Sõjanduskeele ja kujundkeele ristteel ehk Kas kujund (oskus)keelt pigistab?
AT THE CROSSROADS OF MILITARY AND FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE

Summary/Abstract: Until now, the figurativeness of specialised language and metaphorisation at the conceptual level has been treated with insufficient attention, indeed with an ambivalent attitude. If, in theoretical discussions, there is an inclination towards the cognitive view (i.e. the claim that the creative use of language is an essential component of specialised communication), then in the practice of specialised language management the natural state of affairs seems to be something more akin to hesitation, questioning, even denial. However, the first and natural choice among specialists in the field often tends to be the figurative term. The foundation of this article is the research on figurativeness in military terminology and the thesis that, in order to develop a functional terminology, there is a need to build upon an awareness of the needs of users. Therefore, this article will focus on officers’ terminological preferences, asking whether there are any conditions in which figurative terminology is preferred and, the choice having been made, how they justify their preferences. Such an approach allows us to draw conclusions about the functionality of figurativeness in military terminology and to analuyse how the attitudes towards figurativeness can influence the development of military terminology and terminological work in general. As with many specialised fields, in military terminology there are a couple of terms in use which seem to be derived directly from English equivalents and which reflect a metaphorical understanding. Such terms are traditionally considered to be rough loan words and are often rejected by language planners. It turns out, though, that it is precisely these forms which are favoured by military specialists. Considering the choices officers make while selecting terms, and bearing in mind the arguments advanced in favour of one term or the other, it would seem that the following hypothesis is worth careful deliberation: besides purely linguistic imitation, there can be the observed preference for such metaphorical expressions influenced by the human disposition for conceptualising and communicating certain phenomena by means of imagery. Emerging from this discussion there are two vital questions. Firstly, where are the boundaries between rough loan words and conceptual metaphors acceptable by language planners? And secondly, do the well-defined lines of demarcation actually exist and how can we describe them?

• Details
• Contents