Бидний тухай
Багш ажилтан
1945 онд МУИС-д хэл бичгийн факультет үүсгэн байгуулагдсан цагаас хойш МУИС-ийн эрдэмтэн багш нар монгол хэлний үзэгдэл баримтыг хэл шинжлэлийн бүх түвшний судалгаанд гүнзгийрүүлэн судалж, авиа зүй, бүтээвэр судлал, өгүүлбэр зүй, эх судлал, үгийн сан-утга зүйн ерөнхий тогтолцоог тодорхойлохын зэрэгцээ эх бичиг, сурвалж судлалын талаар дагнасан судалгаа хийж бие даасан олон бүтээл гаргасаар ирсэн бөгөөд тус илтгэлд МУИС нь онолын болон хэрэглээний хэл шинжлэлийн судалгааны гол төв болох тухай, МУИС нь эх бичиг, сурвалж судлалын гол төв болох тухай олон талын баримт хэрэглэгдэхүүнд тулгуурлан тайлбарлаж, өнөөгийн тулгамдаж буй асуудал хийгээд түүний шийдлийн талаар зарим саналыг дэвшүүлэв.
Тус илтгэлд Хэлний соёл судлал (Linguoculturology) ба соёлын хэл шинжлэл = соёл хэл шинжлэл (Cultural Linguistics = cultural linguistics)-ийн үндсэн ялгаа, хэлний соёл судлалын үүднээс зүйрлэсэн хэллэгийг судлан тайлбарлах үндсэн арга зүйг тайлбарлаж, түүний үндсэн дээр “Баян” ба “ядуу” гэх багцалмал мэдлэгийг илэрхийлэх монгол зүйрлэсэн хэллэгийг задлан тайлбарлав.
Keywords: cognitive linguistics, translation, terminology, Mongolian language, terminological challenges. This paper aims to examine the challenges associated with translating contemporary linguistic terms into the Mongolian language. The translation of specialized terms in linguistics presents various difficulties due to the distinct characteristics of each language and the evolving nature of linguistic research. This study explores the strategies utilized in the translation of key terms in contemporary linguistics into Mongolian, while also analyzing potential issues that may arise from these translations. Over the past three decades, several bilingual and trilingual dictionaries of Mongolian-Mongolian, English-Mongolian, and Russian-Mongolian linguistic terms have been published in Mongolia. These dictionaries, such as those by Bayansan and Odontör (1995), Enkhbat (2003), Tömörtogoo (2004), Zeenyambuu and Bazarragchaa (2014), and Tömörtogoo et al. (2016), serve as significant and indispensable resources for comprehending the content aspects of terms from traditional linguistics, traditional grammar, structural linguistics, and the fundamental levels of linguistic analysis. Additionally, they contribute to the standardization of linguistic terminology and aid in addressing the variations within linguistic terminology. As new theoretical trends continue to emerge in the field of linguistics and researchers investigate into diverse facets of language from various perspectives, the demand for translating and elucidating novel theoretical aspects, viewpoints, concepts, and associated terminology becomes increasingly crucial. This necessity arises to facilitate the introduction and application of these theoretical approaches within the realm of Mongolian linguistics. Consequently, Mongolian linguists and scholars have undertaken extensive research in the domain of modern linguistic theories, encompassing disciplines such as universal grammar, systematic functional grammar, cognitive linguistics, sociolinguistics, corpus linguistics, psycholinguistics, neurolinguistics, and more. During the process of integrating modern linguistic theories into the Mongolian language, Mongolian linguists and translators employ a range of translation approaches, including literal translation, formal equivalence, dynamic equivalence, interpretation, among others. However, challenges arise in translating certain terminologies, as issues like inconsistencies, ambiguities, or misunderstandings can hinder optimal and standardized translations. Consequently, the target audience may struggle to grasp the intended meaning of these translated terms or potentially confuse them with unrelated concepts. As a result, some researchers opt to directly transcribe Russian or English terms into Mongolian and incorporate them without translation, aiming to circumvent such misunderstandings. In 2022, a collaborative effort involving nearly 40 scholars and linguists from the National University of Mongolia, the Institute of Language and Literature of the Mongolian Academy of Sciences, and the Mongolian State University of Education resulted in the publication of a comprehensive 15-volume work titled "Mongolian Language Studies" (Mongol khel sudlal). The 14th and 15th volumes of the publication focus exclusively on contemporary linguistic theories, including but not limited to cognitive linguistics, cultural linguistics, applied linguistics, natural language processing, and universal grammar. These volumes delve into the exploration and analysis of these modern linguistic theories, providing valuable insights and contributions to the field. In this paper, the author endeavors to examine the translated linguistic terms employed in these books, with a particular focus on terminologies from the domain of cognitive linguistics, and present noteworthy findings. Through the analysis of specific instances, the study aims to provide insights into the difficulties encountered by translators and linguists when accurately rendering intricate concepts from the source language to the target language, particularly within the framework of contemporary linguistic paradigms. Furthermore, the paper seeks to propose potential strategies to surmount these challenges.
Bekanntlich wird das Thema Armut gern verdrängt, insbesondere bei Außendarstellungen. Auch in der BRD, wo mehr als jedes fünfte Kind in Armut aufwächst,1 stellt sich die Frage, wie ein wohlhabendes Land damit umgeht und mit welchen Begriffen in öffentlichen Debatten argumentiert wird. Hierbei spielt die jeweilige eigene Erfahrung und politische Verortung eine tragende Rolle, sowohl individuell als auch gesellschaftlich. Was die Mongolei betrifft, so wurde es als besonders bitter wahrgenommen, dass seit den 1990er Jahren Ausprägungen von Armut auftraten, die es zuvor so nicht gegeben hatte und die mit dem Selbstverständnis, kein Entwicklungsland zu sein, nicht im Einklang standen. Denn die Mongolische Volksrepublik war als Teil der sozialistischen Gemeinschaft in den 1970er und 80er Jahren ehemaligen Kolonialstaaten als leuchtendes Vorbild präsentiert worden, als „ascent out of medieval backwardness and feudal oppression to socialism“ (Shirendyb 1981: 19). Umso schmerzlicher die Herabstufung zum Entwicklungsland, welche, u.a. was Bildungsstand und Gesundheit der Bevölkerung betraf, nicht angemessen erschien. Es zeigte sich, dass Entwicklungspolitik oft Eigenprofile nicht zur Kenntnis und entsprechend wenig Rücksicht auf diese nahm. In den 1990er Jahren ging dies in vielen Ländern mit einer „discursive homogenization“ (Escobar 1997: 92) einher. Auch im Mongolischen tauchten Termini eines scheinbar internationalen Entwicklungsparadigmas auf, von denen einige sich, teils infolge oberflächlicher Übersetzungen, als inadäquat oder gar kontraproduktiv erwiesen. Einmal importiert, bewirkt die Pfadabhängigkeit, dass selbst bei konstruktiver Kritik an inadäquaten Begriffen kaum Korrekturen möglich sind, wie z.B. der mongolische Diskurs zu Terminologien für ‚Nachhaltigkeit‘ zeigt.
It has been several decades since Noam Chomsky first proposed the theory of universal grammar in the 1950s. This theory has exerted significant influence and has been extensively studied by linguists and cognitive scientists in relation to various languages. However, the application of the theory of universal grammar to Mongolian syntax by Mongolian linguists has only emerged in the past decade or two, despite extensive research on Mongolian syntax from the perspectives of structural linguistics and descriptive linguistics. This paper presents a preliminary analysis of the application of the theory of Universal Grammar to Mongolian syntax, with a particular focus on the head parameter, movement, the pro-drop parameter, and agreement. By drawing on linguistic data from Mongolian, the study explores how certain principles and parameters of Universal Grammar can account for observed syntactic phenomena in Mongolian. By examining these linguistic phenomena through the framework of Universal Grammar, this preliminary analysis provides valuable insights into the extent to which Universal Grammar principles and parameters can explain the syntax of Mongolian. Consequently, it contributes to our understanding of language universals and variations. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1s7oU9WoZRUirOciVgZnkXJliIThycQbR/edit
https://iams.org.mn/4520.html
Metaphors play a decisive role in shaping public opinion by calling attention to social and political problems. Metaphors help people to visualize problems that otherwise may remain invisible. This paper analyses the metaphorical expressions that were used on demonstration posters and in slogans of the recent massive protests against inflation and government inaction held in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia on April 7 and 8, 2022. The main slogans of the protest were: ‘Ažlaa khii!’ (Do your job!) and ‘Mongoldoo saikhan amidarmaar baina!’ (We want to live well in Mongolia!). In those youth-led protests, people used a number of metaphorical expressions such as ‘Zaluučuud cagaan zeer biš!’ (Youth are not gazelles!), ‘Čömög dundarlaa!’ (The bone marrow is about to be half-empty!), ‘khurgan darga’ (Lamb bosses), ‘Ičikh nüür taraaž baina! Elegneesee khaina uu!’ ([We are] distributing faces for sense of shame! Search it from your liver!) and many others. These metaphorical expressions are challenging to understand for non-native speakers of Mongolian, because even if one understands the literal translation, they require background cultural knowledge (traditional way of life, customs, beliefs, rituals, religion, history, values and stereotypes). Many of these metaphorical expressions are derived from proverbs and idioms, which belong to the linguistic and cultural worldview of Mongolians. The research findings, based on ethnolinguistic analysis, not only offer an overview of how metaphorical expressions popularize and shape protestors’ understanding of Mongolia’s current socio-economic realities, but also reveal the implicit meanings of the metaphorical expressions used in the demonstrations.
Digitale Lehr- und Lernmittel haben sich bei der Sprachvermittlung schon vor Beginn der Corona-Krise bewährt, doch in der universitären Lehre der Mongolistik in Deutschland und Europa kommen sie erst seit relativ kurzer Zeit zum Einsatz. Dies liegt v.a. daran, dass die Erarbeitung geeigneter interaktiver Materialien sehr zeitaufwändig und von einem so kleinen Fach ohne zusätzliche Ressourcen kaum zu leisten ist. Deshalb ergriff die Erstautorin dieses Beitrags jede sich bietende Gelegenheit, immer wieder Gelder zu beantragen, damit wir eine Erarbeitung von E-Learning- Elementen für Mongolischkurse mit studentischen Hilfskräften realisieren konnten. Jedoch konnten solche Anträge erstmals geraume Zeit nach Beginn der COVID-induzierten Online-Lehre, jeweils nur kurzfristig und ohne prospektive Planbarkeit gestellt werden.2 Folglich nutzten wir selbst minimale Zeiträume stets intensiv, um möglichst viele geeignete Segmente unserer Mongolischkurse zu digitalisieren. Hierdurch soll die synchrone Live-Lehre (ob in Präsenz oder im virtuellen Klassenzimmer) nicht ersetzt, sondern im Sinne integrierten Lernens (Blended Learning) durch elektronisch verfügbare Elemente ergänzt werden. Ziel ist es, unseren Studierenden vielfältiges Übungsmaterial für mediengestütztes Selbstlernen mit interaktiven Elementen bereitzustellen, welche die Sprachkurse bereichern, Anregungen zum Austausch und Inspirationen zum forschenden Weiterlernen bieten.
Nutag councils (nutgiin zövlöl) are dynamic multi-local networks that connect rural and urban spheres within and beyond Mongolia’s borders. Initially established after socialism as an answer to the sudden disintegration of the countryside, they have become the most widespread yet – for outsiders – least visible features of the civil society landscape. Nutag councils (NCs) are self-governed by people who feel committed to support their rural homeland after they had migrated from the countryside to province centers, cities or abroad. They operate independent of foreign aid and their manifold activities provide, like a prism, key insights into distinctive structures of relevance, knowledge cultures and (socio-) logics of practice which are characteristic for modern Mongolia. Today, more than half of the country’s population resides in cities, and a large number of citizens is living abroad. When Mongolia’s countryside (khödöö) is considered a reservoir of cultural authenticity, it is often overlooked that prevailing notions of intactness include aspects of modern life that originated in socialism. This applies in particular to centers of rural districts (sum), which are primary foci of nutag council activities. During the socialist era, sum had become congruent with economic units, each with either a herder collective (negdel) or – to a lesser extent 1 The first word is the genitive of nutag, often translated as ‘homeland’ or ‘Heimat’. Considering that conceptions and semantic fields only overlap partly (for discussions and comparative analyses see Stolpe 2014, 2015, 2019, 2020), we prefer the native term. For readability, Mongolian words, names and toponyms appear in a common pragmatic transcription. 2 Currently, Mongolia’s 21 provinces (aimag) are divided into 331 districts (sum) and 1,575 subdistricts (bag). – a state agricultural farm (sangiin aj akhui). They provided income, created prosperity and facilitated the development of a modern infrastructure. Each sum got its center with social institutions such as a school with dormitory, a hospital, a veterinary post, a cultural center, a library, a post office with communication facilities, a kindergarten, an electricity station, a shop, a bank, a repair station and an administration. Even though herder collectives and state farms mostly disintegrated with privatization, Mongolia’s rural economy is still primarily administered through sum centers. The rural districts remain not only important for governing the country but also as focal points of collective territorial, socio-cultural and – last but not least – deeply felt emotional identification. Sum are, more often than provinces, local reference points for nutag councils and, in a way, act as centripetal forces to keep in contact after out-migration.
This chapter explores dynamic intersections between spatial, social and mental mobility in post-socialist Mongolia and their potentials for future projections. Nutag councils (nutgijn zövlöl) are multilocal networks that connect rural and urban spheres within and beyond Mongolia’s borders. As units of analysis, they provide insights into the polyphonous diversity and heterogeneity of social realities and interconnectedness on many levels of the society. On the basis of findings of a research project on nutag councils that started with a pilot phase in 2010, we consider them to be phenomenally multifunctional examples of enabling resilience cultures under conditions of uncertainty. Initially established after socialism as an answer to the sudden collapse of the disintegration of the public infrastructure, nutag councils have become the most widespread yet – for outsiders – the least visible features of the civil society landscape. Through the prism of nutag councils, less obvious hubs and interactive manifestations of rural-urban relations become perceptible in their empirical multiplicity. They operate independent of foreign aid and mitigate negative consequences of the neglect of rural infrastructure by establishing direct lines of redistribution. Their manifold activities provide key insights into distinctive structures of relevance, knowledge cultures and (socio-)logics of practice which are characteristic of modern Mongolia. So far, relatively little attention has been paid to these distinct phenomena, which can hardly be underestimated for their ability to provide a deep understanding of Mongolians’ socio-cultural relations in the ‘global village’. Our exploration starts with epistemological questions on notions of rural and urban as well as post-socialist networks from interdisciplinary comparative perspectives. For our research and to introduce our findings, we adopted grounded theory-approaches in order to unfold concepts from the empirical data we collected. The portrayals are based on fieldwork which comprises multi-sited ethnography with participant observation; interviews with urban and rural members of nutag councils (scientists, herders, local administrators, teachers, directors of schools, museums, libraries and cultural centres, businesspeople, monks, border guards, nurses, physicians, veterinarians, shop owners, artists, janitors, horse trainers, pensioners); questionnaire-based surveys among rural and urban Mongolians; informal conversations; specialized literature; documentaries; a large body of written materials published by nutag councils in books, brochures, journals and a wide range of digital formats; associograms and mental mapping; reviews of literature and statistics; and media analysis. Our study begins with a discussion of some core aspects of the relational Mongolian key term nutag in the light of interdisciplinary theoretical approaches ranging from semantics, the ethnolinguistic and political history of concepts, comparative literary studies to cultural anthropology and sociology, diaspora studies and theories of knowledge. We included findings from field studies to widen the focus towards contemporary emic accounts, some of which have not been sufficiently researched thus far, and we take some studies published in Mongolian as a starting point for discussing manifestations of extreme nutag-patriotism, multi-nutag identities in time and space, as well as nation branding, which are all parts of post-socialist representation strategies. In the second part, we explore the scope of nutag councils from comparative perspectives on rural-urban relations and against the backdrop of resiliency discourses. The third part is devoted to case studies with a particular focus on Bulgan ajmag, Sajchan sum. Finally, our epilogue provides brief insights into performances of some nutag councils at the beginning of the COVID-19-crisis. Our overarching objective is to present unique aspects of nutgijn zövlöl as horizons of futures in post-socialist Mongolia through interdisciplinary lenses in order to open up new vistas.
ANNOTATION The purpose of the research is to assess and determine vitality and endangerment of Mongolian dialects according to the nine factors of Language Vitality and Endangerment (LVE) proposed by UNESCO in 2003. Our research on Mongolian dialects was based on framework of language preservation policies, sociological theory, and Language Vitality and Endangerment/Language Vitality Assessment (UNESCO 2003) criteria. We employed a variety of research methods, including sociological survey, data collection and analyses, investigative and statistical methods, comparing and contrasting logical methods, correlation method, analytic and synthetic methods, as well as inductive and deductive reasoning. Our key concept “Language Vitality and Endangerment” is defined as language’s ability to overcome challenges and threats to survival. When a language is incapable of maintaining itself and faces possible extinction, it becomes endangered. Several criteria for how to measure LVE are used in the world today but in this study we gave preference to UNESCO’s (2003) nine factors to determine the LVE of four Mongolian dialects. As a result of the survey, we observed that most of the dialects belong to the classifications: definitely endangered, seriously endangered, and the children don’t use them in their speech. Also, most of Mongolian dialects are used in daily and informal communication practices between friends, relatives and social network. This lack of formal institutionalization makes the dialects of ethnic minorities within the Mongolian nation even more precarious and in need of preservation and study. Saving, documenting and developing the languages and cultures of ethnic minorities, is a contribution not only to a deeper understanding of culture in Asia but also to the development of the world cultures.
