component terms used in the field of international humanitarian law, as well as the features of their verbalization in the context of structurally different languages - English and Russian.

Research Questions

The article discusses issues relating to concepts such as terminology, terminology system, language for special purposes, as well as their features related to the use in professional communication, limited by the frame of international humanitarian law.

Purpose of the Study

The article presents the results of the study related to a comprehensive analysis of the English and Russian terminological systems of international humanitarian law in order to identify the features of their functioning, taking into account the development of professional mentality and practical activities.

Research Methods

The main research methods include: etymological analysis, which allows to study the origin of the studied terminology; historical diachronic analysis aimed at identifying essential temporal changes in the development of terms used in the field of international humanitarian law; comparative method that helps to identify the specifics of multilingual terms used in the studied field.

Findings

In this article, we examined the ways of forming single-component terms using the material of the English and Russian languages ​​for special purposes in the field of international humanitarian law. In total, 1,189 terms in English and 1,249 terms in Russian have been studied. In English terminology there is 31.3% of single-component terms, while in Russian there is 33.7%. It should be noted that multicomponent terms, comprising 68.7% in English and 66.3% in Russian for special purposes in the field of IHL, respectively, are not discussed in this article (Figures 01 , 02 ).

Figure 1: Figure 01. Percentage of single-component and multicomponent terms in the English terminology of IHL
Figure 01. Percentage of single-component and
      multicomponent terms in the English terminology of IHL
See Full Size >
Figure 2: Figure 02. Percentage of single-component and multicomponent terms in Russian terminology of IHL
Figure 02. Percentage of single-component and
      multicomponent terms in Russian terminology of IHL
See Full Size >

The results of the study of IHL terminology suggest that in the process of clarifying, concretizing or expanding legal concepts nominated by one-component terms, multicomponent terms appear. In the course of the study, we revealed that the most common methods for the formation of terms used in the field of IHL include conversion, morphological, semantic, morphological, and syntactic methods, as well as differentiation of meaning.

It should be noted that IHL terminology uses lexemes borrowed from other scientific fields of knowledge. The study showed that when a lexeme from another scientific field becomes IHL terminology, a change in its meaning is observed, for example, from mathematics: bilateralism, caliber, unilateral, etc .; from physics: power , pressure , etc.; from chemistry and biology: bacteriological , biological , etc.; from geography: area, space , etc. The Russian list of IHL terms mostly features the semantic way of their formation, carried out by means of transfer from other terminologies in the form of both single-component terms and as part of multicomponent terms: bilateral, multilateral, zones, straits, note, weapons, cartridge, superacids, etc.

A comparative analysis of one-component terms confirms the existence of dependence and a close relationship between the typology of word formation and the general typological characteristic of the language. We have revealed that on the basis of existing well-known concepts, new terms with a more in-depth meaning appear.

So, the generic concept of “conflict” in English terminology was developed as follows: conflict - “conflict, armed”; “conflict, hot”; “conflict, intergroup”; “conflict, international armed”; “conflict, inter-state”; “conflict, intra-state”; “conflict, intractable / protracted”; “conflict, latent”; “conflict, major armed”; “conflict mitigation / management”. In Russian, these terms can be represented as follows: конфликт; вооруженный конфликт; горячий конфликт; межгрупповой конфликт; международный вооруженный конфликт; межгосударственный конфликт; внутригосударственный конфликт; неразрешимый / затяжной конфликт; скрытый конфликт; крупный вооруженный конфликт; смягчение / управление конфликтами, etc.

The results obtained during the study suggest that the formation of new terms by conversion is one of the most common methods in the general composition of IHL terminology. The results of the analysis showed that conversion leads to the formation of single-component terms, which include, first of all, nouns derived from verbs: to act - an action, to appeal - an appeal, to attack - an attack, to blockade - a blockade, to charge - a charge, to delegate - a delegate, to sabotage - a sabotage , etc. In Russian, the terms in question can be represented as: действовать – действие , обжаловать – обжалование , нападать – нападение , блокировать – блокада , обвинять – обвинение , делегировать – делегация , саботировать – саботаж , etc. As a result of the expansion of meaning, the concept is differentiated, which leads to the appearance of specific concepts that are usually nominated by multicomponent terms (terminological phrases) which include the basic component and dependent words (the so-called distributors) representing additional distinguishing features.

In the course of the study, we revealed that the formation of IHL terminology as a system is a long and multi-stage process, at each stage of which the degree of arrangement of the terminological material increases. The formation of single-component terms in the field of IHL occurs on the basis of such traditional word-formation methods as semantic, morphological, and syntactic. In addition, borrowing contributes to the emergence of new terms, as well as to the transfer of special lexical units from other scientific fields. Analysis of the studied linguistic material made it possible to state that the formation of new terms by conversion is one of the most common methods in the terminological system of IHL.

Conclusion

The analysis of the formal structure of the English and Russian terms of international humanitarian law showed that single-component terms, as a rule, denominate generic concepts, while multicomponent terms denote specific concepts. It is revealed that single-component terms that nominate generic concepts constitute basic terms that have the ability to create a conceptual core of the terminological system. In the legal sphere we are studying, there are fewer single-component terms than multicomponent. 

It is important to emphasize that for political and historical reasons the terminology of international humanitarian law has become more English-speaking. The results obtained in the course of the study suggest that the formation of Russian single-component terms, designed to nominate the concepts of this legal industry, was strongly influenced by English-language specialized literature translated into Russian.The results of a study of factual material showed that the formation of the terminology of international humanitarian law and correct practical use of terms for the exchange of professional information is justified by the development of this branch of law under the influence of the social, political and economic life of peoples in a certain historical period.

References

  1. Anisimova, A. G., Malakhova, V. L., & Abdulrahimov, E. (2019). Challenges of translating polysemantic and multiequivalent terms within the framework of economic professional discourse. Professional Discourse & Communication, 1(1), 46-54. 
  2. Anisimova, A., Pavlyuk, M., & Kogotkova, S. (2018). Selecting a translation equivalent: factors to consider in the classroom. Training, Language and Culture, 2(1), 38-50. https://rudn.tlcjournal.org/archive/2(1)/2(1)-03.pdf
  3. Bowker, L. (2015). Handbook of Terminology. John Benjamins. https://benjamins.com/online/hot/articles/ter5
  4. Danilenko, V. P. (2016). Methods of linguistic analysis: lecture course. Flint. http://slovo.isu.ru/danilenko/articles/grammar.htm
  5. Dugalich, N., Alontseva, N., & Ermoshin, Y. (2018). Research on legal terminology teaching to nonlawyers. ICERI 2018, 11, 2159–2163. https://library.iated.org/view/DUGALICH2018RES
  6. Grinev-Grinevich, S. V. (2008). Terminology: study guide. Academy. http://publ.lib.ru/ARCHIVES/G/GRINEV-GRINEVICH_Sergey_Viktorovich/_Grinev-Grinevich_S.V..html
  7. Khomutova, T. N. (2017). Military-political discourse as a special type of discourse. Bulletin of the South Ural State University. Series "Linguistics", 14(3), 49–53. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320587602_MILITARY-POLITICAL_DISCOURSE_AS_A_DISTINCTIVE_TYPE_OF_DISCOURSE
  8. Khramchenko, D. S. (2019). Functional-linguistic parameters of English professional discourse. Professional Discourse & Communication, 1(1), 9-20.
  9. Komarova, A. I. (2015). Methodology, method, methods and technology of scientific research in linguistics. Tutorial. UrFU Publ. https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/z-i-komarova-metodologiya-metod-metodika-i-tehnologiya-issledovaniy-v-lingvistike-uchebnoe-posobie-ekaterinburg-izd-vo-uralskogo
  10. Leychik, V. M. (2014). Terminology. Subject, methods, structure. Librokom. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281736695_THE_TERM_AS_AN_OBJECT_OF_RESEARCH _IN_LINGUISTICS
  11. Malyuga, E. N., & Orlova, S. N. (2018). Linguistic pragmatics of intercultural professional and business communication. Monograph. Springer International Publishing AG.
  12. Popova, L. V. (2016). Linguistic term: quality problem. Experience in compiling a “Comprehensive Dictionary of Functional Grammar Terms”. Flinta. https://clever-geek.github.io/articles/6319803/index.html
  13. Shelov, S. D. (2018). Essay on the theory of terminology: composition, conceptual organization, practical applications. First volume, 598. https://dspace.spbu.ru/bitstream/11701/17005/1/726-736.pdf
  14. Syleimanova, A. K., & Sabitova, H. G. (2017). Lexico-semantic processes in terminology: a metaphor in the terminology of apology: Philology: problems of theory and practice, 7(73), Part 2, 169-171. http://rulb.org/wp-content/uploads/wpem/pdf_compilations/4(8)/4(8).pdf
  15. Volodina, M. N. (2019). The term as a linguistic expression of a special concept. Publishing house Phil. Fak. Moscow State University named M.V. Lomonosov.
  16. Zakirova, E. S. (2014). Cognitive foundations of the formation of the language for special purposes (on the material of the English and Russian automotive terminology): Monograph. IIO MGOU.

Copyright information

About this article

Cite this paper as:

Click here to view the available options for cite this article.

Publisher

European Publisher

First Online

08.12.2020

Doi

10.15405/epsbs.2020.12.02.20

Online ISSN

2357-1330