Functioning and translation of English and Russian architectural terms in academic discourse / Функционирование и перевод англоязычных и русскоязычных архитектурных терминов в академическом дискурсе

Урюпина Анна Дмитриевна ORCID: 0000-0002-8475-615X ассистент; кафедра иностранных языков; Российский университет дружбы народов имени Патриса Лумумбы 117198, Россия, г. Москва, ул. Миклухо-Маклая, 6 Uryupina Anna Dmitrievna Assistant; Department of Foreign Languages; Patrice Lumumba Peoples' Friendship University of Russia 6 Miklukho-Maklaya str., Moscow, 117198, Russia uryupina_ad@pfur.ru

Introduction

The study of architectural terminology in both English and Russian languages is crucial for understanding the nuances and specificities in academic discourse related to architecture. The increasing globalization and the integration of different architectural styles and practices require a thorough examination of terminological usage in various languages. This paper focuses on the functioning of English and Russian architectural terms within academic discourse, highlighting their classification, systematization, and existing challenges in their translation between the languages.

The significance of this study lies in the growing interest of scholars in Language for Specific Purposes (LSP) and the need to streamline architectural terminology for better communication and understanding in the field. LSP involves the teaching and research of a language that is tailored to the communicative needs of speakers in specific workplace, academic or professional contexts. This includes specialized vocabulary, discourse practices, and linguistic features used by target groups ^[1]. The field has evolved from an early focus on written language products like terminology and text types to a broader interest in communicative processes and their psychological and sociological dimensions. This shift includes understanding spoken discourse and its interplay with written communication ^{[2, P.115]}. LSP is critical for designing effective language courses that meet specific needs. This involves course planning, implementation, assessment, and professional development for educators. Additionally, it addresses issues of pedagogy and classroom management specific to LSP settings ^[3].

Academic discourse of architecture is a specialized form of communication that encompasses unique linguistic, structural, and multimodal features that meet the needs and practices of the architectural field. Architectural discourse relies heavily on visual and spatial cognition, utilising visual means to support and enhance textual information. This includes the extensive use of drawings, plans, and 3D models that are crucial for comprehending spatial relationships and design concepts.

Architectural language, combining both artistic and technical elements, presents unique challenges and opportunities for researchers and practitioners. The history of architectural vocabulary, which dates back to the Renaissance, involves numerous borrowings and adaptations from languages such as French, Dutch, and German, reflecting the evolution and development of construction techniques and materials ^[4].

The comparative analysis of English and Russian architectural terms helps in identifying both common and different aspects in their usage and classification. This study also explores the interdisciplinary nature of architectural terminology, which intersects with various fields such as engineering, building construction, art, and design. This interdisciplinary aspect leads to the incorporation of terms from various domains, necessitating a comprehensive understanding of their usage within specific contexts ^{[5, P. 14]}. With examining the semantic fields and the hierarchical relationships of terms, this research aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of how architectural vocabulary functions in academic discourse.

Methodology

This study employs a rigorous combination of quantitative research methods to analyse the usage of architectural terms in English and Russian academic discourse. The research is based on a corpus of texts, consisting of dictionaries, reviews, and articles from reputable journals within the field of architecture.

Firstly, a component analysis of lexical meaning was conducted. This approach involved deconstructing the meanings of architectural terms to identify their constituent components and their interconnections within the semantic field. Moreover, the method facilitated the elicitation of core and peripheral terms in the architectural vocabulary, providing a nuanced understanding of term structures and usage contexts.

Secondly, a comparative analysis was employed to identify the similarities and differences in the usage and classification of architectural terms in English and Russian. This comparative approach highlighted the historical and cultural influences on the evolution of architectural terminology in both languages, offering insights into the unique linguistic landscapes shaped by these factors.

Additionally, the study utilized corpus linguistics techniques, compiling a comprehensive corpus of texts to examine the frequency and contextual usage of architectural terms, ensuring a broad representation of academic discourse. The systematic classification of terms based on their semantic fields, hierarchical relationships, and functional types was also performed. This classification provided a detailed insight into the organization and structure of architectural vocabulary in both languages.

Moreover, an interdisciplinary approach was utilised to consider the multifaceted nature of architectural terminology, examining its usage across related fields such as engineering, building construction, art, and design. This holistic approach provided a comprehensive overview of the terminological landscape in architecture, emphasizing the interconnections of various disciplines and the shared terminological frameworks.

Thus, all methods used in the study contribute to a detailed and robust analysis of the functioning and translation of English and Russian architectural terms in academic discourse, advancing the field of linguistic research and offering practical insights for professionals in architecture, linguistics, and related disciplines.

Results

The classification of architectural terms within academic discourse is a multifaceted phenomenon that reflects the complexity and interdisciplinary nature of architecture. This section reviews the existing classifications of architectural terms, emphasizing the distinctions and overlaps between different terminological frameworks in English and Russian.

Architectural terminology is generally classified based on semantic fields, hierarchical relationships, and functional types. These classifications are essential for understanding the systematic organization and usage of terms in professional and academic settings.

1.1. Semantic Fields

Architectural terms are often grouped into semantic fields, which are collections of words related to each other in meaning. Common semantic fields in architecture include building types, materials, processes and techniques, design elements, and structural components. For instance, within the semantic field of building materials, core terms may include «timber», «metals», «stone», «plastics», «ceramics», «concrete», «additive», «adhesives» ^[6], etc., while peripheral terms encompass more specific materials like «cold setting adhesive» ^{[6, P. 6]}, «bonding admixture» ^{[6, P. 7]}, «polymer modified concrete» ^{[6, P. 89]}, and «sawn timber» ^{[6, P. 385]}. Furthermore, in the semantic field of components and finishes, key terminology may contain «windows», «doors», «roofing», and «hardware» ^{[6, P. 7]}, while peripheral terminology includes such units as «aluminium sheet roofing» ^{[6, P. 13]}, «door hardware» ^{[6, P. 120]}, «bow window» ^{[6, P. 46]}, etc. This categorisation assists in the systematic learning and teaching of architectural terminology, providing a structured approach to vocabulary acquisition.

1.2. Hierarchical Relationships

Hierarchical classification organizes terms based on their level of generality or specificity. This involves distinguishing between broad categories and their subcategories. For example, the term «building» is a broad category that can be subdivided into more specific types such as «skyscraper» ^{[6, P. 346]}, «corridor block» ^{[6, P. 98]}, «low-rise building» ^{[6, P. 225]}, and «cellar» ^{[6, P. 66]}. Similarly, «construction materials» can be categorized into general groups like «natural materials» and «synthetic materials», which can be further divided into more specific terms such as «granite» ^{[6, P. 175]} or «polyurethane» ^{[6, P. 287]}. This hierarchical approach facilitates precise communication and understanding within the field.

1.3. Functional Types

Functional classification focuses on the specific roles or functions that architectural terms denote. This includes classifications based on the purpose of a building (e.g., residential, commercial, office, retail, industrial, educational, religious, etc.), the type of structure (e.g., «loadbearing structure» ^{[6, P. 222]}, «reinforced-concrete structure» ^{[6, P. 91]}, «frame structure» ^{[6, P. 162]}, «air-supported structure» ^{[6, P. 10]}, etc.), or the function of a design element (e.g., decorative, structural, chemical, supporting, heating, etc.). For instance, terms related to residential buildings may include «private house» ^{[6, P. 295]}, «apartment block» ^{[6, P. 19]}, «villa» ^{[7, P. 479]} and «mansion» ^{[6, P. 229]} each denoting a specific type of residential structure, while terms related to decorative elements may contain such units as «false window» ^{[6, P. 144]}, «knop» ^{[6, P. 211]}, «diglyph» ^{[6, P. 115]}, «finial» ^{[7, P. 154]}, etc. This type of classification is particularly useful in architectural design and planning, where understanding the function and purpose of each element is crucial.

1.4. Interdisciplinary Classifications

Given the interdisciplinary nature of architecture, terminological classifications often overlap with related fields such as engineering, building construction, art, and design. Terms from these fields are integrated into the architectural lexicon, reflecting the dual and multifaceted nature of architectural projects. For example, civil engineering terms like «load-bearing / non-bearing wall» ^{[7, P. 254, P. 282]}, «cantilever» ^{[7, P. 67]}, «valve» ^{[7, P. 473]} are commonly used in architectural discourse, as are design terms like «layout» ^{[6, P. 216]}, «alignment» ^{[6, P. 11]}, «negative space», «saturation», and «color palette». This interdisciplinary approach enriches the architectural vocabulary and contributes to a more holistic understanding of the field.

2. Historical and Cultural Influence. Borrowed and Adapted Terms

Architectural terminology also reflects historical and cultural influences, with terms evolving alongside advancements in construction techniques and changes in architectural styles. Many English architectural terms have origins in French, Latin, Dutch, and German, reflecting historical periods of architectural innovation and cultural exchange. For instance, a large amount of terms used today have Latin roots, indicating the traditions dating back to antiquity. Examples of such terms are «capital» ^{[8, P. 47]} (from Latin «capitellum» - small head), «frieze» ^{[8, P. 131]} (from Latin «phrygium» - decoration), «pilaster» ^{[8, P. 227]} (from Latin «pilaster» - column), etc. These terms entered the English language through Latin texts and treatises that were used in the practice and training of architects.

French, as a language of international communication and culture during the Middle Ages and Renaissance, also had a significant influence on architectural vocabulary. During the Norman Conquest of England in 1066, French became the official language of the English court, which led to the enrichment of the English language with French terms. In architecture, this this was reflected in the borrowing of such words as «arcade» ^{[6, P. 20]}, «portico» ^{[6, P. 289]}, «façade» ^{[6, P. 143]}, «mansard» ^{[6, P. 229]}. The terms not only gained a foothold in the English language, but also became an integral part of architectural discourse, reflecting the influence of French architectural thought. Understanding these historical and cultural contexts is essential for comprehending the evolution and current usage of architectural terms.

The adaptation of borrowed terms is another significant aspect of architectural terminology. Borrowed terms often change significantly during their assimilation into another language, influenced by phonetic, morphological, and semantic factors. For example, the Russian term «арка» («arch») ^{[9, P. 7]} is borrowed from the Latin «arcus» reflecting the historical influence of classical architecture. These borrowed terms often retain their original meanings while adapting to the phonological and morphological rules of the borrowing language.

Thus, the classification of architectural terms in academic discourse involves a complex interaction of semantic, hierarchical, functional, interdisciplinary, historical, and cultural factors. These classifications provide a structured framework for understanding and using architectural terminology, facilitating easier communication and better comprehension in both academic and professional contexts. By systematically categorizing these terms, scholars and practitioners can navigate the rich and intricate landscape of architectural discourse more effectively.

3. Difficulties and Challenges in Translating Architectural Terms

M. Thelen differentiates between theory-oriented terminology, which focuses on concept formation and standardization, and translation-oriented terminology, which is more pragmatic and focused on solving translation problems ^{[10, P. 348-349]}. In architectural discourse, translation-oriented terminology is particularly relevant as it addresses the need for practical equivalence in multilingual contexts.

Translating architectural terms between English and Russian presents several challenges due to the intricacies of the languages and the specialized nature of the terminology. These challenges stem from linguistic, cultural, and technical differences between the two languages and can significantly impact the clarity and accuracy of translation. Understanding these difficulties is crucial for achieving precise and effective communication in the field of architecture.

One of the primary challenges in translating architectural terminology lies in the fundamental differences in linguistic structure between English and Russian. English, being a Germanic language, and Russian, a Slavic language, possess distinct phonetic, grammatical, and syntactical structures, which do not have direct equivalents. For instance, Russian utilizes grammatical cases to convey meaning that in English might be indicated by prepositions. This structural difference can complicate the translation of phrases describing spatial relationships or functional attributes, which are common in architectural discourse. Another example refers to English compound nouns such as «load-bearing wall» ^{[7, P. 254]} which need to be thoroughly translated to ensure the structural and semantic integrity in Russian, which may use a different construction like «несущая стена» ^{[11, P. 117]}. The misalignment in grammatical categories, such as gender and case, further complicates direct translations and requires a thorough understanding of the grammatical framework of both languages.

Another key difficulty in architectural terminology translation refers to semantic ambiguity. Architectural terms often denote specific meanings that can be lost or misinterpreted. Some English terms may have no direct equivalents in Russian, leading to semantic gaps. For instance, the term «parlour» may not have exact Russian counterpart, requiring descriptive translation like «скромная гостиная», «отдельный кабинет в ресторане» or «холл в гостинице», while the translation of the term «parapet» («парапет», «парапетное ограждение» or «парапетная стенка») assumes the adoption of borrowed terms ^{[9, P. 141]}. Conversely, Russian architectural terms like «свод» can refer to various types of vaulted structures («concave», «cope», «cove», «dome», «pen», «vaulting», «vault», «arch») ^{[9, P. 188]}, requiring exact contextual interpretation to choose the appropriate English term.

Furthermore,cultural differences play a significant role in translating architectural terms. The historical and cultural contexts in which architectural concepts developed can influence how terms are understood and used. For example, the concept of a «cottage» in English-speaking countries typically refers to a small, cozy dwelling, often located in rural area. In Russian, «коттедж» denotes a more modern, often luxurious suburban house. Such cultural connotations must be taken into account in order to avoid misinterpretations.

The high degree of specificity required in translation of architectural terms also provides complexity to translation. Translators must have a deep understanding of technical vocabulary of both source and target languages. Misinterpretations or inappropriate term selections can lead to misunderstandings that might affect the construction processes. Accurate translation requires not only language proficiency but also a solid grasp of architectural concepts and practices.

The lack of standardization in terminology across different regions or practices can further complicate translation. Different countries or regions might use the same term to refer to different concepts or might have developed unique terminologies based on local regulatory frameworks or construction practices. For example, the English term «mansard» can be translated into Russian as «мансарда» ^{[9, P. 122]}, but the specific design and functional requirements might vary depending on different contexts, leading to potential inaccuracies in translation.

Architectural discourse sometimes employs idiomatic or figurative language to convey certain concepts or aesthetics, which can be particularly challenging to translate. For instance, R. Caballero states in her paper that metaphors help bridge the gap between abstract architectural ideas and their tangible manifestations ^{[12, P. 1876]}. This usage outlines the multimodal character of architectural discourse, where visual and verbal elements are intertwined to communicate design intentions effectively. One of the examples illustrating how architects use figurative language to convey deeper meanings and provide a more vivid description of architectural concepts and aesthetics can be found in the following statement: «The windows are the eyes of architecture. Through the windows enters the light and shadow that creates spaces» ^[13]. The literal meaning of this phrase denotes that the windows look like eyes. However, the figurative meaning might state that the windows offer views and connect the interior with the exterior, providing light and perspective.

The figurative language is essential for articulating architectural concepts and evaluations, reflecting both objective descriptions and subjective preferences. However, idioms and metaphors may not have direct equivalents in the target language, requiring translators to find innovative ways to convey the same meaning without losing the term’s connotative meaning.

Consequently, translating architectural terms between English and Russian involves navigating complex linguistic, cultural, and technical landscapes. Overcoming these challenges requires not only linguistic competence but also a comprehensive understanding of architectural practices and the cultural contexts of both languages. By addressing these difficulties, translators can enhance communication and collaboration across linguistic and cultural boundaries, supporting the global exchange of architectural knowledge and practices.

Discussion

The study of architectural terminology in English and Russian within the context of academic discourse reveals several critical insights into the complexities and nuances of this specialized vocabulary. Through a detailed examination of terminological classifications, translation challenges, and the interdisciplinary nature of architectural terms, this research highlights the intricate interplay between language, culture, and technical specificity in architecture.

One of the primary findings of this study is the significant role that semantic fields play in organizing architectural terminology. By categorizing terms based on their meanings and functional relationships, one can achieve a more structured and systematic understanding of architectural vocabulary. This approach not only facilitates more effective teaching and learning of architectural terms but also supports more precise communication among professionals. The identification of core and peripheral terms within semantic fields, such as building materials, underscores the hierarchical nature of architectural terminology, where terms range from broad, encompassing categories, to highly specific items.

The comparative analysis of English and Russian architectural terms highlights both the similarities and differences shaped by historical, cultural, and linguistic factors. While both languages share a substantial number of terms due to historical borrowings and global architectural practices, the specific usages and connotations of these terms can vary significantly. This variation requires thorough consideration in translation to preserve the intended meaning of terms and context. The study’s exploration of borrowed terms, such as those from French, Latin, etc. in English, and their Russian equivalents, reflects the dynamic evolution of architectural vocabulary influenced by cultural exchanges and technological advancements.

The challenges in translating architectural terms between English and Russian further emphasize the importance of linguistic and cultural proficiency. The structural differences between the two languages (such as grammatical cases in Russian and the use of articles in English) pose significant difficulties in achieving accurate translations. Additionally, the lack of exact equivalents for certain terms requires translators to employ creative strategies, such as descriptive phrases or the adoption of foreign terms, each with its potential challenges. These challenges are compounded by the need for technical accuracy, where even minor misinterpretations can lead to significant practical implications in architectural projects.

Cultural and contextual differences also contribute to a further difficulty in the translation process. Architectural terms often carry cultural and historical meanings that may not have direct parallels in the target language. For example, traditional Russian architectural elements may not have direct equivalents in English, requiring detailed explanations to convey their full meaning. This emphasizes the importance of cultural awareness and contextual knowledge in translation, ensuring that the translated terms accurately reflect the original concepts and practices.

Moreover, the interdisciplinary nature of architectural terminology highlights the need for a holistic approach to both classification and translation. Architectural terms frequently intersect with related fields such as engineering, building construction, art, and design, therefore requiring a comprehensive understanding of these disciplines. The integration of terms from these fields into the architectural lexicon enriches the vocabulary and fosters a more cohesive understanding of architectural concepts. Such an interdisciplinary approach is crucial for addressing the multifaceted challenges in architectural practice and education.

Standardization issues also play a critical role in the effective use and translation of architectural terms. Lack of uniformity in terminological standards across different regions and practices can lead to inconsistence and misunderstanding. Establishing standardized terminological frameworks can significantly enhance clarity and consistency in architectural discourse, supporting more effective communication and collaboration between scholars and professionals from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds.

In conclusion, the study of English and Russian architectural terms in academic discourse reveals a complex landscape shaped by linguistic, cultural, and technical factors. By addressing the challenges in classification and translation, this research contributes to a better understanding of architectural terminology and its role in facilitating global communication and collaboration in the field of architecture. The findings of the research emphasize the importance of interdisciplinary approaches, cultural awareness, and technical proficiency in navigating the intricacies of architectural vocabulary, which ultimately contributes to the advancement of knowledge and practice in architecture and related disciplines.