I. YAKOVLEV CHUVASH STATE PEDAGOGICAL UNIVERSITY BULLETIN

Phone: (8352) 62-08-71 ext. 1182, ext. 1184

redak_vestnik@chgpu.edu.ru

Index catalog Press of Russia: 39898

Metadata (abstracts and keywords) for the articles in the journal

Zhao Qihang COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE TERMS “BIONANOTECHNOLOGY” IN THE TERM SYSTEM OF BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING IN RUSSIAN, ENGLISH AND CHINESE // I. YAKOVLEV CHUVASH STATE PEDAGOGICAL UNIVERSITY BULLETIN. 2022. № 2(115). p. 139-146
Author(s):Zhao Qihang
Index of UDK:81’276.6:60
Index of DOI:10.37972/chgpu.2022.115.2.020
Name of article:COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE TERMS “BIONANOTECHNOLOGY” IN THE TERM SYSTEM OF BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING IN RUSSIAN, ENGLISH AND CHINESE
Keywords:

term, term system, lexico-thematic group, lexico-semantic group, systematic relations of terms, terminological dictionary

Abstracts:

The study of the terminology is important not only for linguistics, but also for specific scientific disciplines, biomedical engineering (hereinafter: BME) in particular. This article is devoted describing systemic relations in the thematic subgroup “Bionanotechnology” as a part of the term system of biomedical engineering (BME), uncovering the linguistic characteristics of the analyzed terms in Russian, Chinese and English, and compiling a section of the Russian-English-Chinese terminological dictionary of biomedical engineering. The source of the material is the Russian textbook of BME, English and Chinese terminological dictionaries of BME. The main research methods are descriptive, inductive-deductive, methods of comparative, component, distributive analysis, method of directed sampling of material. Each term in this subgroup is analyzed on the basis of the dictionary entry, which expands the use of research materials in the practice of teaching Russian as a Foreign Language. The internal system relations in this subgroup are analyzed. Based on the analysis, the following conclusions are obtained: single-component terms occupy the first place; 5 out of 19 terms can be presented in two versions; all terms do not coincide with their Chinese counterparts structurally with full semantic coincidence; when compared with the English term system, 18 out of 19 terms completely coincide with each other both structurally and semantically.

The contact details of authors:

Чжао Цихан – аспирант кафедры русского языка как иностранного и методики его преподавания Санкт-Петербургского государственного университета, г. Санкт-Петербург, Россия, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6011-100X, st067961@student.spbu.ru

Pages:139-146
Full version of article:Download