Metaphorical Nomination in IT Terminology in Lithuanian and English Languages

Open access

Abstract

Metaphorical nomination is peculiar in every language, it is related to reality and world view perception, it also reveals the traits of nation mentality. However, there are universal models of metaphorical nomination. In both languages, special concepts can be nominated according to similar areas, e.g. human body, its physiological and mental peculiarities, mode of life, fauna, flora, objects of natural world, etc.

The aim of this article is to analyse tendencies of metaphorical nominations in IT terminology in English and Lithuanian languages, reveal universalities and peculiarities of metaphorical nomination models. Research data of Lithuanian metaphorical terms and their English equivalents show that semantic loan-words constitute the major part of Lithuanian metaphorical terms. Consequently, their metaphorical meanings are borrowed but a substantial part of them are fairly motivated in the Lithuanian language and only a small part of them have a doubtful motivation. Having analysed various ways of metaphorical transference it is possible to claim that figurative nomination of concepts is the most universal with reference to flora names and items of mode of life. It is noted that there is a tendency to nominate concepts meaning particular objects in both English and Lithuanian languages whereas analogies of abstract things are less abundant.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Aubusson P. J. A. Harrison G. & Ritchie S. M. (2006). Metaphor and analogy in science education. Springer http://www.academia.edu/4469332/6909399_Metaphor_and_Analogy_in_Science_Education.

  • Andrade de N. G. (2010). Technology and Metaphors: from Cyberspace to Ambient Intelligence. Observatio (OBS) 4 121–146 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15847/obsOBS412010279.

  • Baltrūnaitė R. (1998). Metaforiniai terminai. Terminologija 5 36–47.

  • Black M. (1955). Metaphor. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society N.S. 273–294.

  • Boyd R. (1996). Metaphor and theory change: What is ‘metaphor’ a metaphor for? Metaphor and Thought Cambridge (pp. 481–532). Cambridge University Press.

  • Bradie M. (1999). Science and metaphor. Biology and Philosohpy 14 159–166. Kulver Academic Publishers.

  • Charteris-Black J. (2005). Politicians and Rhetoric. The Persuasive Power of Metaphor 28–51. Palgrave MacMillan.

  • D’Hanis I. (2002). The Use of Metaphors in Scientific Development. A Logical Approach. Logical and Computational Acpects of Model – Based Reasoning 21–35. Kulver Academis Publishers.

  • English K. (1998). Understanding science: when metaphors become terms. Théorie et pratique des discours spécialisés 19(22) 151–163 https://journals.openedition.org/asp/2800.

  • Forceville Ch. (2002). Pictorial Metaphor in Advertising. Taylor & Francis eLibrary.

  • Knudsen S. (2003). Scientific metapors going public. Journal of Pragmatics 35 (8) 1247–1263 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00187-X.

  • Kuhn T. S. (1993). Metaphor in Science. Metaphor and Thought 533–542. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.

  • Lakoff G. Johnsen M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. London: The university of Chicago press.

  • Marcinkevičienė R. (1994). Metafora nemetafora. Naujasis židinys 4 76–81.

  • Marcinkevičienė R. (1999). Atminties labirintuose: Kognityvinės ir tekstynų lingvistikos sąveika. Darbai ir dienos 19 109–124.

  • Marcinkevičienė R. (2006). Konceptualioji metafora vertime. Darbai ir dienos 45 109–118.

  • Marina V. (2006). The analysis of English metaphorical terms and their Lithuanian and Russian equivalents from the perspective of linguistic relativity. Tiltai 2 98–108.

  • Papaurėlytė–Klovienė S. 2005. Probleminiai konceptualiosios metaforos EMOCINĖ BŪSENA ir ASMUO atvejai. Žmogus ir žodis 1 43 – 47.

  • Pielenz M. (1993). Argumentation und Metapher. Tübingen.

  • Stunžinas R. (2006). Metaforiniai statybos terminai. Terminologija 13 62–75.

  • Sweetser E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620904.

  • Šeškauskienė I. (2010). Who discusses: the paper or the author of the paper? Inanimate subject + active verb in Lithuanian linguistic discourse as compared to English. Respectus Philologicus 18(23) 83–99.

  • Šeškauskienė I. (2011). The language of research: argument metaphors in English and Lithuanian. Vertimo studijos 4 46–60.

  • Šeškauskienė I. (2012). Metaforų tyrimo klausimu arba kaip nustatyti metaforas. Darbai ir dienos 58 65–79.

  • Tretjakova J. (2013). Metaphor in Terminology: Visualization as a Way to Term Perception. World Academy of Science Engineering and Technology International Journal of Cognitive and Language Sciences 7(4) 891–894 https://waset.org/publications/3910/metaphor-in-terminology-visualization-as-a-way-to-term-perception.

  • Valiulienė E. (2015). Temperature metaphors in lithuanian and english: contrastive analysis. Verbum 6 207–219 DOI: https://doi.org/10.15388/Verb.2015.6.8819.

  • Vladarskienė R. (2012). Metaforiniai ekonomikos terminai. Terminologija 19 83-92.

  • Zaikauskas E. (2014). Terminų vertimo būdai Europos Sąjungos teisės aktų vertimuose į lietuvių kalbą. Terminologija 21 71-89.

  • Župerka K. (2000). Kalbotyros terminai publicistikoje. Darbai ir dienos 24 175–182.

  • Волоснова Ю.А. (2003). Особенности перевода метафорических терминов в сфере информационных технологий. Лесной вестник 4 39–45.

  • Гринев С. В. (1993). Введение в терминоведение. Московсий Лицей.

Search
Journal information
Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 67 67 13
PDF Downloads 55 54 7