Modern design terminology in the Ukrainian language (nextly – UTD) has the long and difficult process of development: from the linguistic borrowing of common Slavic words, the specialization of meanings of these lexemes, the adoptions from Latin, Greek, West European and other languages – to the forming of the system of own terms with the using of national and international elements, different types of affix word-formation and so on. Lately there is reterminologization – entering of common terms into the terminology of different branches.
Now there is the necessity of the renovation of national terminological systems, which were almost destroyed. Many scientific works are the evidence of this process. So they are the terminologies of natural sciences (I. Volkova (the physical terminology), M. Dmitruk (the veterinary terminology), V. Kalko (the names of medical plants), T. Lepekha (the medico-legal terminology), N. Zhimbala (the terminology of organic chemistry), engineering sciences (L. Kozak (the electrical engineering terminology), O. Litvin (the machine-building terminology), N. Ktitarova (the metallurgical terminology), N. Piddubna (the names of religious buildings), L. Filyuk (the terminology of informatics), O. Yuzhakova (the terminology of refrigeration technique), and also humanities (S. Bulik-Verkhola (the musical terminology) and others. However some areas remain unstudied yet, including the terminological vocabulary of design.
The purpose of this article is developed in the occurences of changes which took place in the composition of the studying terminology, and the analysis of lexical-semantic features of UTD. The timeliness of this scientific work is determined with the necessity of tracing of the specific correlations within the limits of the design terminology.
The object of our research is design terminology in the Ukrainian language.
The research methods are determined with the specific of studying object and its tasks. The most expedient methods for the analysis of UTD are 1) the scientific method of induction; 2) the descriptive one with the techniques of examination, comparison, colligation and classification of linguistic facts; 3) statistical one; 4) structural one with the use of the component analysis.
The process of UTD formation is difficult and durable. The composition of this terminological system is amphibolous. It contains specific terms, specialized vocabulary, formed from common and dialectal words, the terms from the other terminologies, and also numerous borrowings. UTD, as the "hierarchically organized and well-organized system of the names of the special meanings of this area of knowledge" [8, p. 71], makes the integral system of linguistic units, among which the design names and nominative elements from the other allied branches, such as building, architecture and art.
As well as in the system of language, there are some lexical-semantic groups in UTD (nextly – LSG). They are created in the language on the basis of paradigm relations and they are the elements of bigger groups – the lexical-semantic fields. The lexical-semantic field is a "group of words with the general hyperseme”; lexical-semantic fields "break down into smaller ones" – lexical-semantic groups" [5, p. 283]. They are divided into the minimum semantic groups (sub-groups), which are built on the basis of paradigm relations: synonymy, antonymy, conversions, and hyponymy.
Three LSGs are pointed in UTD on the basis of semantic characteristics of lexemes which are included in their composition. The first LSG is "The technology of design" (39% from the general amount of UTD terms) – lexemes, semantically associated with the process of design and its technologies. They are nominations of design engineering, tools, agentive names, so the hyperseme is the process of design as the human activity. The second LSG is "The Result of design activity" (41% from the general amount of UTD terms) – lexemes which mean the consequences of design process, design and architectural forms (objects), decorative art, decoration, and others, so the hyperseme is the design result. The third LSG is "The artistic design terms" (20% from the general amount of UTD terms) – the specialized design vocabulary. It is the nominations of design styles, flights and so on.
LSG "The technology of design" consists of some thematic sub-groups, which are pointed out on the basis of semantic aspects of design process – technique, tools, materials, subjects of action and others (for example: chern is "a type of artistic finishing of metals, it’s the application of graphic pattern on the surface of silver wares by welding of the alloy" < Psl. *cernъ(jь) – black; obvertach is "an instrument as a chisel (bolster, drove), used for excision of round places in the wood parts for marqueterie" < Stsl. врьтѣти, врьштѫ – to turn; designer is "an industrial designer" < Engl. disigner, design – a project, plan, intention < Lat. designare – to show, to set, to arrange, to do; asamblyazh is "a popular composition technique in different styles of visual art, styles and flights of 1970–1990" < Fr. assemblage – connection, editing < assemblée – collections) [1; 3; 4].
LSG with the hyperseme “result” consists of some sub-groups of lexemes with the meanings of various forms and achievements of design activity: the names of decorative patterns, building elements, types of decor, decorations, small architectural forms, elements of landscape design (for example: mashikuly are "square openings in the floor of the roofed balconies, galleries" < Fr. Mâchicoulis < machcol – to kick in the head < Lat. machilla – small platform, skilful device and Fr. coulisse – mobile; podzor is "decorative wood boards with a dumb (or through-wall) screw-thread (or metallic) bars with a split figure on the roofs" < Csl. възоръ, *въз-зьръти; bosket is "thick decorative trees or bushes, cut as walls" < Fr. bosquet < It. boschetto – a small forest, grove; lipnina is "relief decorations on facades" < psl. *lepъ – a plaster, balm, glue) [1; 6; 10].
LSG "The artistic design terms" consists of specialized vocabulary which serves only design branch. Mostly it has the nominations of design styles and flights, design concepts and so on (for example: mudekhar is "the conditional name of the artistic phenomenon in Spain of XII–ХVІ, which had got the influence to the architectural, monumental and decorative art" < Sp. mudéjar < Ar. مدجّن [mudaǧǧan] – domestic; tvorchist is "a process of human activity which creates new material and spiritual values" < Or., Osl. tvority ἐπιτελειν, πράττειν, ποιεῖν – to create; disharmoniya is "dysfunction of harmonious integrity of form" < Lat. Dis – violation, disorder, loss and Gr. ἁρμονία – connection, harmony; dvizhky are "light lines which complete curing" < Psl. *dvig(a)ti – to move) [3; 11; 12].
In UTD the appearance of polysemy, linguistic form names some different concepts, is determined with the internal and external principles of development and functioning. "The foundation for polysemy development is dynamic of structure of linguistic sign, as a result, it gains new content level on the basis of similarity…, sentinel and areal compatibility with other concepts" [9, p. 27]. Pre-condition of development of polysemy is appearance of new meaning which must be named, and its modification.
The design terms can be polysemous on condition that one form means some meanings.
The secondary nomination takes place as a result of: metaphor (for example: hmelic –"climbing plant of mulberry-tree", in design it is "wave decorative pampre"; morschinka – "diminutive of morschina", in design it is "decorative motif (crank, wrinkled line)") and metonymy (for example: arkatura – "a row of arches under the surbase", in design it is "a wall decor in the form of the row of arches on the columns with the consoles"; trummo – "a big, tall mirror on the special chassis", in design it is "a partition wall between the windows with an ornamental decoration") [10; 13].
The division of semantics of the polysemous words tends to the homonymy (for example: biscuit – "sweet fluffy unleavened dough", in design – “unglost porcelain"; varll – "a variety of the oldest defensive buildings; earth banking nearby the settlement or military camp", in design it is "sprung molding"; zhirandol – "a wall tab candlestick for some candles", in design it is "a fountain with several spouts") [10; 13].
Due to the variety of design magazines, TV programs, concerning building industry, many design terms entered standard language, so the word, being the member of the composition of certain terminology, becomes clear for the most part of native speakers, they understand it in general, but they do not know its specific features, which combine this word with the reality compiling this term. According to V. Danilenko, a term, "being way beyond the term system, loses the specialized meaning. The real meaning of the term is known only to the specialists" [2, p. 64].
In the area of terminological functioning it is possible to use a word either with the terminological meaning or with common one. Such kind of term double-meaning often met, especially at the stage of forming of terminology and during its development. For instance, such terms of design, as gallereya – "a long and narrow roofed light room with the columns and a row of the windows instead of the walls" – "museum with the art works"; baget – "a jali or painted panel for pictures and decoration of the walls" – "a frame for the picture" [10; 12; 3].
There is the phenomenon of synonymy in UTD. Among the design terms there is the majority of the terms-doublets, which, expressing the defined meaning without its characteristic, they are absolute synonyms and they have different external forms (for example: zubzhy = merlony – "decorative finishing of the walls"). According to the general lexical meanings and grammatical signs the synonyms are united to the synonymous pairs and rows of equivalent terms with identical or similar semantics (for example: dentekuly – zubzheky – sukhareky – "decorative rectangular brows on an eyebrow"). A synonymous pair can consist of common terms (crarpelnick = zholob), foreign and common terms (glazur = poliva), two adopted terms (kluazoner = emarly), present-day and old terms (designer = mastack) [7; 13].
The general seme lies in the basis of the use of some special terminological units for the name of one linguistic term. The synonymous links between the terms arise up as a result of different reasons. As well as in any other terminology, the problem of synonymy in UTD is influenced with the history, dynamics of its development and present-day stage.
UTD is characterized with the developed lexical-semantic organization. Its basic system phenomena have the specific occurrence which speaks about the independence of this terminology. Oppositional links between the special meanings within the limits of UTD are conditional. There were not the examples of the opposite meanings. It is possible to make a conclusion, that antonymy is not characteristic for our terminology.
So UTD is formed subsystem of Ukrainian literary language which presents the proper system of meanings and it is characterized with the developed lexical-semantic organization. Within the limits of design terminology there is the system of terms, which appears in the phenomena of hyper-hyponymy, synonymy, polysemy, and homonymy. Many words of national language, connecting with the names of processes, objects, tools, were specialized and developed the second meanings in UTD.
Design terminology, as sortal part of language lexical system, is belonged to opened, developing system, there are such processes inside, as performance of old terms with new meanings, appearance of new terms, and the liquidation of parallel forms. The development of the design industry is connected with extension and modification of design terminology. Therefore quantitative and high-quality changes within the limits of UTD are the result of co-operation of lingual and external factors.