TERMINOLOGICAL DIMENSION OF CULTURAL CAPITAL: FACETS OF INTERACTION

The issues of terminological measurement of cultural capital as an interdisciplinary phenomenon and aspects of such interaction are explored. The purpose of the study is to concretize the concept of cultural capital in the context of the terminological representation of this phenomenon, to identify the reasons for the diversity of definitions of the latter and ways to systematize approaches through theories of terminology; the influence of terminological activity on the growth (development) of cultural capital and its conversion into other types of capital (economic, social, symbolic, etc.). The authors indicate the structure of terminological activity, focusing on the specifics of the cultural factor for its implementation. It is demonstrated that identifying the cultural factor without taking into account the structure of terminological work is practically impossible, as well as the fact that culture manifests itself in this influence as a format such as capital. Terminology builds the following structure of its functioning by levels: linguistic, semantic, cognitive, communicative, sociocultural, etc. If a term is not represented at all designated basic levels, then it will not be fully used, and the cultural capital of its use will not be effective enough. It is proposed to systematize the variety of definitions of cultural capital through three directions: unification (standardization), pluralization (individualization), application as a separate case, which cannot be fit into the previous two directions. For each of the directions, the use of terminological theories is proposed: for unification - the general theory of terminology, for pluralization - the communicative theory of terminology, for a separate case - frame theory. The importance of the terminological dimension of cultural capital is so relevant that the authors propose to use the concept of "terminological capital", on the one hand, as a component of cultural capital, on the other hand, as a way of growing cultural capital and a mechanism for converting it into other types of capital and vice versa. Using the example of the complex structure of terminological activity, the authors demonstrate that its use and implementation leads to the "doubling" of cultural worlds. If such growth of cultural worlds does not occur as a result of terminological activity, then such terminology is considered ineffective. Then it is not applied in principle, or waits for the moment when all other components of the latter are formed within the framework of the chosen culture and become terminological capital.