Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://elib.bsu.by/handle/123456789/288071| Title: | РЕДАКТИРОВАНИЕ: ПРОБЛЕМЫ ТЕРМИНОЛОГИЧЕСКОГО ХАРАКТЕРА |
| Other Titles: | Editing: Problems of terminology |
| Authors: | Жолнерович, П.П. |
| Keywords: | ЭБ БГУ::ОБЩЕСТВЕННЫЕ НАУКИ::Языкознание |
| Issue Date: | 2020 |
| Publisher: | Tomsk State University - Faculty of Philology |
| Citation: | Tekst kn knigoizd 2020(24):173-191. |
| Abstract: | Проблемы терминологического характера, относящиеся к редактирования как к области научного знания, сфере практической деятельности и учебной дисциплине, возникают вследствие комплексности данного понятия. Цель исследования – выявление дефиниций, которые претендуют на роль термина и в которых обнаруживаются противоречивые утверждения. В результате проведенного исследования констатируется невозможность отнесения редактирования как сферы научного знания только к издательскому делу или филологии, предлагается авторская дефиниция редактирования, вводится в научный оборот терминологическое сочетание «история редактирования», доказывается необоснованность замены «редактирования» и «редакторского анализа» такими понятиями, как «текстовая деятельность» и «критика речи» соответственно. |
| Abstract (in another language): | Taking into consideration the fact that editing is considered to be a field of scientific knowledge, a sphere of practical activity, and a discipline, problems of terminology appear. The aim of the research is to reveal definitions and statements that tend to take the role of terms and contain conflicting statements obstructing the scientific comprehension of terms. The research focuses on the comparison of different definitions of the term “editing” and of its types given by Russian and foreign theorists and practitioners, as well as on the analysis of new terms introduced into scientific discourse. The author touches upon various definitions of the concept of editing, considers its types as well as differences between the notions of editing and literary editing, compares the interpretations of these concepts in Russian, British, and American (editing, copyediting), Ukrainian and Polish scientific discourses, offers his vision of the problems. Textbooks and reference books do not always provide proper differences between the two main components of editorial activity—editorial analysis (evaluation) and editing. There are significant developments of Russian researchers in the direction of the history of editing ahead of the Western research. One can state that Russia has a school of editing history, and university researchers make a great contribution to its development. The author suggests adhering to the established traditions in the interpretation of editing and using it in journalism in the same sense as in book publishing, since initially it was the publishing of books that caused the need in editing as a professional activity. The result of the research demonstrates that it is impossible to refer editing as a sphere of scientific knowledge only to book publishing or philology. The author proposes his own definition of editing, tries to optimize the number of types of editing (particularly, duplication of the notions “editing” and “literary editing”, “editing” and “copyediting” is stated), and introduces a terminological combination “history of editing” into scientific discourse. The author proves that the replacement of the concepts “editing” and “editorial analysis” with such notions as “text activity” and “criticism of speech”, respectively, is not justified in scientific terms. |
| URI: | https://elib.bsu.by/handle/123456789/288071 |
| DOI: | 10.17223/23062061/24/9 |
| Scopus: | 85101350983 |
| Licence: | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
| Appears in Collections: | Кафедра медиалингвистики и редактирования |
Files in This Item:
| File | Description | Size | Format | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2306-2061_i24_p173.pdf | 384,71 kB | Adobe PDF | View/Open |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.