CC BY
47
Austrian Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 5-6 (2017)^^^ Linguistics
< IASTTWEST > ^
- ISSN 2310-5593 (Print) / ISSN 2519-1209 (Online) -
UDC 811.161.2'276.6 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.20534/AJH-17-5.6-32-39
T. M. Mishenina1
1 Kryvyi Rih State Pedagogical University, Kryvyi Rih, Ukraine
SYSTEMIC CONNECTIONS BETWEEN LINGUODIDACTIC TERMS: THE FUNCTIONAL ASPECT
Abstract
Objective: The publication is devoted to the disclosure of the systemacity of linguodidactic terms at the level of lexico-semantic groups and hyper-hyponymic, synonymous, polysemic relations, regularities of the compatibility of relations within the analyzed groups.
Methods: The research was conducted by using such research methods: theoretical (analysis ofpsychological and pedagogical and linguistic literature), empirical (observation of the educational process and study of pedagogical experience for the purpose of codification of linguodidactic terms); own linguistic (component and etymological analysis).
The results: Have been revealed the integration tendencies in the process of codification of terms and term combinations; have been determined the generic-specific relations within the categorical apparatus of linguodidactics. Author outlined the thematic fields that are constituted on the understanding of the linguistic personality (outlined and characterized the levels of realization) and the language picture of the world (correlated to the level of mentality of the representative of the linguistic culture; linguistic and cultural code). Separate consideration was given to the terms of the phenomenon of stereotyping identification, have been outlined the level of its implementation in the speech discourse. Also author carried out the analysis of denotative and connotative shades of semantic value ofbasic linguodidactic terms. The principle of integration in the formation of the modern linguodidactic dictionary has been used, which allows to submit complex dictionary articles to linguodidactic terms taking into account modern achievements ofpsychological and pedagogical thought, linguoculture/linguoculture. At the level of linguistic competence is distinguished the concept of the marking of the communicative phenomenon of interference, which is correlated with field relativistic characteristics (interference threshold, communicative deviation, language deviation), have been outlined the causes of deviations in the communicative discourse.
Scientific novelty of the conducted research lays in codification of linguodidactic terms of the modern dictionary taking into account the achievements of scientific schools of psychological, pedagogical and philological directions, integration of humanities disciplines.
Practical significance consists in the possibility ofperforming non-linguistic, contextual and linguocultural analysis with partial application of intercultural communication research methods, which are interpreted in the study at the level of the vocabulary article as theoretical setting, tactics of studying the specifics of intercultural communication. Author developed an algorithm for coding of the linguodidactic term, taking into account the integrative principle.
Keywords: linguodidactic term, systemicity of lexico-semantic system, integration principle, thematic field, lin-guidodactic lexicography.
Introduction the principles, forms, methods, techniques and training
At the present stage the term «linguodidactics» pri- aids [1; 2; 3; 4; 5]. marily is defined as: 1) an integrative science which juris- Modern Ukrainian linguodidactics in the termi-
diction covers the methodological problems of teaching nology system produces the method of language train-native and foreign languages; 2) a part of any particular ing of students with a tight relationship of professional linguomethods, in which contains the determination of competence work-out (T. Donchenko O. Lyubashen-the object, subject, content and structure of the course, ko, L. Matsko, N. Nepyyvoda, L. Palamar M. Pentyly-
uk O. Semenoh, O. Symonenko; L. Bachman, J. Legow-icz) [6; 7; 8; 9; 10].
Considering the fact, that systematicity of language primarily shows itself in the presence of lexical-semantic groups and determination of systemic (hyper-hiponimi-chnyh, synonymous, polisemichnyh respects the laws compatibility) relationships inside these groups [11], it appears, aspect of studying of linguodidactic terminological system are nest formation and paradigmatic relationships that enable differentiation and classification procedure of linguodidactic terms, determination of their functional patterns.
Linguodidactic term refers to didactic concept as the first element of didactic knowledge and serves as its symbolic (language) model. The concept and its content, its structure are logical and semantic basis for building of terminology meaning in a form ofdefinition, which colligates the most significant features and relationships of didactic phenomena that is extrapolated to language training.
Results of the research
Linguodidactic terms are represented with such lexical-semantic fields: education, training, methodology, competence. An example of tiered relations with the nuclear component of learning may include: — 1) patterns of Ukrainian language teaching (understanding the semantics of language units, the ability to absorb the norms of the literary language, the development of linguistic intuition, etc.) — 2) patterns of language teaching—3) principles of teaching (aggregated linguodidactic (traditional and modern)/linguo-didactic (common and specific methods — a communication between language learning and speech activity, studying of morphology on syntactic basis, lexical and syntactic, structural and semantic) — 4) methods of teaching, Ukrainian language (methods of teacher/methods of student) — 5) techniques of language teaching (didactic and methodical techniques, specific techniques — grouping of linguistic phenomena, sentence spread, sentence construction, declension of words, linguistic experiment) — 6) ways of teachingUkrainian (didactic material, apparency, technical ways of teaching).
The integration principle of relationships building of linguodidactic terms allows to build a genus-specific dependencies. An example is the substantial workload of the definition language skills (formed on the basis of emotional and volitional qualities — imaginary memory, gen-
eralized perception of linguistic phenomena in the unity of meaning and form, broad and rapid generalization of linguistic concepts) that is constituted on the psychological and language basis of a considered event. Accordingly, the structural components of language skills are defined as such relational components: 1) psychologically determined — verbal memory, imaginary memory (remembering of images), creative thinking, linguistic thinking, imagination; 2) those that reproduce the essence of language and speech activity (subtlety of sense of language, ability for creative and expressive language, the language observation, the speed of learning of material).
Within the conceptual and categorical apparatus, — linguodidactic competence (a generic term on the subject of competencies — knowledge, skills, assessment of attitudes and experience of specialists) is considered within the categories of educational competence, accordingly, that is defined as a significant part of linguome-thodical, common methodical, didactic and professional pedagogical competences.
At the level of hyper-hyponymic relationships can be revealed such correlated levels of detection of competence of linguodidactic competencies: 1) the substantive basis of professional training of future linguists (informative — learning of the scientific and technical information); methodological — professional ability to understand and solve problems linguodidactic); 2) language and speech (linguoobjected) basis (language, speech, communicative — an ability of the philologist to make a dialog according to the situation and the choice of stylistic resources; determine the content of the work directed to the development of students' abilities to use language as a mean of communication); 3) psycholinguistic basis (motivational — the ability of an individual to set learning goals, adopt methods, tools, model technology based on the use linguodidactic information, logical — integrated ability to analyze, synthesize, compare, interpret scientific and methodological information on trends and laws of linguodidactic's development); 4) methodical (procedural) basis: discoursive — the ability to deploy didactic discourse); technological — the ability of professional to design and implement educational technology on language teaching; projective — the ability to model, design and construct learning situations, basic types of
< IASTTWEST > ISSN 2310-5593 (Print) / ISSN 2519-1209 (Online)
lessons; 5) culturological basis (axiological (cultural) competence — the ability to use a national, universal, spiritual values, to teach value orientation, 6) psychological (creative — the ability to master pedagogical innovation and actively use it in the content of educational process, reflective — the ability to understand the results, to analyze own activities, correcting further professional activity according to the results of reflection).
In terms of intercultural communication as a process of communication between people which belong to different ethnic linguocultural communities, served by different ideoethnic languages that can consider the linguodidactic terms as basic in the implementation of socio-cultural and cultural substantial lines of the public school curriculum, in the content of professional training of future philologists [12; 13; 14; 15].
In the considered context can be stated the rethinking of the concept of linguistic identity by expanding additional semantic nuances: linguocultural settings, linguocultural identity, national and cultural marking of language picture of the world. Today in modern linguodidactics interrelation is widespread, but not the terms linguistic identity and linguocultural identity. In this case, the substance of the concept of linguistic identity is narrower because not fully take into account cultural meaning of components of the proposed concepts (linguocultural identity is considered primarily as one that has a unique cognitive base knowledge of all levels of a particular ideoethnic language, culture (especially spiritual) flexible communication strategy and communication taken within a specific national linguosociety).
In an integral structure of the model of the linguistic personality are distinguished hierarchical levels of language proficiency: verbal-semantic (possession of the natural language on the basis of knowledge of the language system); linguistic-cognitive level (measure of the formation of the linguistic picture of the world by organizing and systematizing individual concepts, words-concepts, images); motivational-pragmatic (activity-communicative needs) level (the system of motives and values of the features in the language picture of the world).
As the speech goes about lexicographic genealogical complication of the term linguistic personality, the term combination that is under consideration remain within the
framework of linguistic and didactic vocabulary in its interrelationship with complementary terms such as communication, speech code, and linguistic picture of the world.
Thematic field advisable to apply at the level of paradigmatic relationships of concepts of communication and linguistic deviation, determined incompatibility/interference locales: 1. Communication: communication as a mode of existence of phenomena of language, national and cultural markings of communication, verbal/non-verbal communication, intercultural communication, monolingual/bilingual communication, ethno-cultural convergence, linguocultural identity, thinking structure conditioned by national and cultural factors, interference threshold. 2. Communication deviation (due to a) the semantic ambiguity of relations, lexical significant meanings, word forms and structures; b) a violation of the communicative code; c) social and psychological components of communication; d) the divergence of non-verbal ways of communication; e) varying interpretation of national and cultural phenomena); linguocultural settings of communicative and stylistic qualities of language.
An expanding of the importance of intercultural paradigm communication (the ability to carry out cross-cultural communication, which requires knowledge of lexical units of national-cultural component of semantics and skills of their appropriate adoption in situations of intercultural communication and the ability to use background knowledge to achieve understanding in situations of indirect and direct intercultural communication) which is determined mainly by an input to the field of terminological concepts such as code (system of conventional signs, the rules of information transmission via communication channels (communication) accordingly to the socio-cultural features)/cultural and language code in communication — the unity of language and cultural knowledge that reveals in intercultural communication and embodied in verbal communications. Specified relations form interdisciplinary definitions: code of culture (set of characters (symbols), meanings and their combinations that are available in any subject of the culture of certain national linguocultural community)/ code of culture spiritual (code, in which moral values and standards are reflected and connected with their basic positions of culture (good/evil, bad/good).
Formation of linguistic identity in terms of intercultural communication assumes an input of the concept of linguistic deviation to the system of diagnosed apparatus, which is constituted on the phenomenon of code switching (aware transition of the speaker in the processes of language (including intercultural) communication from matrix language to another language, associated with changes in the parameters of the communicative act) and code mixing (unconscious, unmotivated shift by the speaker in the process of verbal communication from matrix language to another, not related to the change in terms of communication, often as a result of low language, linguocultural and intercultural competencies in one of the used languages) [1].
Note that at the level of language proficiency it is defined the concept on the communicative phenomenon of interference (interaction of speech systems, speech mechanisms, the impact of native language on the studying language, in the process of its mastering — mono-lingual/bilingual/polilingual). The development of linguistic culture of linguistic identity is reviewed by the antinomy of normal/antinormal, which is manifested in deviations from the normal and system of another language under the influence of native one.
Formation of the linguistic personality involves the achievement of a high level of communicative competence, which, in turn, provides an observance ofthe signs ofspeech -normativity, accuracy, correctness, logic [16]. As an example may serve the terms which are included into the linguo-didactic dictionary to denote antinormative phenomena, so-called linguistic deviations — pleonastic constructions, which state the violations ofthe logic ofspeech: vivid contrasts; short logo; book's exlibris; reality; statistical calculations; monumental memorial; colorful mosaic; free vacancy; dancing dance; modern modern; super sensitive extra sense; exquisite delicacies; the main priority; advanced avant-garde; small miniature; diverse collage; fast (prompt) dispatch and so on.
Such lexical combinations indicate the breaks of the logic, since both components reproduce a similar meaning, and editing of such phrases should include the vocabulary reference for a foreign term, italian: Mosaic, from lat. Musivum, from gr. — Sanctuary of muses; originally planted semantics containing the meaning colorful: «image or pattern made of cobalt glass, colored stone»
(colored mosaic); dancing — eng. dansing (hall), dance (hall); room or dance floor; french delicatesse — delicious, exquisite dish; german prioritet, from lat. prior — first; primacy in something; preferential right, value (main priority); lat. moda — slope, direction (modern); lat. sensus — feeling; exstra — more than or beyond (super sensitive extra sense); french avant-garde — advanced detachment (advanced avant-garde); greek logos — word (verbal logo); lat. ex libris — from books (book exlibris); french collage — pasting with wallpaper (colorful collage); french depeche — hasty message, telegram (quick dispatch); english statistics; quantitative accounting of mass phenomena (statistical calculations); lat. monu-mentum; architectural or sculptural structure, monument (monumental memorial); expression — lat. expressio; expressiveness; price list — german preis; price, official directory of prices for goods and services (price list); exhibits — lat. expono; exhibited for review; the subject of art, an example of the products that they exhibit at the exhibition; french chronometrage, from the Greek. — time and measure; one of the main means of studying time expenditures (chronometrage of time); spectre — from lat. spectrum — what is seen and revealed — the color line that is formed during the expansion of a white ray passing through the prism; continuous color transition from one to another; a set of display within a given field, matter (wide spectrum, color spectrum).
Language deviations can be determined by: 1) intercultural incompatibilities, which are largely represented by nonequivalent vocabulary; 2) the ambiguity of semantic relations, lexical significant meanings, word forms and constructions; 3) translation errors; 4) violation ofthe rules of the communicative code; 4) communicative failures of linguistic and cognitive nature (related to cultural competence).
Accordingly, the defining definition of the concept linguistic personality should include not only a lineal hierarchy, but also a criterion characteristic (value, ideological, cultural, cognitive (gnostic) and behavioral (linguistic code)).
Thematic lexical-semantic relationships of linguodi-dactic terms can be presented as an example of such integration basis: Language picture of the world (interdisciplinary relationship of linguistics, psychology, cultural studies and philosophy). Terminological field: mindset,
< IASTTWEST > ISSN 2310-5593 (Print) / ISSN 2519-1209 (Online)
mentality, language picture of the world, conceptual picture of the world, linguocultural identity, valuable dominant culture, national spirit of the language, language code, ethnosemiotics, national categorisation of reality, valuable constant of culture, linguomentality, linguocultural locus, symbol, concept, national and cultural symbol, linguocultural field; national psychological (motivational background, intellectual, cognitive, emotional, volitional, communicative) features of ethnicity and their expression in language picture of the world.
If we consider the linguistic picture of the world as an optional object of studying of linguodidactics in terms of the formation of a linguistic personality, criterion indicators are: a) aspects related to the specificity of the thesaurus organization of the cultural-linguistic community, which is realized at the level of the system of traditional images, comparisons, symbolic use of studied denotations; b) aspects which are determined by the specifics of the language of a particular cultural-linguistic community which are represented by a system of stereotypes/symbols/images; structure of texts; the national significance of functional stylistics.
Indicators of stereotyping in the definitive structure of the linguistic personality is determined as: the repeatability of the characteristics of a particular object in different types of linguocultural and communicative discourses; the presence of derivatives in which semantics a certain characteristic is repeated or becomes concomitant; the presence of trails, based on which the feature prevails; the presence of phraseologisms, which include this lexeme; the presence of paremia (a variety of regular expressions — from phraseology to proverbs and sayings), in which a certain characteristic is actualized.
In the structure of the language and cultural personality also is distinguished the level of stereotyping, which is qualified as a national stereotype — an image that, while indicating an ethnic or national group, implies the presence of a certain feature in all representatives.
On the basis of stereotyping [17] appeared a large number of national-cultural oriented images — cosmic, terrestrial, diverse elements, animals, birds, plants, etc. Important from the point of forming a linguistic and cultural personality is the mastering of culturally designated linguistic resources, accordingly — socialization in the linguistic and cultural community.
The language of any ethnic group represents a significant number of national-cultural symbols and stereotypes; its knowledge, ability to use — a necessary condition for socialization within the linguistic community, as well as the condition for successful communication with native speakers of different languages and cultures.
An example is the linguistic and cultural commentary of the lexems on the sign of temporality (within the methodology of studying the section «Lexico-semantic system. Phraseology»): Take your time, you will not buy time for money; Everything is good at its time; Time is not fortunate, you do not have it; Time will teach everything.
The language picture of the world can be represented by the linguistic and cultural field of the biblical phrase: Adam's edge, Guardian Angel, God's gift, God's judgment, Being on the cross, Beloved soul, Faith is dead without deeds, Peter's denial of Christ, Wolf in sheep's skin, Yudin silvery. The analyzed paremias are studied by application of the appropriate linguocultural method. We state the consistency of linguocultural and linguodidactic analysis, which consists in the following aspects: 1) the interpretation of equivalent/unequivalent vocabulary in accordance with the lexical level of the formation of the linguistic personality; 2) the development of a methodology for studying the equivalence/equivalent vocabulary; 3) the use of linguocultural analysis of linguistic units, which involves the following stages: a) the construction of a nominative field of the concept, which includes the core (direct nominations of the concept, its hypo-nyms, other diverse features) and periphery (near, far, extreme); to determine the latter, they include paremias, aphorisms, phraseologisms, artistic and journalistic texts; b) analysis and description of the semantics of language means which are included in the nominative field of the concept; c) cognitive interpretation of the results of the description of the semantics of language means — the display of cognitive features that form the investigated concept as a mental unit.
The complication of the linguodidactic dictionary is also due to the introduction of the concept of comparative techniques, which include a description of the content in the form of a list of cognitive features. Modeling of the concept as a unit of consciousness involves a description of the macrostructure of the concept, the categorical
structure and content of the concept in the form of a field structure.
The analysis of the common and different in the semantic structure helps to trace the psycholinguis-tic mechanisms of language-code reorientation [18], which is important for a scientifically grounded model of the ortonitonim code and enriches the knowledge about the national-cultural specificity of the linguistic picture of the world, reveals the peculiarities of the emergence and use of the studied names of birds in the Ukrainian language. A complex linguocultural analysis of the semantics of the names of birds in the Ukrainian language makes it possible to identify peculiar, not studied to this day, shades of perception of any denotat in the context of different linguocultures.
An example can be a comparative analysis of the thematic (ornithological) vocabulary, which is non-equivalent in the content of language pictures of the world. The ornithological language picture is represented by the established (Latin equivalents): вивиьга/жовтобрюха (Oriolus oriolus); гусак (Anser anser); жайворонок (Alauda arvensis); зозуля/зигзиця (Cuculus canorus); крук/ворон (Corvus corax; Corvus cornix); лебiдь-шипун (Cygnus olor); лелека (Ciconia ciconia); перепел (Coturnix coturnix); пугач (Bubo bubo); сич (Aegolius funereus); сова (Strix uralensis); соки (Falco biarmicus); соловей (Luscinia megarhyn-chos); стриж/берегiвка, серпокрил, серпокрилець (Riparia riparia); чайка / кавка-галка, мева, кигитка, рибалка (Vanellus vannelus); чапля (Ardea cirenea), at the same time, paremia allows to identify connota-tive implementations of ornithonomisms, accordingly, to build a linguistic personality in close relationship with the formation of levels of mentality:
Raven. ger. Was hilft's, dass der Rabe badet, er bleibt doch schwarz; ukr. — the same but about a raven: Яка ворона в воду, така i з води, Ворош i мило не поможе — все чорна буде; ukr. Чорний як воронове крило — rus. Черный, как вороново крыло — англ. Black as a raven.
Eagle. ukr. Краще битися орлом шж жити зайцем; ukr. Не вчи орла лиати, а рибу плавати. ger. Den Adler fliegen lehren; ukr. Куди орли лггають, туди сорок не пускають — rus. Куда орлы летают, туда сороки не достигают. Гордштю солов'я е його голос.
Nightingale, ukr. В кожного солов'я тсня своя, Соловей тенями ситий, При соловш i воробець ствак; ger. Wo die Nachtigall singt, hört man Krähe nicht, Wo die Gänse schnattern, schweigt die Nachtigall, Was nützt dem Tauben die Nachtigall?
Linguocultural analysis of paremia can reveal the linguistic realization of the mental characteristics of the representative of linguistic culture, at the level of linguodi-dactics, cross-cultural communication makes it possible to study a particular linguistic (linguocultural) phenomenon in two or more cultures and has an additional value of comparison, comparison of comparable cultures.
Within the framework of the understanding ofnation-al mentality, linguodidactic discourse (scientific principles oflexicology and phraseology) should include out-of-con-text, contextual and linguocultural analysis with the partial application of intercultural communication research methods [19; 20; 21], which we interpret at the level ofthe vocabulary article as teratological settings, tactics of studying of the specifics of intercultural communication.
Conclusions
The analysis of verbal oppositions in the semantic field of lingodidactic terms allows us to state broad semantic paradigmatic relationships. The use of component analysis in the study of lingodidactic terminosystem revealed the features of reflection of the realities of objective linguocultural and socio-cultural reality, since the language reproduces the formation of the linguistic consciousness of representatives of a certain linguistic culture. The polysemy of the linguodidactic terms is the result of complex terminological processes in the system, the phenomenon ofsecondary nomination ofa definitively defined concept, in relation to the extra-linguistic features of the terminology — the search for an optimal semantic adequacy, the direct connection of the semantics of the word with linguocultural discourse, and also the objective progress of psychological and pedagogical practice.
The foregoing allows at the level of codification of studied terms to talk about the linguocultural lexicography (within the competence — theoretical issues and the development of practical algorithms for the creation of linguistics in general, linguodidactic section — in particular).
The development of linguodidactics determines the development of thematic groups, new synonymous
Austrian Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 5-6 (2017) " Linguistics
< iasttwest > ^
- ISSN 2310-5593 (Print) / ISSN 2519-1209 (Online) -
range; range, which reproducing hyper-hyponomic, syn- velopment of both nuclear and peripheral components
onomic, polysemic relationships, patterns of compatibili- of basic semantic structure; expanding of the semantic
ty of specific components. Linguodidactic terms undergo structure; forming of terminological fields which are built
changes in its semantic structure, which consist of de- on the integrative basis.
References:
1. Babych M. D. Linhvopsykholohichni osnovy navchannya i vyvchennya movy (Lingvopsychological bases of learning and studying the language). Chernivtsi: Ruta, - 2000. - 176 s. (in Ukrainian).
2. Horbachevych K. S. Varyantnost' slova y yazykovaya norma (Variability of the word and the language norm). Leningrad: Nauka, - 1978. - 239 s. (in Russian).
3. Didivs'ka L. P., Rodnina L. O. Slovotvir, synonimiya, stylistyka (Derivatology, synonymy, stylistics). Kyiv: Nau-kova dumka, - 1982. - 170 s. (in Ukrainian).
4. Dyakov A. S., Kyyak T. R., Kudel'ko Z. B. Osnovy terminotvorennya (The basis of terminology): Vyd. dim «KM Academia». Kyiv, - 2000. - 216 s. (in Ukrainian).
5. Ostapenko N. M. Osoblyvosti metodyky provedennya eksperymental'no-doslidnoho navchannya z problemy for-muvannya linhvodydaktychnykh kompetentnostey studentiv-filolohiv (Features ofthe methodology ofconducting experimental research on the problem of formation of lingvodidactic competences of students-philologists)//Visnyk Cherkas'koho un-tu. Seriya «Pedahohichni nauky». Vol. 148. Cherkasy, - 2009. - S. 12-17. (in Ukrainian).
6. Bachman L. The Construct Validation of Some Components of communicative Proficiency. TESOL Quarterly, -1982. - Vol. 16, - № 3. - P. 449-465. (In English).
7. Culture and Communication/S. K. Kitao a. o. (ed.); K. Kitao. Kyoto: Yamaguchi, - 1995. - Vol. VII 310 p. (In English).
8. Intercultural Competence: A New Challenge for Language Teachers and Trainers in Europe. V1: The Secondary School/Ed. by Lies Sercu. Aalbourg: Aalbourg University Press, - 1995. - 188 p. (in English).
9. Intercultural Sourcebook: Cross Cultural Training Methods. V 1./Ed. byM. Flower. - Yarmouth: Intercultural Press, - 1995. -230 p. (in English).
10. Legowicz J.O nauczycielu - Filozofia nauczania i wychowania. Warszawa: PWN, - 1975. - 189 s. (in Polish).
11. Lotte D. S. Voprosy zaymstvovanyya y uporyadochenyya ynoyazychnykh termynov y termynoelementov (Issues of borrowing and ordering of foreign terms and terminological elements). Moscow: Nauka, - 1982. - 149 s. (in Russian).
12. Safonova V. V. Yzuchenye yazykov mezhdunarodnoho obshchenyya v kontekste dyaloha kul'tur y tsyvylyzatsyy (Learning the languages of international communication in the context of the dialogue of cultures and civilizations). Voronezh, - 1996. - 178 s. (in Russian).
13. Chuchyn-Rusov A. E. Konverhentsyya kul'tur (Convergence of cultures). - Moskow: Mahystr, - 1997. - 400 s. (in Russian).
14. Bachman L. The Construct Validation of Some Components of communicative Proficiency. TESOL Quarterly, -1982. - Vol. 16, - № 3. - P. 449-465. (In English).
15. Schoonover S. C. Implementing Competencies: A Best Practices Approach/Schoonover S. C. London: Schoonover co, - 1998. - 318 p. (in English).
16. Digital Transformation. A Framework for ICT Literacy. A Report of the International ICT Literacy Panel. Princeton, NJ: ETS, USA, - 2002. - 52 p. (In English).
17. Bartminski J. Stereotyp jako przedmiot lingwistyki (1)/Z problemow frazeologii polskiej i slowianskiej. - Warszawa, - 1985. - T. III. 68 s. (in Polish).
Linguistics << Austrian Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 5-6 (2017)
3 < 1ÂSTWEST >
saBJCEUMTE
- ISSN 2310-5593 (Print) / ISSN 2519-1209 (Online) -
18. Yartseva V. M. Kontrastyvnaya hramatyka (Contrastive grammar). Moskow: Prosveshchenye, - 1981. - 112 s. (in Russian).
19. Kandelaky T. L. Semantyka y motyvyrovannost' termynov (Semantics and motivation of terms). - Moskow: Nauka, - 1977. - 168 s. (in Russian).
20. Sklad i struktura terminolohichnoyi leksyky ukrayins'koyi movy (Composition and structure of the terminology of the Ukrainian language). - Kyiv: Naukova dumka, - 1984. - 195s. ( in Ukrainian).
21. Felber H. Terminology manual. Paris, - 1984. - 352 p. (In English).
Information about the authors
Tetiana M. Mishenina, Doctor of Pedagogic Sciences, Associate Professor, Professor at the Department of Ukrainian
language Kryvyi Rih State Pedagogical University
Addresse: 50000, Kryvyi Rih, prospect Gagarina 54
Tel. (0564)90-15-12
E-mail: t.mishenina@gmail.com
ORCID 0000-0002-5992-4035
