Cover not available
Part of
The Intricacy of Languages
Edited by Francesc Feliu and Olga Fullana
[IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature 20] 2019
► pp. 11–22

Language globalization versus inner language diversity?

An outline of one scalable terminological algorithm

| The Institute for Serbian Language – The Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
By this study we have tried not to reject but to use IT tools of so-called augmented reality in the digital era in order to show new possibilities for comprehensive way to preserve itemized vocabulary of a language both in its historical and its contemporary corpus by using the especially modified relational terminology database. Offering draft for the structurally new-designed terminological algorithm for expanding the referred database, we wanted to establish, among other things, some of databases new goals, e.g. continuously preservation of one linguistic corpus created and fixed in one moment of time, regardless of the intensive changes taking place in the permanent exchangeable reality of life that imports the continuing changes into the linguistic one.
Published online: 30 October 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ivitra.20.01kal
References (24)
References
Ara, Pooneh M., Ryan G. James, and James P. Crutchfield. 2016. “Elusive Present: Hidden Past and Future Dependency and Why We Build Models”. Physical Review E 93: 022143 (11 p). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa, Ian Roberts, Michelle Sheehan, and Anders Holmberg. 2014. “Complexity in Comparative Syntax: The View from Modern Parametric Theory”. In Measuring Grammatical Complexity, ed. by Frederick J. Newmeyer and Laurel B. Preston, 103–127. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
European Union. 2005. “European and Languages”. Special Eurobarometer 237, Wave 63.4, TNS Opinion & Social. Brussels: European Comission [[URL]; consulted in december 2016]
Fought, John. 1982. “The Reinvention of Hugo Schuchardt (Review article)”. Language in Society 11 (3): 419–436. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gil, David. 2014. “Sign Languages, Creoles, and the Development of Predication”. In Measuring Grammatical Complexity, ed. by Frederick J. Newmeyer and Laurel B. Preston, 37–65. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gross, Mirjana. 2009. “Dekonstrukcija historije ili svijet bez prošlosti” [The Deconstruction of History or the World without a Past]. Historijski zbornik 62 (1): 165–195.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 2014. “Major Contributions from Formal Linguistics to the Complexity Debate”. In Measuring Grammatical Complexity, ed. by Frederick J. Newmeyer and Laurel B. Preston, 14–36. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Infoterm. 2005. Guidelines for Terminology Policies. Formulating and implementing terminology policy in language communities. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
Ivić, Milka. 1996. Tendencies in Linguistics. Belgrade: Čigoja Press.Google Scholar
Kageura, Kyo. 2002. The Dynamics of Terminology: A Descriptive Theory of Term Formation and Terminological Growth. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kalezić, Maja. 2016. “The Status of the Serbian Terminology Defined by the Serbian Language Policy throughout its Contemporary and Future Plans”. In Lexicology and lexicography in the light of contemporary approaches, ed. by Stana Ristić, Ivana Lazić Konjik, and Nenad Ivanović, 237–248. Belgrade: The Institute for Serbian Language of SASA.Google Scholar
Kostić, Milena. 2011. “Bograndovo vidjenje diskurzivnog i dekonstrukcijskog proučavanja jezika” [Beaugrande’s view of discursive and deconstructive study of language]. Philologia Mediana 3: 319–334.Google Scholar
Markov, Andrei Andreyevich. 1907. Issledovanie zamechatel’nogo sluchaya zavisimyh ispytanij [Research on a remarkable case of independent tests], Izvestiya Akademii Nauk, Saint Petersburg, VI seriya 1 (93), 61–80.Google Scholar
Miestamo, Matti, Kaius Sinnemäki and Fred Karlsson (eds.). 2008. Language Complexity. Typology, contact, change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. and Laurel B. Preston (eds.). 2014a. Measuring Grammatical Complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014b. “Introduction”. In Measuring Grammatical Complexity, 1–13 Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
OS. 1998. New Etymological Dictionary of Serbian language. Belgrade: The Institute for Serbian language of SASA (Sample volume).Google Scholar
Radovanović, Milorad. 1979. Sociolingvistika [Sociolinguistics]. Belgrade: BIGZ.Google Scholar
Ross, Daniel. 2014. “The Importance of Exhaustive Description in Measuring Linguistic Complexity: The Case of English Try and Pseudocoordination”. In Measuring Grammatical Complexity, ed. by Frederick J. Newmeyer and Laurel B. Preston, 202–217. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sager, Juan C. 1990. A Practical Course in Terminology Processing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sekulić, Nada. 2002. “Postmodernizam i kraj antropologije” [Postmodernism and the end of anthropology]. Sociologija [Sociology] 44 (4): 343–366.Google Scholar
Stolz, Thomas. 2009. “Matti Miestamo, Kaius Sinnemäki and Fred Karlsson (eds.), Language complexity. Typology, contact, change” STUF – Language Typology and Universals Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 62 (3): 241–242.Google Scholar
Trotzke, Andreas and Jan-Wouter Zwart. 2014. “The Complexity of Narrow Syntax: Minimalism, Representational Economy, and Simplest Merge”. In Measuring Grammatical Complexity, ed. by Frederick J. Newmeyer and Laurel B. Preston, 128–148. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vajs, Nada. 2003. Hrvatska povijesna fitonimija [Croation historical Phytonymy]. Zagreb: Institut za hrvatski jezik i jezikoslovlje.Google Scholar