Потенциал критического жанра рецензии: научный диалог и полилог

Abstract

The article studies the potential of the terminographic criticism basic genre – reviews of a terminology dictionary as a form of scientific discussion. Reviewing is considered as professional communication with a possible feedback. It is highlighted that the object of scientific controversy is partly not the original text of a dictionary itself but an expert’s review. It is determined that scientific dialogues dominate as for the number of participants while scientific polylogues occur rarely; the purpose of writing reviews of terminology dictionaries is the search for the truth. Taking into consideration the presence/absence of a scientific discussion, that is the presence/absence of a reply from the author(s) of the dictionary for the review, two types of reviews are distinguished: 1) reviews that received a reply from the author (authors) of the dictionary; 2) reviews that did not receive a reply from the author(s) of the dictionary. The potential and the value of the reviews that received a reply from the author(s) of the dictionary are determined: (a) communicative opportunities to publicly and openly examine the dictionary; (b) theoretical and practical application of the results of an open discussion of the terminology dictionary quality, systematizing the deficiencies in the representation of the publication structural elements discovered by critics in order to improve the basic theoretical and methodological foundations of metatherminography and to develop an invariant model of a new type of a terminology dictionary.