The Problem Questions of Contemporary Musicological Terminology
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The article is devoted to examination of contemporary approaches, aspects of study, and paths of development
of the terminology of music scholarship comprising the foundation of the conceptual construct of scholarship
which have direct connection with the problem of methodology of musicological research. Noting the remarkable
wealth and omnitude of concepts and incorporating not only musicological but literary and philosophical material,
the author presumes that in comparison with the exact and natural sciences the creative element in humanitarian
sciences is conducive to a freer usage of terms. Relying on the music theory works of Mark Aranovsky, Vyacheslav
Medushevsky, Evgeny Nazaykinsky and Tatiana Tcherednichenko, all of them specialists in the study of terminology in
a methodological context, the article touches upon the following questions: what kinds of terms must be used, in what
way new terms may be introduced into the scholarly context, whether it is possible to come out of a “terminological
collapse,” etc. Stemming from specific musicological writings of Boris Asafiev and Boleslav Yavorsky the consistent
pattern of the evolution of a set of categorical concepts in the academic work of scholars is brought out. The research
work of Tcherednichenko is evaluated as the first attempt at a textual analysis of the fundamental study of Asafiev. Along
with this, the article emphasizes the peculiar polyonymous quality of both the discipline itself (namely, musicology),
and one of its branches (namely, ethnomusicology). From analysis of these names the conclusion is arrived at about
the distinction of the paths of their emergence and development: the synchronous and the diachronic. With the aim in
mind of defining the genuine creators of musicological concepts, including the contemporary ones, the author of the
article proposes gathering together all the available information about terminology into one electronic directory of an
encyclopedic kind, inviting musicologists and researchers of various different directions to join this work.
Keywords: the conceptual construct of scholarship, terminology, methodology of music scholarship, musicology,
ethnomusicology.
Article Details
Copyright
The rights on the results of intellectual activity and equated means of individualization are protected in accordance with Part IV of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. The authorship, author's name, executor’s name, inviolability of the work and result of execution are protected by the rules of Part IV of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation of the author or executor, regardless of providing legal protection of such results of intellectual activity at the time of their forming.
Copyright laws regulate the civil legal relations for using works of science, literature and art. Such relationships are formed as the result of the author’s writing his or her texts. In this case the author can rightfully claim copyright of the work.
The author has certain rights to reuse the work (see: “Ethical Aspects in Terms of Multifold Publications).
Licenses
All copyrights on the articles belong to their authors. The author transfers the rights on using the article the publisher.
PDF versions of scholarly articles of the journal PMN are published by using the license Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives cc by-nc-nd, allowing loading and distributing works on the assumption of indicating the authorship. The works may not be changed in any way or used for commercial interests.
Criteria for Authorship, Co-authorship
The term “author” refers to all persons (co-authors) who have made a substantial contribution to conducting the research and creation of the manuscript and responsible for its content. The person (author) who has submitted the manuscript to the editorial board shall bear responsibility for the complete list of the group of authors and the changes made to the manuscript in accordance with the results of the peer reviewing and editing.
1. Authorship is based on the following criteria:
1) The author made a substantial contribution to the research activity and development of concept, collected the data, made analysis and interpretation of the data.
2) The author carried out the writing of the text of draft articles and edited it attentively and substantially.
3) The author approved the final version of the article prior to its submission.
4) The author bears responsibility for the integrity of all parts of the manuscript.
2. The authors shall guarantee that the submitted manuscript is the original work.
3. Scholarly reviews for some issue or other should be objective, present material in a wide range and at the same time take into account the views of the author of the review.
4. The authorship of scholarly publications is obligated to reflect accurately the contribution of individuals to the research activity, with specific information about the authors.
5. The authors may not mislead the readers by publishing acknowledgements of gratitude to people who were not actually involved in writing the work. Other persons who made contribution to the work, but are nevertheless not the authors, may be listed in the rubric of “Acknowledgements,” with indications of the type and extent of their activities.
6. Authors are obligated to provide a description of their contribution to the publication.
7. The order of authorship must be a joint resolution of co-authors. The authors should be ready to explain the order of their enumeration and listing.
8. The authors shall be entirely responsible for the correct definition of authorship acting in accordance with the rules adopted in their institution.
9. Investigators must ensure that only those persons who meet the criteria for authorship (that made a significant contribution to the work), shall be considered the authors, and the researchers who do not merit authorship will be excluded from the list of authors.
References
2. Askin Yakov Fomich. Tvorcheskiy portret filosofa [Askin Yakov Fomich. A Creative Portrait of the Philosopher]. Edited by R. D. Klochkovskaya, O. I. Kulapina, G. N. Petrova. Saratov: Publishing House of the Saratov State University, 2002. 92 p.
3. Gvishiani N. B. Yazyk nauchnogo obshcheniya: voprosy metodologii [The Language of Scholarly Communication: Questions of Methodology]. 2nd Edition, Revised. Moscow: LKI, 2008. 280 p.
4. Kulapina O. I. Traktovka kategorii stilya v epistolyarnom nasledii B. L. Yavorskogo (iz perepiski s S. V. Protopopovym) [The Interpretation of Style in the Epistolary Legacy of Boleslav Yavorsky (from his Correspondence with Sergei Protopopoff)]. Problemy muzykal’noj nauki [Music Scholarship]. 2014. No. 4 (17), pp. 31–34.
5. Massina S. A. Spetsifika muzykovedcheskoy terminologii [The Specificity of Musicological Terminology]. Lingvisticheskie i sotsiokulturnye aspekty prepodavaniya inostrannogo yazyka [The Linguistic and Socio-Cultural Aspects of Teaching a Foreign Language]. Saratov, 2014, pp. 53–57.
6. Medushevsky V. V. Klyuchevye ponyatiya i predstavleniya [The Key Concepts and Perceptions]. Master-klass (15.11.2014) [Master Class]. URL: youtube.com/watch?v=hViBUMNJnIE.
7. Medushevsky V. V. Migratsii terminov i sistemnost’ nauki [Migration of Terms and the Systematic Nature of Scholarship]. URL: bookish.link/osnovyi-psihologii/medushevskiy-migratsii-terminov-sistemnost 24124.html.
8. Nazaykinsky E. V. Iskusstvo i nauka v deyatel’nosti muzykoveda [Art and Scholarship in the Activities of the Musicologist]. Muzykal’noe iskusstvo i nauka [Musical Art and Scholarship]. Issue 2. Moscow, 1973, pp. 3–16.
9. Nazaykinsky E. V. Terminy, ponyatiya, metafory… [Terms, Concepts, Metaphors ...]. Sovetskaya muzyka [Soviet Music]. 1984. No. 10, pp. 70–81.
10. Ryzhkova N. A. Teoriya muzykal’nogo teksta M. G. Aranovskogo i perspektivy strukturno-semioticheskogo metoda [The Theory of the Musical Text of M. G. Aranovsky and the Prospects of the Structural-Semiotic Method]. Muzykovedcheskiy forum “Pamyati M. G. Aranovskogo”: tezisy dokladov (noyabr’ 2010) [The Musicological Forum “In memory of M. G. Aranovsky”: Abstracts (November 2010)]. URL: gnesinacademy.ru/userphoto/FileMuzForum2k10/Abstracts.pdf.
11. Kholopova V. N. Fenomen muzyki [The Phenomenon of Music]. Moscow; Berlin: Direkt-Media, 2014. 384 p.
12. Cherednichenko T. V. Terminologicheskaya sistema B. V. Asafieva (Na primere issledovaniya “Muzykal’naya forma kak protsess”) [The Terminological System of B. V. Asafiev (On the Example of the Book “Musical Form as a Process”)]. Muzykal’noe iskusstvo i nauka: sb. st. [The Art of Music and Scholarship: A Collection of Articles]. Issue 3. Edited by E. V. Nazaykinsky. Moscow, 1978, pp. 215–229.
13. Shul’gin D. I. Slovar’ muzykovedcheskikh terminov i ponyatiy (pervoe avtorskoe media-izdanie) [A Dictionary of Musicological Terms and Concepts (the Author’s First Media Publication)]. 1st Edition. Moscow: Direkt-Media, 2013; 2st edition. Moscow: Direkt-Media, 2014. URL: ru.wikipedia.org/.../.
14. Gaudin F. Socioterminologie: une approche sociolinguistique de la terminologie [Socioterminology: a Sociolinguistic Approach to Terminology]. Publ. avec le concours de la Communauté française de Belgique, Service de la langue française. 1. ed. Bruxelles: Duculot, 2003. 286 p.
15. Temmerman R. Towards New Ways of Terminology Description. The sociocognitive approach. Terminology and Lexicography Research and Practice. 2000. No. 3. 276 p.