Мовні помилки в термінологічних стандартах (на прикладі ДСТУ 3017:2015 "Інформація та документація. Видання. Основні види. Терміни та визначення понять")

Abstract

У статті розглянуто питання дотримання мовних норм у текстах термінологічних стандартів (на прикладі ДСТУ 3017:2015 «Інформація та документація. Основні види. Терміни та визначення понять»). Проаналізовано випадки порушення лексичних і граматичних норм сучасної української мови у формулюванні визначень термінів. Запропоновано способи заміни виявлених ненормативних слів, висловів і речень у тексті стандарту.

The article focuses on language norms compliance in the texts of terminological standards (on the example of DSTU 3017: 2015 «Information and documentation. Basic types. Terms and definitions»). Cases of violation of the lexical and grammatical norms of the modern Ukrainian language in the formulation of definitions of terms are analyzed. It was found that, despite the presence of clear instructions established in the national standard on compliance with the rules of the Ukrainian word usage in the formulation of definitions, in many cases the design of national terminological standards – choice of words, their change, sentence construction – does not meet the norms of Ukrainian literary language, leads to a decrease in the general culture of the publication. In the text of DSTU 3017: 2015 «Information and documentation. Edition. The main types. Terms and definitions” shows a deviation from the norms associated with the use of words that are absent in the Ukrainian language, artificial, linguistic calque of Russian words. Certain non-normative tokens fixed in the standard do not correspond to the tendency of development of the modern Ukrainian language process - conscious distance, separation from the Russian language, strengthening of positions of specific Ukrainian variants. Violation of language norms in the standard are words used without taking into account the nuances of their meaning, the rules of compatibility with other lexical language units. The analyzed standard is not without such a stylistic defect as pleonasm - semantic redundancy, which contradicts the brevity and accuracy – important communicative features of scientific and official business speech. In the formulation of explanations of certain terms, a violation of logic was revealed – a combination of words that differ in generic and specific semantics was recorded. There are linguistic errors at the grammatical level: in the text of the standard it is not always correct to choose the endings of singular forms, not in all positions the use of impersonal verb forms ending on -no, -to is motivated. Cases of non-observance of the laws of melodiousness – rules of alternation of prepositions at / in are revealed.