Lietuvių kalbos aiškinamųjų žodynų raida, savitumas ir tarpusavio sąsajos

VILIJA SAKALAUSKIENĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language ORCID i d: orcid.org/0000-0002-0487-7710 Research areas: ethnolinguistics, lexicography, lexicology. DOI: doi.org/10.35321/all89-12 THE DEVELOPMENT, DISTINCTIVE FEATURES, AND INTERRELATIONSHIPS OF LITHUANIAN EXPLANATORY DICTIONARIES The Development, Uniqueness of Lithuanian Explanatory Dictionaries ABSTRACT The article reviews the development of dictionaries of contemporary and standard Lithuanian from the late nineteenth century to the first decades of the twenty-first century, drawing on the most important dictionaries of the period and specific examples from those dictionaries. One of the most distinctive lexicographical works of the nineteenth century is the Lithuanian–Polish dictionary by the prominent Lithuanian lexicographer and collector of folklore Antanas Juška. The importance and significance of this dictionary were also recognized by Jonas Jablonskis, who took his first steps in lexicographical work while editing A. Juška’s dictionary. Work on the dictionary encouraged the linguist to collect material for studying standard Lithuanian, record the data on cards, and accumulate it in a separate card index. J. Jablonskis’s expectations of preparing a dictionary of standard Lithuanian were partly realized by Lithuanian Language Dictionary, which seems to combine three different dictionaries: of dialectal, old written-language, and contemporary standard language. The abundant and varied material of this dictionary made it possible to prepare the Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian (1954) and many subsequent editions. Each published dictionary provided one kind of impetus or another to think about a new, improved dictionary or another edition of it. In terms of both lexical composition and the structure and methodology of compiling the dictionary itself, the electronic Dictionary of Standard Lithuanian currently being prepared is entirely different. The article examines the principal problems encountered by compilers of Lithuanian explanatory dictionaries. Straipsniai / Articles 259 VILIIJA SAKALAUSKIENĖ KEYWORDS: lexicography, explanatory dictionaries, Antanas Juška, Jonas Jablonskis, Lithuanian Language Dictionary, Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian, Dictionary of Standard Lithuanian. ANNOTATION This article aims to show the evolution of the dictionaries of the modern and standard Lithuanian language from the end of the 19th century to the 21st century, based on the most important dictionaries of the period and specific examples of these dictionaries. One of the most outstanding lexicographical works of the 19th century is the Lithuanian–Russian–Polish dictionary by the famous Lithuanian lexicographer and folklore collector Antanas Juška. The importance and significance of this dictionary were also recognised by Jonas Jablonskis, who took the first steps in lexicographical work by editing the dictionary of A. Juška. His work on the dictionary prompted the linguist to collect materials for research on the Lithuanian written language, to record the data on cards and to keep them in a separate card file. Jablonskis’ wish to compile a dictionary of the standard Lithuanian language was partly fulfilled by the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, which combines three different dictionaries: the dialectal, the old written and the modern standard Language. The rich and varied material in this dictionary made it possible to compile the Dictionary of the Modern Lithuanian Language (1954) and many other editions. Each of the dictionaries has given rise to one or another impulse to think about a new and improved dictionary or another edition. The current Dictionary of the Standard Lithuanian Language is quite different in terms of its lexical composition, structure and methodology. The article reveals the most important problems that the compilers of explanatory dictionaries may face. KEYWORDS: lexicography, explanatory dictionaries, Antanas Juška, Jonas Jablonskis, The Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, The Dictionary of the Modern Lithuanian Language, The Dictionary of the Standard Lithuanian Language. INTRODUCTION According to Jonas Kruopas, after the era of Konstantinas Sirvydas’s dictionary, Lithuanian lexicographic work came to a virtual standstill in Lithuania for almost two centuries (Kruopas 1998: 423). It was only in the 19th century, when social, cultural, and literary development began, that many Lithuanian intellectuals, realizing that Lithuanian standard¹ ¹ Older terms for the standard language are – literary and written language. This article uses one term for all periods – standard language, but when discussing the process, it uses the term language standardization. 260 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX Lietuvių kalbos aiškinamųjų žodynų raida, savitumas ir tarpusavio sąsajos language could be developed not only by grammars but also by dictionaries, many of them beginning to collect words and write dictionaries (often alongside a grammar), mostly bilingual or trilingual, intended for practical study of Lithuanian (Palionis 1995: 191). Unfortunately, most of the dictionaries compiled remained in manuscript. These include those of Dionizas Poška, Simonas Daukantas, Dominikas Sutkevičius, Laurynas Ivinskis, Andrius Ugenskis, Mikalojus Akelaitis, and others. The fate of the manuscripts of many of these authors’ dictionaries is unknown (Sawaniewska-Mochowa 2014: 123; Balašaitis 2018: 93). The aim of this study is to review the development of explanatory dictionaries of contemporary and standard Lithuanian from the end of the nineteenth century to the first decades of the twenty-first century, drawing on the most important dictionaries of the period and specific examples from those dictionaries. To achieve this aim, the following tasks are set: 1) to reveal the origins of explanatory dictionaries; 2) to demonstrate the aspiration toward language standardization in nineteenth-century explanatory dictionaries; 3) using specific dictionary examples, to illustratively reveal changes and innovations in the macrostructure of dictionaries of contemporary and standard Lithuanian. The study applies descriptive and comparative methods, on the basis of which the development of Lithuanian explanatory dictionaries is demonstrated, the relationship between the material of the dictionaries analyzed is revealed, and the dictionaries’ specificity, distinctiveness, and interrelationships are highlighted. The empirical basis of the study consists of Antanas Juška’s Lithuanian–Polish dictionary², the card index of J. Jablonskis’s material for the Lithuanian Language Dictionary, the data of the Lithuanian Language Dictionary (LKŽ), various editions of the Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian (DLKŽ³), and the electronic Dictionary of Standard Lithuanian (BLKŽ). 1. ANTANAS JUŠKA’S LITHUANIAN–POLISH DICTIONARY One of the most distinctive lexicographical works of the nineteenth century is the Lithuanian–Polish dictionary of the prominent Lithuanian lexicographer and collector of folklore A. Juška. Its author sought to present vocabulary that had nowhere been published or recorded. Material for the dictionary began to be collected in 1850 (Sawaniewska-Mochowa 2002: 42), and the dictionary text began to be written around 1860. In total, three ² Lithuanian Dictionary by A. Juškevičius with explanations of the words in Russian and Polish, issue two, Saint Petersburg, 1904, I–LIX. ³ The abbreviation without an index is used generally when referring to the Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian. Straipsniai / Articles 261 V I L I J A S A K A L A U S K I E N Ė The parts of A. Juška’s Lithuanian–Polish dictionary⁴ (for more on the editing of the dictionary and its editors, see Sakalauskienė 2012: 257–267; Balašaitis 2018: 154–161). The first editor of this dictionary, Filip Fortunatov, emphasized that A. Juška’s Lithuanian–Polish dictionary is a collection of the vocabulary of the living⁵ language and of sentences illustrating and explaining its usage (Sakalauskienė 2012: 256), several parts of which were printed several decades after the dictionary had been written. Interested in the life and culture of peasants, the author primarily dedicated his work to the Lithuanian intelligentsia⁶. In the dictionary, A. Juška recorded numerous linguistic facts related to everyday household life, providing ethnographic and folkloric information. The use of the folk spoken language in the dictionary, and its abundant material, were of enormous importance both for general research into Lithuanian and for practical language work—for creating and developing a standard language for the entire nation. As a lexicographer who understood the importance of living language, folklore, and ethnography for the development of national culture, A. Juška spent several decades with inexhaustible energy recording Lithuanian words and expressions, collecting songs, and observing and describing customs. A. Juška valued the Lithuanian folk language not only as a source of philological facts; he also paid attention to people’s psychology and manner of expressing thoughts, seeking in the language reflections of ordinary people’s lives, traditions, and historical experience. By recording more than 30,000 words from spoken language for his dictionary, A. Juška took Lithuanian lexicography in a new direction—from extracting material from old and recent written texts toward spoken language as the principal and inexhaustible source (Tolutienė 1961: 89). Thus, A. Juška’s Lithuanian–Polish dictionary is an important lexicographical source, a new-type explanatory dictionary of spoken language. According to A. Balašaitis, the Lithuanian part of the dictionary consists not only of illustrations of word usage but often also of explanations of word meanings, which are usually not the dictionary author’s own but were recorded from people’s speech (Balašaitis 2018: 158). The dictionary manuscripts and their individual editions reveal an intricate and complex path, highly interesting and valuable for studying the formation and development ⁴ The first part of Volume I, covering the letters A–D, 1897 (edited by F. Fortunatov); the second part of Volume I, covering the letters E–G, 1904 (edited by J. Jablonskis); the first part of Volume II, covering part of the letter K up to the word kuukštuotės, 1922 (edited by K. Būga). Other editors of the dictionary were Jonas Baudouin de Courtenay, Jurgis Šlapelis, and Grigorij Ulyanov. Viešlavas Jag多čius, F. Fortunatov, and Aleksei Shakhmatov took care of its printing (Sakalauskienė 2012: 257). ⁵ The terms living, folk, and spoken language are used synonymously in the article. ⁶ A. Juška’s dictionary was new to the society of the time. At that time, Lithuanian intellectuals had studied mainly in Polish schools, so Polish prevailed alongside their native Lithuanian. It is entirely understandable why A. Juška chose a Polish translation for the Lithuanian dictionary. It was needed less by Polish society than by Lithuanians themselves (Sakalauskienė 2012: 256). When editing the dictionary, Jonas Juška added a Russian translation (see Sakalauskienė 2012: 257–258 for more details). 262 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX Lietuvių kalbos aiškinamųjų žodynų raida, savitumas ir tarpusavio sąsajos development (Sakalauskienė 2012: 264). Many of the rarer words provided in A. Juška’s dictionary, for example, gėris ‘drink, beverage’, gernõra ‘well-wisher, a person of good intentions’, can still be found today in various editions of the Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian. According to LKŽe data, the verb jovalúoti, given in A. Juška’s dictionary in the meaning ‘to prepare slop, swill for pigs’, is used in the meaning ‘to turn over, muddle, make a mess’ by Western Aukštaitian Kaunas speakers (in Veliuona and Žvirgždaičiai) and Southern Aukštaitian speakers (in Liškiava). In various editions of the Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian, the definitions of this verb demonstrate an expansion of meaning and contemporary usage (see Table 1). TABLE 1. Some words from A. Juška’s dictionary in editions of the Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian Straipsniai / Articles 263 VIL IJA SAKALAUSKIENĖ The dialectal verb jó dytis recorded in A. Juška’s dictionary was also included in the Dictionary of Standard Lithuanian: jódytis 4. refl. colloq. ‘to romp, make a racket’: Vaikai, nesijódykit! 2. JONAS JABLONSKIS IR ANTANO JUŠKOS ŽODYNAS J. Jablonskis also recognized the importance and significance of A. Juška’s dictionary; he took his first steps in lexicographical work while editing this dictionary. J. Jablonskis, having checked Lithuanian words in spoken language7, also had an opportunity to verify their semantics. The editor was dissatisfied with the Russian8 translation of the Lithuanian words. Therefore, he corrected the Russian translation according to meanings used in the dialects rather than according to those indicated in A. Juška’s manuscripts. J. Jablonskis first brought forward the more widely known, principal meaning of a word, and then those meanings that were important for understanding the illustrative material of the entry. According to J. Jablonskis, before entering an expression recorded from people’s lips into his dictionary, Juška quite often polished it and made it fuller, striving to present a more literary and correct form; by doing so, however, he eliminated the features characteristic of those phrases (Piročkinas 1991: 116). The process of language standardization in the dictionary is significant for the history of standard Lithuanian. Since J. Jablonskis could not determine from which dialect A. Juška had recorded a given word or sentence, he did not venture to restore dialectal features and standardized the dictionary material, continuing the author’s begun standardization of the language. Like the author, he chose the Western Aukštaitian dialect as the principal dialect, because he had always been convinced that a dictionary of standard Lithuanian written in a language understandable to everyone was needed. 7 As editor, J. Jablonskis was given the opportunity to check words in Lithuanian dialects. During the summer holidays, the editor would travel to study Lithuanian dialects (Čepaitienė, Lapinskienė 2010: 83). Having spent the entire first summer in Lithuania, J. Jablonskis checked the manuscripts for the letters E, G, I, J, K, and L in Veliuona, Vilkija, Jurbarkas, Kaltinėnai, and Alsėdžiai (see Totulienė 1961: 237–238; Sakalauskienė 2021: 36–37 for more details). 8 The idea of providing Russian equivalents is partly attributable to J. Baudouin de Courtenay. In the final decades of the nineteenth century, Russian culture gained ground in Lithuania. Thus, by the years when the dictionary was printed, the Polish translation was less relevant. J. Juška translated into Russian even those illustrative sentences whose comprehension was aided sufficiently by the translation provided at the beginning of the entry. “By bringing the translation of the headword closer to that of the illustrative sentence, J. Juška sometimes narrowed its meaning so much that he distorted the sense of the headword” (Tolutienė 1961: 222). 264 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX Lietuvių kalbos aiškinamųjų žodynų raida, savitumas ir tarpusavio sąsajos Thus, while editing A. Juška’s dictionary, J. Jablonskis was already thinking about another dictionary, which had to be prepared alongside the one he was editing. Therefore, he not only checked and supplemented the material of A. Juška’s dictionary but also collected words and compiled a card index for a new Lithuanian dictionary. Several examples from J. Jablonskis’s card index material for the Lithuanian Language Dictionary (JJk) follow: Arklɪus į grutiùs⁹ put into pairs (JJk, Als), cf. Ašvienius sudėk į grūtes (JŽ 482), Ašvienius sudėk į grūtes (LKŽe, J); Arklėi grūžin¹⁰ peivą (JJk, Als), cf. Arkliai grūžina pievą (LKŽe, Als); Šóną pragilą¹¹ begulint, pragilɪst rónkas barašónt (JJk, Als), cf. Šonai pragilo begulint (LKŽe, Vkš); Su gōndras išsikėlė, su varnomɪs nukrita (JJk, Als), cf. Su gandrais išsikėlė, su varnomis nukrito (said of those who very much want to rise, but do not succeed) (LKŽe, Als); Linai galvóti (JJk, Puš), cf. Galvoti¹² linai, galvoti kopūstai (DLKŽe⁸); Kas sūgarga, tas vadinas gargāžem (JJk, Puš), cf. Kas sūgarga¹³, tas vadinas gargāžem (LKŽe, Puš); Starkus garglinėja (po bala) (JJk, Skap¹⁴), cf. Starkus garglinėja [po bala] (LKŽe, Skp). Editing A. Juška’s dictionary was an effective incentive not only for J. Jablonskis but also for Kazimieras Būga¹⁵ to prepare a Lithuanian dictionary in the future. This is shown by the later work carried out by the editors of this dictionary (J. Jablonskis and K. Būga). 3. CARD INDEX MATERIAL FOR THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE DICTIONARY Work on A. Juška’s dictionary encouraged J. Jablonskis to collect material for studying the Lithuanian written language and to record the data on slips and accumulate it in a card index, which contained more than 14.5 thousand cards, while even more words and sentences illustrating them had been recorded. ⁹ ‘into pairs’; ¹⁰ ‘briefly gnawed away the grass’; ¹¹ ‘scraped out’; ¹² ‘with many heads or large heads, big-headed’; ¹³ ‘hardens, contracts’. ¹⁴ The examples from J. Jablonskis’s card index are accompanied by the abbreviations for localities used by Jablonskis; the LKŽe examples by those used in the dictionary. ¹⁵ K. Būga was one of the editors of A. Juška’s dictionary. Straipsniai / Articles 265 VILIJA SAKALAUSKIENĖ illustrating them had been recorded. The card index contains quite a large number of sentences marked with the abbreviation J. Ž.16, for example: Ans nugurgiojo17 the rope away (J. Ž.) (see JĮk nugurgioti); Nudabyk18 me, for my fingers have become rough (J. Ž.) (see JĮk dab yti); Pabaigs mus ponai neįvoti19 (J. Ž.) (see JĮk neįvoti); Jinai nerštės20 on him for a stolen sheep (J. Ž.) (see JĮk nerštis). When discussing the dialectal material of A. Juška’s dictionary, it was observed that the correspondence between this dictionary and the examples in J. Jablonskis’s card index shows that the editor positively evaluated the material collected by A. Juška and used it himself (see Sakalauskienė 2012: 269 for more details). J. Jablonskis did not copy A. Juška’s sentences word for word; instead, he presented selected illustrations according to the orthographic principles of the time, shortened the sentences, and did not copy the corresponding versions in Russian or Polish, although in the card index he sometimes explained the meaning of individual words in a non-Lithuanian language as well. Editing A. Juška’s dictionary was one of the most important factors in beginning to accumulate a card index for another Lithuanian dictionary. J. Jablonskis’s recorded slips show that his card index began to be accumulated at the end of the nineteenth century, after he visited Veliuona in 1897. The card index contains not only data from the living language but also words from published dictionaries21, various writings, and belles-lettres22. J. Jablonskis had always been convinced that a dictionary of standard Lithuanian was needed. In 1918, in Voronezh, after the Gardinas period (1912–1914), he published a small Our Little Dictionary, which included only a small portion of the words he had collected in his card index. The dictionary (61 pages long) contained more than 1,500 words of the standard language of the period, with Lithuanian 16 J. Jablonskis used this abbreviation to mark words and sentences copied from A. Juška’s dictionary. 17 ‘drove away’;’ 18 ‘strip off’;’ 19 ‘destroy’;’ 20 ‘was angry’. 21 Having highly evaluated Frydrichas Kuršaitis’s dictionary and grammar, J. Jablonskis included a considerable amount of material in the card index. In the afterword to the second part of Volume I of A. Juška’s dictionary, when discussing the language of the dictionary he was editing, J. Jablonskis very often relied on Fr. Kuršaitis’s dictionary and compared its material with other dialects of Lithuanian. J. Jablonskis’s card index contains numerous sentences and words marked with Fr. Kuršaitis’s surname. Examples from K. Sirvydas’s dictionary also occur on the card-index slips. His trilingual (Polish–Latin–Lithuanian) dictionary, Dictionarium trium linguarum, which received as many as five editions (I—around 1620, II—1631, III—1642, IV—1677, and V—1713), was for several centuries one of the principal sources of the Lithuanian written language (Palionis 1995: 18). 22 The source references show that the compiler included words from the literary works of Simonas Stanevičius, S. Daukantas, Žemaitė, Petras Avižonis, Antanas Baranauskas, and others in the card index. 266 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX Lietuvių kalbos aiškinamųjų žodynų raida, savitumas ir tarpusavio sąsajos with explanations of meanings and translations into Russian. All words were marked for stress. The purpose of the little dictionary was purely practical—to help pupils read and understand Lithuanian textbooks. Therefore, it consisted primarily of dialect words and neologisms that the linguist recommended for use in the standard language. Our Little Dictionary is important not only as a source of new terms but also, more generally, as the first normative dictionary of the standard language. The little dictionary could have grown into a dictionary of standard Lithuanian. Thus, another assumption is possible: J. Jablonskis, possessing a huge card index and experience in lexicographical work, could have written such a dictionary. Especially since his contemporaries’ memoirs repeatedly mention his desire to write a dictionary himself. 4. LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE DICTIONARY J. Jablonskis’s expectations of preparing an explanatory dictionary of Lithuanian were partly fulfilled by the Lithuanian Language Dictionary, which seems to combine three different dictionaries: of dialects, old written texts, and contemporary standard language. Therefore, the special relationship between J. Jablonskis’s card index and the Lithuanian Language Dictionary, whose first compiler and editor was K. Būga, should be emphasized. The dictionary’s editorial office received several boxes of words from various collectors, from which copies were made (approximately 25–30 thousand cards). K. Būga copied about 10 thousand words from J. Jablonskis’s card index²³, which later entered the files of the great dictionary. In many cases, the words from J. Jablonskis’s card index seem to have disappeared into those files, because J. Jablonskis’s material is often not marked in the dictionary itself at all—only an abbreviation for the locality is given in such cases. That a word comes from J. Jablonskis’s card index can be seen only in the cards of the Lithuanian Language Dictionary. J. Jablonskis himself did not manage to write a Lithuanian dictionary, but through his work he contributed greatly to the preparatory work for such a dictionary. Regarding the first fascicle of the Lithuanian Language Dictionary prepared by K. Būga and published around 1924, he wrote that it was “a very extraordinary dictionary of its language, one such as neither the Latvians, nor the Poles, nor the Russians are currently publishing for the needs of society. The dictionary lists all the words that are still used in written texts and spoken language. However, the public, which had expected Professor K. Būga to produce only a dictionary of the written language, will now find in the dictionary a great deal of material suitable and necessary for studying the etymology, history, and dialects of our language” (JR 1935: 294–296). The dictionary text itself seemed unusual to the public because it was a scholarly dictionary. Therefore, J. Jablonskis regretted that “the dictionary in question is intended mainly for those people who already know the principal written language fairly well and can, 23 The editorial office of the Lithuanian Language Dictionary carefully reviewed J. Jablonskis’s writings (textbooks, book translations, and so on) and extracted at least another 14 thousand words for the dictionary (see Lyberis 2009: 69 for more details). Straipsniai / Articles 267 VILIIJA SAKALAUSKIENĖ orient themselves in it properly for their own purposes, with sound and unsound material for the science of language before them” (JR 1935: 296). Most importantly, K. Būga also began his lexicographical career by editing A. Juška’s dictionary (Volume II). Like J. Jablonskis, he wanted to turn the material of A. Juška’s dictionary into a perfect Lithuanian dictionary, but, convinced that such a dictionary lacked a great deal of material, he too began accumulating data for his future dictionary. In 1923 he began writing his own dictionary, in which he resolved to record everything then known in linguistic scholarship about each word (Sabaliauskas 1997: 3). Unfortunately, the work was interrupted. The second fascicle of K. Būga’s dictionary was published only after the author’s death. According to lexicographer Bronė Vosylė, “Būga’s dictionary began a new stage in the development of Lithuanian lexicography—the stage of publishing the great Lithuanian Language Dictionary” (Vosylytė 2002: 80). A new editorial office was established in 1930, headed by Juozas Balčikonis. The new editorial office immediately faced the challenge of deciding what kind of dictionary to prepare. The nature of the dictionary begun by K. Būga was changed. From 1936, a new type of dictionary began to be written: proper names were omitted, loanwords were included minimally, and it was decided to highlight word usage in lexicographical sources and the geographical distribution of words. According to the 1952 dictionary-writing instructions, sentences from sources illustrating meanings were to be arranged in a particular order: first those from Soviet classics, followed by literary classics, dialects, and folklore, and at the end of the entry examples from old written texts. The order in which meanings were presented was also changed. J. Balčikonis’s historical presentation of meanings was arranged according to frequency of use, and the presentation of verbs was also reorganized: each prefixed verb was listed separately from the basic verb, not in a single nest; beginning with Volume III (1956), which was edited by J. Balčikonis and reedited by the editorial board headed by Kazys Ulvydas, the nested arrangement of verbs was restored (see Vitkauskas 2001: 109–113 for more details). In the final dictionary volumes (XVI–XX), edited by Vytautas Vitkauskas, an effort was made to adhere to correct, inherited language; however, the instructions, although revised, did not allow the structure of the dictionary to be changed. For many, the Lithuanian Language Dictionary is one of the most important explanatory works on Lithuanian; its aim is to present as fully and comprehensively as possible the entire vocabulary of Lithuanian—all common Lithuanian words, the oldest and the newest, from spoken language and written texts, dialectal and standard language, native and borrowed words. The 1980 dictionary instructions state that the dictionary is the basis for a dictionary of contemporary Lithuanian (LKŽi 3). We will confirm the validity of this statement later by analyzing and comparing the material of the dictionaries mentioned. Research into theoretical problems of lexicology and lexicography influenced the structure of the dictionary and necessitated changes to the instructions for writing and editing it. The dictionary sought to cover the entire vocabulary of Lithuanian from the earliest times to the present 268 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX Lietuvių kalbos aiškinamųjų žodynų raida, savitumas ir tarpusavio sąsajos day, to identify and explain more meanings, seeking to reveal their development, indicate the origin, history, distribution, and derivational relationships of words, their stress patterns and grammatical forms, bring out new words and expressions, describe their usage and style, provide considerably more illustrative sentences from dialects and written texts, indicate sources precisely everywhere, and, as mentioned earlier, the geographical distribution of the word. The wish of the dictionary editor J. Balčikonis and all the lexicographers was, in the words of V. Vitkauskas, the editor-in-chief of the final volumes of the dictionary, “to make the dictionary comprehensive, as if describing the nation’s thinking and opinions on many questions of life. The aim was to highlight Lithuanians’ attitude toward the phenomena of the world, morality, communication, and matters of faith” (Vitkauskas 2001: 112). The dictionary is rich in proverbs, sayings, riddles, and phraseologisms. To many, it seems that when reading the dictionary, one is reading something like pictures of the lives of the people of Lithuania, documentation of the nation’s creativity, philosophizing, and wisdom. Today, this expectation of the dictionary’s creators and editors is embodied in the latest studies of the linguistic worldview, which emphasize the value of the dictionary as a cultural text. Lietuvių kalbos žodynas is an important source not only for research into the past, but also a text revealing the national, folk, and partly religious worldview (Rutkovska 2021: 187). The material for each word, sometimes occupying several or even a dozen pages, can be read as an entirely separate article: “By viewing dictionary entries as a specific discourse created in a particular way and reading them from different perspectives, we can find various data about features of the Lithuanian worldview and mentality” (Gritėnienė 2017: 2). The principal Lietuvių kalbos žodyno source has always been living language—the dialectal lexis of the Lithuanian language. The dictionary’s reviewers emphasized that dialect facts are especially valuable both to the science of language and to language practice (Urbutis 2010: 40). The importance and significance of the dictionary’s data for contemporary research is also demonstrated by several editions of its electronic version. On June 22, 2005, the first electronic edition of the Lietuvių kalbos žodyno (hereinafter LKŽe) was published online²⁴. In preparing the complete twenty-volume text, differences in spelling and punctuation were standardized; the dialectal and Old Lithuanian written-language lexical data in the first volumes, the presentation of changed realia, and abbreviations were reviewed and standardized; and the dictionary texts were edited, adapted, and refined. Volumes XV–XX were treated as models when editing this edition. Transposition and transliteration issues were corrected in entry headings, illustrative sentences, and word combinations; see Naktinienė 2005: 192–197 for more details. The first LKŽe edition was updated in 2008 and 2017, creating an increasing number of search possibilities: searches for words and individual entries were newly supplemented with 24 An online corpus of 11 million words is presented, arranged in dictionary entries containing more than half a million headwords and subheadwords lexicographically described using a card file of 4.5 million units (for more details, see Naktinienė 2005: 191–203; 2012: 92–102). Straipsniai / Articles 269 VILIJA SAKALAUSKIENĖ additional phraseological variants, neuter forms of adjectives, for example, balta, nauja, vėlį, and adverbs presented in adjective and verb entries, among other things. Explanations of abbreviations are given in full in the dictionary text. An updated version was published in 2008. In it, the assessment of the normativity of headwords was refined. In the second (2013) electronic edition, the texts of volumes XVI–XX, which in the first edition had been treated as a model for standardizing the texts of all the dictionary’s volumes, were additionally edited; editorial and proofreading corrections were made in the texts of all the other volumes; and the conclusions of new theoretical and normative works were taken into account (for more details, see Naktienė 2012: 96). In addition, entries were written for new words found in the entries and definitions of other words, since the card file had not yet contained these data when the respective volumes were being prepared. The introductory part of LKŽ states that lexicographic entries may be regarded as a specially created collective discourse reflecting the Lithuanian worldview and mentality. The dictionary contains abundant and diverse ethnolinguistic material for various studies of the values of the linguistic community and for reconstructing the national worldview. 5. DICTIONARY OF THE CONTEMPORARY LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE K. Būga understood that society and schools needed a practical dictionary, while linguists needed a scholarly one (Balašaitis 2018: 163). However, in the absence of sufficient material, it was impossible to prepare a good practical dictionary. Thirty years after the appearance of K. Būga’s first issue of the Lietuvių kalbos žodyno, an explanatory dictionary of the Lithuanian language intended for practical needs appeared (1954). The abundant and diverse material of the Lietuvių kalbos žodyno made it possible to prepare the Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodyną and its other editions (1972, 1993, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2012, 2017, 2021). In 1972, A. Lyberis wrote in Mūsų kalboje that when J. Balčikonis began working at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language on September 15, 1947, he assigned him and several other colleagues to write a one-volume explanatory dictionary of the Lithuanian language, a practical book greatly needed by society (Lyberis 2009: 258). Documents preserved in the Lithuanian Central State Archives show that material for the planned dictionary of the written language began to be collected in 1940 and had been collected through the letter K (Mikulėnienė 2022: 52). 270 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX Lietuvių kalbos aiškinamųjų žodynų raida, savitumas ir tarpusavio sąsajos DLKŽ₁ was also the first normative dictionary²⁵, serving for a long time as the best source of information for everyone dealing with questions of word selection, meanings, spelling, accentuation, stylistic usage, and so on; it contained 45,000 words. “The idea that normative dictionaries were needed arose as early as the Renaissance, when the national intelligentsia began to take care of developing the native language and establishing language norms common to the entire nation. The first dictionary of this type was prepared in 1694 by the French Academy of Sciences, Dictionaire de l’Academie française (Dictionary of the French Academy)” (Jakaitienė 2005: 46–47). The number of words increased in each new DLKŽ edition: the second edition (1972) contained 60,000 words, the third (1993) 75,000, and the fifth (2003) 80,000. DLKŽ₁ presented all the Lithuanian lexis more widely used at that time, as well as words and word combinations that had emerged in Lithuanian at that time and chiefly denoted Soviet realia and Soviet ideology, for example, darbadienis, kolūkis, kolūkietis, komitetas, pionierius, darbinis auklėjimas, kolūkinis derlius, antipartinis, buožė, and so on (for more on the growth of Lithuanian lexis during the Soviet occupation, see Lyberis 2009: 129–196). With concealed references to Soviet ideology, this edition (the dictionary itself says that it is the second edition) was published in 1962 by Lithuanian Americans in Chicago (for more details, see Balašaitis 1999: 28–31; 1999a: 28–32; 2018: 235–237). DLKŽ₁ The Introduction emphasizes that “this dictionary, like explanatory dictionaries of other languages, unlike encyclopedic and other specialized dictionaries, seeks to highlight word meanings through brief explanations (sometimes synonyms), bringing out the most essential features of the concept, sufficient to understand the word itself and its use” (DLKŽ₁: VII). Words are explained briefly, using other familiar words that are easy to find in the dictionary (ibid., VIII). Reviewers of the dictionary proposed including in the next edition the omitted synonyms of jėga ‘force’: spėka, viekas (Urbutis 2010: 33). Those words appeared in the second edition of the dictionary and remained even through the eighth edition (see Table 2). ² TABLE. The nouns spėka and viekas in the Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodyno editions DLKŽ₂ DLKŽₑ spėk||à (4) force: Daug ~̃ų turi. Atgavo ~às. spėk||à (4) human strength, capability: Daug ~̃ų turi. Atgavo ~às. viek||las (2) dialectal force: Neturi ~o. ~ų ieško teisybės. Stengėsi iš viso ~o. viek||las (2) dialectal human strength: Neturi ~o. ~ų ieško teisybės. Stengtis iš viso ~o. ²⁵ This dictionary was also called the small dictionary of the standard Lithuanian language, because its preparation proceeded in parallel with the writing and editing of the large Lietuvių kalbos žodyno (for more details, see Mikūlėnienė 2022: 94, 129), but it was published under the title Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodyno. Straipsniai / Articles 271 VILIJA SAKALAUSKIENĖ The editorial board of DLKŽ₂ took into account the reviewers’ proposal to make wider use of synonyms in definitions of meanings. Reviewers noted that there was still much inconsistency in distinguishing homonyms: a large number of semantic homonyms remained undifferentiated, and the arrangement of phraseological expressions within entries was also criticized (Urbutis 2010: 30). The second edition was supplemented with words from various dialects more widely used in belles-lettres, for example: babaliuoti, babanyti, babaužis, badadvėsauti, badadvėsys, badija, blazgatyti, dailėtyra, dailidystė, daingas, macas, machinatoriaus, madona, magauti, magma, vogčioti, sausledis, saussakė and others. Some rare, dialectal, and international words were omitted, for example, deviacija, mainomis, maišienė, maišysena, rančiuotas, randėtinis and so on. As for the arrangement of meanings—not always were the meanings most usual in the contemporary language placed first (cf. apysaka, engti, pažiūra). Yet even in the eighth edition of the dictionary, the presentation of the meanings of the word apysaka remained the same as in earlier editions (see Table 3). TABLE 3. The noun apysaka in the Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodyno editions DLKŽ apysaka (1) 1. narration, telling. 2. lit. a narrative work of belles-lettres, intermediate in length between a novel and a short story DLKŽₑ apysaka (1) 1. narration, telling. 2. lit. a narrative genre of belles-lettres, intermediate between a novel and a short story; a work in that genre: Istorinė a. For reasons of economy, the headword is abbreviated completely in illustrative sentences, which sometimes makes the sentence itself difficult to understand (see Table 4). TABLE 4. The noun engti in the Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodyno editions DLKŽ₁ éng||ti, ~ia, ~ė 1. to skin, flay: Aviai kailį ė., nuė. 2. to oppress, burden, torment: Dvarininkai ~ė valstiečius. ~iamosios klasės. 3. to scrape, scratch; tear off: Ledai kranto ~ia. Drabužius ė. Ranką nuė., nusiė. 4. fig. to beat, thrash; scold severely: Kam kailį ė., išė., nuė. ~tis tarp savęs (to quarrel, argue). ~ėjas, ~ėja noun (1), ~ikas, ~ikė noun (2) one who oppresses; oppressor, wrongdoer. ~imas (2); Kapitalistai varo tautų ~imo bei pavergimo politiką. DLKŽₑ éng||ti, ~ia, ~ė 1. to skin, flay: Aviai kailį ė. 2. to scrape, scratch: Ledai krantus ~ia. 3. to tear off, wear: Drabužius ė. 4. fig. to oppress, burden, torment: ~iami žmonės. Neėnk taip arklio. 5. fig. to beat, thrash; scold severely: ~iau tą vaikėzą. || refl.: Vaikai ~iasi tarp savęs. ~ėjas, ~ėja noun (1), ~ikas, ~ikė noun (2), ~imas, ~imasis (1) 272 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX Lietuvių kalbos aiškinamųjų žodynų raida, savitumas ir tarpusavio sąsajos There are instances of word meanings being explained with words that were not included in the dictionary at all, for example: pažiūra is explained using the word pažiūrėjimas, yet neither this noun nor the verb from which the noun would have been derived is present in the dictionary (Urbutis 2010: 32; see Table 5). TABLE 5. The noun pažiūra in the Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodyno editions DLKŽ₁ pažiūr‖a (3ᵇ) 1. appearance, looking: Iš ~ õs gražus arklys. 2. opinion, conviction: Sveika, teisinga p. P. į darbą DLKŽₑ pažiūr‖a (3ᵇ) 1. appearance, exterior: Iš ~õs gražus arklys. 2. opinion, attitude: Sveika, teisinga p. P. į darbą Some shortcomings of the dictionary are related to insufficiently researched problems, such as the presentation of phraseologisms, the arrangement of prefixed verbs, the differentiation and explanation of word meanings, the differentiation of homonyms, and so on. It must be stated that, in analyzing the various editions of the dictionary, issues concerning the construction of dictionary macrostructure were relevant to all DLKŽ editions (there are now eight editions). There were differing opinions in this regard. Already during preparation of the first dictionary edition (1954), the problem of word selection was relevant²⁶. Latvian linguist Janis Endzelīns also advanced word selection as the most important principle of language standardization: “[...] the linguist does not dictate any laws on his own; he merely observes how the nation speaks, selects what is suitable for the written language, and presents it to others” (Endzelīns 1971: 662). The third DLKŽ₃ edition was published in 1993. In preparing this dictionary edition, it was established that the dictionary must primarily be a source and guide to language, rather than to some other kind of information (Keinys 2004: 77). In this edition, particular effort was made to maintain objectivity in explaining word meanings and selecting usage examples²⁷. ²⁶ In J. Kruopas’s words, the main guideline for word selection is “the reflection in the Dictionary of the lexical system of the entire language, not merely the literary language” (Kruopas 1998 [1968]: 456). Today, one may disagree with this statement, because the inclusion of a word in a normative dictionary legitimizes its use in the standard language and gives it the status of a standard-language word. On the other hand, J. Kruopas is speaking about a dictionary of the contemporary, not the standard, language. Therefore, it is obvious why the linguist understood the lexis of the standard language as non-independent, growing, and not yet separated (cf. Klimavičius 1997: 26; Sakalauskienė 2010: 296). ²⁷ It was specifically on the basis of the headword list of the computerized version of DLKŽ₃, created in 1995 by staff members of the Institutes of the Lithuanian Language and Mathematics and Informatics, that preparation of BLKŽ began (for more details, see Liutkevičienė, Murmulaitytė 2015: 84). Straipsniai / Articles 273 V I L I J A S A K A L A U S K I E N Ė The fourth DLKŽ₄ edition appeared in 2000. Essentially, it was a reprint of the third dictionary edition, with only the identified proofreading errors corrected. The editorial board remained the same. In 2003, a CD-ROM of this dictionary was published. It supplemented the dictionary with an explanatory section on the most important place names of Lithuania and the world. This dictionary version was uploaded to the internet. At the end of 2003, the fifth DLKŽ₅e edition was published; it was newly edited, corrected, and supplemented, and appeared only electronically (a CD-ROM with a booklet containing a printed introduction, methodological advice, and a description of working with the computer program), with a separate supplement of approximately 3,000 Lithuanian and world place names—an explanatory section on the most important place names of Lithuania and the world. In 2006, users received a slightly corrected sixth (third electronic) DLKŽ₆e edition. Its editorial board remained the same. The seventh DLKŽ₇e edition, published in 2012 (updated version 2017), was prepared from the sixth edition’s disc, but differs considerably from it. The principal differences of this dictionary revision are: 1) words not included in exemplary standard language (marked ntk. =) were omitted; 2) some obsolete and less common regional words and variants (with the labels psn. and dialectal) were omitted (nearly two thousand); 3) the section of the most important Lithuanian, related-region, and world place names found in earlier electronic DLKŽ editions was omitted (approximately three thousand entries); 4) words were accented according to resolutions of the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language; 5) definitions of some word meanings were refined and identified proofreading errors corrected. This dictionary edition included a small supplement (approximately 250) of words absent from DLKŽ₇e, taken from the newly prepared Bendrinės lietuvių kalbos žodyno. In the preface to the newest DLKŽ₈e, the editor-in-chief says that “the dictionary was prepared as a language adviser for all Lithuanians worldwide and for those foreigners who have learned or are still learning Lithuanian” (DLKŽ₈e, Preface). The universality of the dictionary is emphasized because, first, it reflects all spheres of standard-language use and all its varieties in use; second, it provides users with necessary information about the spelling, accentuation, and inflection of the recommended normative words, explains their characteristic meanings, demonstrates word combinability through usage examples, and includes a substantial collection of vivid expressions and phraseologisms, as well as compound terms from various fields. The supplement of new words was expanded by two hundred words. The DLKŽ₈e was prepared from the eighth printed edition of DLKŽ. The principal innovations of this edition are: 1) some words previously considered nonnormative, which the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language recognized as acceptable in the standard language, were restored: bobutė ‘1. grandmother (father’s or mother’s mother) 2. see midwife’; kaladė ‘1. see block. 2. see firewood 3’; linčas ‘violent mob execution without trial’; 2) spelling and accentuation were arranged according to the resolutions of the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language 274 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX Lietuvių kalbos aiškinamųjų žodynų raida, savitumas ir tarpusavio sąsajos the spelling and accentuation of words: č i árdašas, čárdašas; drīksti, drỹska (dryksta), drisko; fjõrdas and so on; 3) referential word definitions were updated (in some cases the label žr. was restored, having been omitted when the seventh DLKŽ edition was prepared): bizūnas žr. rimbas, bul̃jonas žr. sultinys, gérbūvis žr. gerovė, pakalikas, ~ė žr. pataikinas, and so on; 5) some words omitted from the seventh DLKŽ edition because of the space limitations of the printed edition were restored. 6. DICTIONARY OF THE STANDARD LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE In terms of both lexical composition and the structure and preparation methodology of the dictionary itself, the electronic Bendrinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas currently being prepared is entirely different from the Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodyną. It contains the newest lexis used from the 2000s to the present, for example: feisbukas, gūglas, gūglinti, jutubas. instagramas, skaipas, tviteris and others will also be included in the dictionary. On the fiftieth anniversary of DLKŽ, the editor-in-chief of this dictionary emphasized that when the third DLKŽ edition was handed over to users, it was written that a larger standard-language dictionary was urgently needed—perhaps three or four volumes—with more entries and especially more usage examples (Keinys 2004: 82). BLKŽ fulfills this expectation. When writing, editing, and approving BLKŽ, actual word usage and accentuation tendencies are taken into account, while standard-language norms are observed. Thus, the dictionary presents the currently functioning, correct lexis of the standard language. Accordingly, a considerable portion of obsolete, dialectal, and narrowly specialized words is omitted, while far more international words, terms, and neologisms designating new realia are included than before. The principal difference between this dictionary and the various editions of DLKŽ is that the dictionary is written and edited not only alphabetically but, to a greater extent, by lexical-semantic groups. In addition, it follows the principle that a word must be explained with words understandable to everyone, semantically and stylistically neutral words that can also be found in this dictionary (Liutkevičienė 2006: 14). There is no doubt that the compilers of BLKŽ draw on the accumulated experience of the earlier dictionaries mentioned in this article (LKŽe, DLKŽ), as well as of other Lithuanian and foreign-language dictionaries, and rely on the latest scholarly research and corpus and text-collection data. Straipsniai / Articles 275 VILІJA SAKALAUSKIENĖ It is worthwhile mentioning a few of the many differences between DLKŽ and BLKŽ: 1) the presentation of related words in nests28 was abandoned29; 2) all words used in definitions are elevated to headwords and explained; 3) more widespread, lexicalized word combinations and compound terms are elevated and explained30; 4) all BLKŽ headwords or their meanings, except in isolated cases, are illustrated with usage examples; 5) all words in illustrative sentences are accented; 6) in the entries of some words (e.g., adjectives and adverbs), more morphological forms are distinguished (comparative, superlative, and pronominal forms); 7) the syntactic combinability of verbs and, in separate cases, of adjectives and phraseological combinations is marked; 8) more grammatical information is provided; 8) the inclusion of inadmissible words in the macrostructure of BLKŽ was abandoned, and so on. The differences between DLKŽ, which once had the same purpose and performed the same explanatory and normative functions, and BLKŽ were thoroughly analyzed by the editors of BLKŽ by comparing the entries for headwords beginning with the letter b in both dictionaries; the results not only confirmed the correctness of the chosen dictionary-preparation methodology but also revealed areas for improvement (Liutkevičienė, Murmulaitytė 2015: 86, 139). In light of the results of this study, the headword list of the Lietuvių kalbos naujažodžių duomenyno (LKND) is continually reviewed. Thus, the dictionary is prepared with regard to the constantly changing state of the language, the new needs of the knowledge society and prestigious language use, the latest results of research into and standardization of the standard language, and published or otherwise expressed criticism of other dictionaries and of the texts of this dictionary under preparation. CONCLUDING REMARKS 1. A review of the development of dictionaries of contemporary and standard Lithuanian from the late nineteenth century to the first decades of the twenty-first century shows that one of the most distinctive lexicographic works of the nineteenth century—the Lithuanian–Polish dictionary of Antanas Juška—laid the foundations for an explanatory dictionary of the Lithuanian language. It is an important lexicographic source for a new type of explanatory dictionaries of spoken language and was new for society in the second half of the nineteenth century. 28 In some entries, it is called įtrauktinis (for more details, see Liutkevičienė, Murmulaitytė 2015: 84). 29 In BLKŽe, unlike DLKŽ, diminutives, deverbal and deadjectival abstract nouns, adverbs, and derivatives of nouns with the suffixes –tojas and –ėjas are presented as separate headwords. 30 One of BLKŽ’s innovations is that frequently used two-word or multiword terms, or simply names of realia, are also elevated as headwords (Liutkevičienė 2010: 147). 276 Acta Linguistica Lituanica LXXXIX Lietuvių kalbos aiškinamųjų žodynų raida, savitumas ir tarpusavio sąsajos 2. The process of language standardization begun in A. Juška’s dictionary and continued by J. Jablonskis was significant for the history of the standard Lithuanian language. Both the author and the editor chose the Western Aukštaitian dialect as the principal dialect of the dictionary. J. Jablonskis was convinced that a dictionary of the standard Lithuanian language written in language understandable to everyone was necessary. 3. J. Jablonskis’s Mūsų žodynėlis was significant as the first normative dictionary of the standard language and a source of new terms; it could have grown into a dictionary of the Lithuanian written language. J. Jablonskis himself did not have time to write a Lithuanian dictionary, but through his work he contributed greatly to the preparatory work for such a dictionary. 4. J. Jablonskis’s expectations were partly fulfilled by the Lietuvių kalbos žodynas, whose editor K. Būga likewise began his lexicographic career by editing A. Juška’s dictionary. The Lietuvių kalbos žodynas—one of the most important explanatory works on the Lithuanian language—began a new stage in the development of Lithuanian lexicography. The importance and significance of the dictionary’s data for contemporary research is demonstrated by several editions of its electronic version. 5. The abundant and diverse material of the Lietuvių kalbos žodyno made it possible to prepare the Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodyną and its other editions (1972, 1993, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2012, 2021). In analyzing the various DLKŽ editions, it should be emphasized that issues concerning the construction of dictionary macrostructure are relevant to all editions; one of these is word selection, while one of the most important tasks is the standardization of the lexis. 6. The electronic Dictionary of Standard Lithuanian is entirely different from the Dictionary of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language both in terms of lexical composition and in terms of the structure of the dictionary itself and its compilation methodology. The main difference between this dictionary and the various editions of DLKŽ is that the dictionary is written and edited not only alphabetically but also by lexical-semantic groups. BLKŽ is compiled with regard to the constantly changing state of the language, the new needs of the knowledge society and the use of the prestigious language, the latest results of research into and standardization of the standard language, and criticism of other dictionaries and of the texts of this dictionary being prepared. 7. Every explanatory dictionary of the Lithuanian language in one way or another provided an impetus to think about a new, more advanced dictionary or another edition of it. Each of the dictionaries discussed had its own significance, encouraged progress, drawing on the experience of its predecessor, avoiding the repetition of mistakes, and finding new ways of compilation and editing. Straipsniai / Articles 277 VIL IJA SAKALAUSKIENĖ ABBREVIATIONS OF PLACE NAMES Als – Alsėdžiai, Plungė district Puš – Pušalotas, Pasvalys district Skap, Skp – Skapiškis, Kupiškis district Vkš – Viekšniai, Mažeikiai district SOURCES AND ABBREVIATIONS BLKŽ – Dictionary of Standard Lithuanian, editorial board D. Liutkevičienė, D. Murmulaitytė, V. Sakalauskienė, A. Gritėnienė, A. Gaidienė, D. Daugirdienė, L. Jonušys, editor-in-chief D. Liutkevičienė, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 2013–2022. Available online: https://ekalba.lki.lt/bendrinės-lietuvių-kalbos-zodynas. DLKŽ1 – Dictionary of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language, responsible editor J. Kruopas, 1st edition, Vilnius: State Publishing House of Political and Scholarly Literature, 1954. DLKŽ2 – Dictionary of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language, responsible editor J. Kruopas, 2nd edition, Vilnius: Mintis, 1972. DLKŽ3 – Dictionary of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language, editor-in-chief St. Keinys, 3rd edition, Vilnius: Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing House, 1993. DLKŽ4 – Dictionary of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language, editor-in-chief St. Keinys, 4th edition, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing, 2002. DLKŽ5e – Dictionary of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language, editor-in-chief St. Keinys, 5th electronic edition, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 2003. DLKŽ6e – Dictionary of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language, editor-in-chief St. Keinys. 6th (3rd electronic, 4th online) edition, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 2006. [The online version has no longer been publicly available since 2015.] DLKŽ7e – Dictionary of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language, editor-in-chief St. Keinys, 7th (5th online) edition, updated version, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 2017. [The online version has no longer been publicly available since 2022.] DLKŽ8e – Dictionary of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language, editor-in-chief St. Keinys, 8th (6th electronic / online) edition, updated version, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 2021. Available online: https://ekalba.lki.lt/dabartines-lietuviu-kalbos-zodynas. DOI: doi.org/10.35321/dlkz. J̄k – Jonas Jablonskis. Material for the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language card file, held in the Manuscripts Department of the Wroblewski Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences, F-99. 278 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX Lietuvių kalbos aiškinamųjų žodynų raida, savitumas ir tarpusavio sąsajos J – Lithuanian Dictionary by A. Juškevičius with explanations of words in the Russian and Polish languages [Litovskij slovar’ A. Juškeviča s’ tolkovaniem’ slov’ na russkom’ jazykačh’], issue two [vуp. vtoroj], Saint Petersburg [Sanktpeterburg], 1904, I–LIX. LKND – Miliūnaitė Rita, Aleksaitė Agnė. Database of Lithuanian Neologisms, ongoing online reference work since 2011, compiled and responsible editor R. Miliūnaitė, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language. Available online: https://ekalba.lki.lt/naujazodziai. DOI: doi.org/10.35321/neol. LKŽe – Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language 1–20 (1941–2002), editorial board G. Naktinienė, J. Paulauskas, R. Petrokienė, V. Vitkauskas, J. Zabarskaitė, editor-in-chief G. Naktinienė, electronic version, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 2008 (updated version, 2018). Available online: https://ekalba.lt/lietuviiu-kalbos-zodynas. LITERATŪRA B a l a š a i t i s A n t a n a s 1999: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodyno Čikagos leidimas (1962). – Gimtoji kalba 5, 28–31. B a l a š a i t i s A n t a n a s 1999a: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodyno Čikagos leidimas (1962). – Gimtoji kalba 6, 28–32. B a l a š a i t i s A n t a n a s 2018: Žodžiai ir žodynai, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Č e p a i t i e n ė G i e d r ė, L a p i n s k i e n ė L i o n ė, sud., 2010: Atsiminimai apie Joną Jablonskį, Vilnius: Gimtasisi žodis. E n d z e l ī n s J ā n i s 1971: Darbu izlase 1, Rīga: Zinātne. G r i t ė n i e n ė A u r e l i j a 2017: Žodyno vaizdinys Lietuvių kalbos žodyne. – Bendrinė kalba 90, 1–19. J a k a i t i e n ė E v a l d a 2005: Leksikografija, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. JR – Jablonskio raštai 4, red. J. Balčikonis, Kaunas: Švietimo ministerijos leidinys, 1935. K e i n y s S t a s y s 2004: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas per penkiasdešimt metų. – Kalbos kultūra 77, 76–83. K l i m a v i č i u s J o n a s 1997: Kas yra bendrinės kalbos leksika? Sampratos, nuomonės ir prietarai. Žodyno praktika ir teorija. Vartojimo reikšmės ir problemos. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 37, 20–32. K r u o p a s J o n a s 1998 [1968]: Rinktiniai raštai, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Straipsniai / Articles 279 VIL IJA SAKALAUSKIENĖ Lyberis Antanas 2009: Leksikografijos teorija ir praktika, sud. Z. Šimėnaitė, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Liutkevičienė Danutė 2006: Bendrinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas. Siekiamybė ir realybė. – Leksikografija ir leksikologija 1. Aiškinamųjų bendrinės kalbos žodynų aktualijos, red. kolegija D. Liutkevičienė, R. Mikulskas, D. Murmulaitytė, sud. R. Petrokienė, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 9–33. Liutkevičienė Danutė 2010: Bendrinės lietuvių kalbos žodyno struktūra, tikslai ir perspektyvos. – Kalbos kultūra 83, 141–150. Liutkevičienė Danutė, Murmulaitytė Daiva 2015: Nuo Dabartinės prie Bendrinės lietuvių kalbos žodyno. – Leksikografija ir leksikologija 5, sud. A. Gritėnienė, red. kolegija J. Girčienė, L. Levancevič, D. Liutkevičienė, D. Murmulaitytė, V. Sakalauskienė, I. Zuicena, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 83–146. LKŽi – Lietuvių kalbos žodyno instrukcija, Vilnius: 1980. Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2022: Lietuvių kalbos instituto istorija: kalbotyros aneksija, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Naktinienė Gertrūda 2005: „Lietuvių kalbos žodyno“ taisymai elektroniniame variante. – Kalbos kultūra 78, 191–203. Naktinienė Gertrūda 2012: Elektroninio Lietuvių kalbos žodyno naujovės. – Kalbos kultūra 85, 92–102. Palionis Jonas 1995: Lietuvių rašomosios kalbos istorija, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Piročkinas Arnoldas, sud., 1991: Jonas Jablonskis. Straipsniai ir laiškai. Vilnius: Mokslas. Rutkovska Kristina 2021: Leksikografiniai šaltiniai lietuvių kalbos pasaulėvaizdžio tyrimuose. – Vertybės lietuvių ir lenkų kalbų pasaulėvaizdyje 2. Liaudiškasis, tautinis, daugiatautis ir daugiakultūris paveldas, Vilnius, Liublinas: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 181–200. Sabaliauskas Algirdas 1997: Kazimieras Būga ir lietuvių leksikografija. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 37, 1–4. Sakalauskienė Vilija 2010: Dialektizmų atranka dabartinės ir bendrinės lietuvių kalbos žodynuose. – Leksikografija ir leksikologija 2. Jono Kruopo 100-osios gimimo metinės, sud. V. Sakalauskienė, A. Auksoriūtė, red. kolegija O. Karaeva, I. Lemeškin, G. Naktinienė, R. Petrokienė, V. Sakalauskienė, J. Zabarskaitė, vyr. red. Z. Šimėnaitė, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 295–305. 280 Acta Linguistica LXXXIX Lietuvių kalbos aiškinamųjų žodynų raida, savitumas ir tarpusavio sąsajos Sakalauskienė Vilija 2012: Antano Juškos lietuvių–lenkų kalbų žodyno terminė medžiaga. – Priešaušrio mokslas, kultūra ir švietimas. Lauryno Ivinskio 200-osioms gimimo metinėms (su CD), sud. A. Auksoriūtė, red. kolegija D. Mikulėnienė, V. Sakalauskienė, Z. Sawaniewska-Mochowa, V. Šaūdina, P. Zemlevičiūtė, vyr. red. A. Auksoriūtė, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 256–274. Sakalauskienė Vilija 2021: Leksikografinis Jono Jablonskio palikimas. – Kultūros studijos Panevėžyje. Jonas Jablonskis, sud. L. Lapinskienė, Panevėžys: Komunikacijos centras „Kalba. Knyga. Kūryba“, 32–44. Sawaniewska-Mochowa Zofia 2002: Ze studiów nad socjolektem drobnej szlachty kowieńskiej XIX wieku (na podstawie słowników przekładowych Antoniego Juszkiewicza), Bydgoszcz: Wydawnictwo Akademii Bydgoskiej im. Kazimierza Wielkiego. Sawaniewska-Mochowa Zofia 2014: Lietuviški XIX amžiaus verstiniai žodynai – regioninės lenkų kalbos tyrimų šaltiniai. – Leksikografija ir leksikologija 4, sud. R. Petrokienė, red. kolegija S. Berg-Olsen, O. Kažukauskaitė, D. Murmulaitytė, V. Sakalauskienė, Z. Sawaniewska-Mochowa, J. Urbanavičienė, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 123–138. Tolutienė Birutė 1961: Antanas Juška leksikografas. – Literatūra ir kalba 5, 87–377. Urbutis Vincas 2010: Knygos apie žodžius, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Vitkauskas Vytautas 2001: Baigiant didįjį „Lietuvių kalbos žodyną“. – Kalbos kultūra 74, 109–113. Vosylȳtė Bronė 2002: K. Būga žodynininkas. – Kelias į didįjį Žodyną, sud. K. Morkūnas, K. Vosylȳtė, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 50–80. The Development, Uniqueness and Interrelationship of Lithuanian Explanatory Dictionaries SUMMARY In the 19ᵗʰ century, as a social, cultural, and literary renaissance began, many Lithuanian intellectuals recognized that, in addition to grammar books, dictionaries could also help develop the Lithuanian written language. Consequently, they embarked on the compilation of Lithuanian language dictionaries. The article reviews the development of current and Straipsniai / Articles 281 VILIJA SAKALAUSKIENĖ Standard Lithuanian language dictionaries from the end of the 19th century to the first decades of the 21st century. The exploration is grounded in the analysis of the most prominent dictionaries of the era and specific examples drawn from these references. The article also scrutinizes the most important problems that the compilers of Lithuanian explanatory dictionaries may face. The empirical basis of the study consists of the data from Antanas Juška’s Lithuanian–Polish dictionary, the card index of Jonas Jablonskis’ Material for the Lithuanian Language Dictionary, Lithuanian Language Dictionary (LKŽe), various editions of the Modern Lithuanian Language Dictionary (DLKŽ) and the data from the electronic Standard Lithuanian Language Dictionary (BLKŽe). The Lithuanian–Polish dictionary, edited by the renowned Lithuanian lexicographer and folklore collector Antanas Juška, stands as one of the most remarkable lexicographical achievements of the 19th century. The importance and significance of this dictionary were also appreciated by Jonas Jablonskis, who took the first steps in lexicographic work by editing Juška’s dictionary. The work on the dictionary encouraged the linguist to collect material for a study of the Standard Lithuanian language, write the data on cards and catalogue them in a card index. Jablonskis’ aspiration to compile a Lithuanian standard language dictionary found practical realization in the Lithuanian Language Dictionary, which combines three different dictionaries, encompassing written and dialectal forms, texts from diverse historical periods, and modern standard language. The wealth of diverse material within this dictionary paved the way for the creation of the Dictionary of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language (1954) and its subsequent editions (1972, 1993, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2012, 2017, 2021). The electronic dictionary of the Standard Lithuanian Language that is currently being edited, distinguishes itself by featuring a distinct lexicon structure and the methodology for its compilation. Each published dictionary served as a catalyst, inspiring the writing of a new and more refined dictionary or the development of fresh editions. Įteikta 2023 m. liepos 18 d. VILIJA SAKALAUSKIENĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas Petro Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius, Lietuva [email protected] 282 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX