DAIVA MARMULYTĖ

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

Research areas: lexicology, lexicography, word formation, morphemics.

SEMINAR OVERVIEW

On July 5, the 2nd Lexicographers’ Workshop, “Lexicography—Science and Life,” was held in Vilnius at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language to commemorate lexicographer Irena Erm…

The seminar began with the presentation “Irena Erm…’s contributions to lexicography” by Violeta Černė (LKI). Briefly reviewing the biography of the lexicographer, born on July 3, 1937, in Nugarės, Kuršėnai County, to Kristina Petraitytė and Latvian Povilas Zenas Ermanis, she summarized the significant work she had accomplished. I. Erm… was presented as a long-serving text writer (over 100 author’s sheets) and editor for the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, author of the Lithuanian Antonyms (1985) and the Dictionaries of Antonyms, and, together with colleagues, compiler of the Dictionary of Lithuanian River and Lake Names, the Dictionary of Phraseology, and the School Dictionary of International Words (four editions); she was also the author of many articles, a collector of lexical data, and a translator from Latvian.

In 1994, I. Erm… defended her dissertation externally, Lithuanian Antonymy and Antonyms, and in 2008 the Institute of the Lithuanian Language published her monograph, Antonymy and Antonyms. Irena calls antonyms the great love of her life, and says this love has not faded. It was precisely her research into them that produced two dictionaries of antonyms, a dissertation, and a monograph. According to the scholar, she thought in antonyms. Whether listening to the radio or reading, she would hear or see pairs of antonymous words. “I have my own antonyms, which even come to me in dreams at night,” Irena would say.

Since 1958, when the first word-collection expedition took place, I. Erm… had crisscrossed almost all of Lithuania. According to the speaker, Irena knew how to get a country dweller talking, so that they would open up and share the riches of their language. More than 20,000 dialectal lexical items were recorded. Many of the sentences she wrote down still live their own lives in the pages of the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language. Irena also contributed to the compilation of the Atlas of the Lithuanian Language.

Straipsniai / Articles

305

DAIVA MURMULATYTĖ

In 1996, for her tireless work on the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, Irena Ermante was awarded the prestigious Science Prize of the Republic of Lithuania together with her colleagues; in 2001, she received a second award, along with her co-authors, for compiling the Dictionary of Phraseology.

In closing, V. Černė said: “It seems that each of us has a facet of our being that is carried forward. Irena is an exception. Colleagues speak of Irena only with respect. And a kind word is surely better than a gift.”

The seminar participants saw on the screen some interesting moments from her life as a speaker.

Turning to the scholarly part of the seminar, Vilija Sakalauskienė (LKI), in her presentation “Lexicography—a bridge from linguistics to society,” recalled that there is still no consensus as to whether lexicography is a science or merely a practical human activity. According to the speaker, the principal feature of lexicography is its applied purpose, since it is always oriented toward something. Lexicography serves the teaching of native or foreign languages, the documentation and standardization of the native language (explanatory and other types of dictionaries), interlingual communication (bilingual dictionaries, phrasebooks), and the scholarly study of a language’s vocabulary (etymological and historical dictionaries, dictionaries of extinct languages, and so on). After mentioning the pre-dictionary, early, and developed stages of practical lexicography, she drew attention to the fact that today’s lexicographers not only compile dictionaries of varying scope using different technologies, but also develop scholarly theoretical foundations for their preparation. It is generally accepted that lexicography is the theory and practice of compiling dictionaries. Theory concerns the selection of words or word combinations, the explanation of their meanings, and the structure of dictionary entries; practice is the work of preparing dictionaries: collecting lexical and phraseological material, organizing it (in the form of an alphabetical card index), and writing the dictionary text. Thus, agreeing with E. Jakaitienė, author of a monograph on lexicography (2005), it would not be too much to say that “lexicography seems to be responsible for all of linguistics, since dictionaries make it possible to judge the general level of language scholarship in a given country.” The presentation concluded with an apt and eloquent comparison between the work of a lexicographer and the hard labor of breaking stone in quarries or mining coal, made at the end of the sixteenth century by Justus Scaliger, professor of classical philology at Leiden University (the Netherlands).

The chief editor of the Dictionary of Standard Lithuanian, Danutė Liutkevičienė (LKI), relied mainly on examples from this dictionary in her presentation, “Systematicity in a Dictionary: Theory and Practice,” demonstrating that adhering to one of lexicography’s fundamental principles—systematicity—is not so simple. The BŽ provides grammatical information systematically (indicating the part of speech of a headword, its stress pattern, and, in certain cases, gender, number, etc.). However, this principle often conflicts with the principle of frequency of use, for example when rarer or obsolete words designating realia need to be included in the dictionary (such as žaboklis, žadinis, žardas).

306

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI

Seminaro apžvalga

vocabulary. After all, it would be strange if a dictionary did not include the nouns šlepetė or šiurė, even though the former ranks 931st (9 occurrences) and the latter 24,644th (2 occurrences) in A. Utkos’s Frequency Dictionary of Written Lithuanian. The speaker explained the cases in which systematicity is deliberately set aside. For example, the BŽ has abandoned the nested presentation of words: all abstract nouns (ėjimas, gerumas), adverbs (baltyn, gražiai), and nouns (bažnytėlė) have their own entries, while negative and reflexive verbs are not looked up separately; the syntactic valency of verbs is indicated, but secondary valency is not always specified, and so on. Sometimes dictionary systematicity must be compromised because the grammatical or other information itself is not systematic. For instance, non-assimilated nouns of foreign origin ending in stressed or unstressed -o, -u, or -i are masculine, while those ending in stressed -ė are feminine; however, in the cases of boželė and žiūri, the genders are precisely the reverse. Dictionary users sometimes regard supplementary information presented in the dictionary as primary and wonder why reflexive verbs, common-gender forms, synonyms, antonyms, and so forth are not given in every case—that is, they lose sight of the fact that they are reading a general dictionary, not a dictionary of synonyms or antonyms, and that this information is only supplementary.

The aim of Daiva Murmulytė’s (LKI) presentation, “The Microstructure of an Explanatory Dictionary: Features of Semantic Information Presentation,” was to examine several cases of how semantic data are presented in explanatory dictionaries and, through their example, to show that lexicography, although not regarded as a science by everyone, is not merely a practical, applied discipline. By examining what may seem to be entirely formal aspects of dictionary-entry structure, the speaker showed that even these can be connected, through feedback, with research in lexical semantics or word formation (which, as a field of study, apparently has not yet been called into question) and its findings. Electronic dictionaries require a different, more precise form of data presentation than printed dictionaries. Someone who was not a scholarly dictionary compiler would not even discern problems of this kind; without seeing them, they would neither try to solve them nor raise questions for themselves and specialists in other fields. Yet, as we know, identifying a problem and posing a question in science is no less important—and often even more important—than finding an answer. The speaker examined how semantic information is presented in dictionaries, how working meanings relate to lexical meanings, how the chosen mode of data presentation reflects semantic relations, what this tells linguists and ordinary dictionary users, and touched on the problems of cross-referenced definitions and distinguishing senses (regularity). She emphasized that without knowledge of various branches of linguistics (lexical semantics, word formation, morphology, syntax, accentology, stylistics, terminology, dialectology, etc.), as well as logic, dictionaries may indeed be compiled, as people often like to say (much like telephone directories or alphabetical inventories of things), but certainly

Apžvalgos / Surveys

307

DAIVA MURMULAITYTĖ

not written or created—which is what should essentially be done in order to present information that has been scientifically analyzed and systematized.

Anželika Gaidienė (LKĮ) began her presentation, “Traditional vs. Cognitive Definitions of Word Meaning: How to Find the Golden Mean?”, by outlining the differences between traditional and cognitive meanings. The scholar stated that the nature of a definition depends on how lexical meaning is understood, as well as on the dictionary’s purpose and scope. She examined the definitions in the Dictionary of Standard Lithuanian from this perspective. Several factors determine the semantic features of this dictionary: its intended users—the general public—its prescriptive nature, and the principle of systematicity. The main methods for explaining word meanings are definitional, synonymous, and referential. In defining words, both the Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian and the Dictionary of Standard Lithuanian “indicate the characteristic features of objects, phenomena, and concepts”; however, definitions in the BŽ are more encyclopedic than those in the DŽ. Cognitive definitions of the words garbė, grybas, Europa were compared with the definitions of these words in the BŽ, clearly showing what is important in each case and how, and to what extent, the definitions differ.

Drawing on A. Gudavičius, the speaker noted that three aspects must be taken into account when explaining word meanings: prototypicality, national character, and anthropocentricity. Definitions of the words bėgti, katus, šūrus, žalts given in the dictionaries mentioned above were then compared. In concluding, the speaker reached the conclusion that the compilers of the Dictionary of Standard Lithuanian had found the golden mean. They strike a balance between traditional and cognitive definitions of word meanings: the prototypicality and anthropocentricity aspects of defining a word’s meaning are taken into account, while the national-character aspect is usually reflected in illustrative usage examples.

The next presentation was devoted to historical lexicography. Vilma Zubaitienė (VU) examined the most important seventeenth-century printed works of Lithuania Minor—the dictionaries of Friedrich Wilhelm Haack (1730), Philipp Ruhig (1747), and Christian Gottlieb Mielcke (1800)—from the perspectives of historical lexicology and lexical semantics. Until now, the scholar’s research has focused primarily on the lexicographic methods used in the dictionaries. Comparative textual analysis helps establish not only the dictionaries’ sources, the extent to which they were used, and the relationships among them, but also reveals the expansion of their vocabulary and the ways equivalents were selected to provide the most accurate semantic information about word meanings and usage. In recent years, the speaker has been preparing commentaries and indexes for critical editions of the closely related dictionaries of P. Ruhig and K. G. Mielcke. These aim to show how the German equivalents presented in dictionary entries (individual words and descriptive phrases) changed in comparison with the first printed dictionary; how the inclusion of a particular word, or its recurrence with a new meaning, was prompted by large German–Latin dictionaries and the Bible translation; and how the addition of further equivalents to a chronologically later dictionary brought an increase in usage examples that help establish a word’s meaning, as well as other metalinguistic

308

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVII

Semināro apžvalga

comments. Such studies refine the recording of some LKŽe words and their meanings in lexicographic sources and are important for semantic research. Laimutis Bilkis (LKI) gave a presentation entitled “On the Nature of the Dictionary of Lithuanian Place Names.” He recalled that, in the work plans and reports of LKI researchers, works are classified—on the basis of directives from higher authorities and among other things—as major research works (monographs, studies) and applied works (scholarly dictionaries, source publications). The Dictionary of Lithuanian Place Names (LVŽ) is assigned to the latter category, that is, to non-research scholarly works. The applied elements of LVŽ are the identification, standardization, and accentuation of place names. The research content of the dictionary, however, consists of an analysis of place-name formation (derivational families are provided, arranged according to their mode of formation) and explanations of their origins (using a collected and continuously expanding card file of explanations of the origins of Lithuanian (Baltic) place names and an electronic compendium, already published hypotheses about origins are surveyed, many new explanations of origins are offered—especially for field names that have received little study—and the reliability of published explanations is questioned, and so on). It is clear that compiling this dictionary involves conventional scholarly research into the origins and formation of place names, which cannot be classified as applied science, however much one might wish to do so. One can use place names with standardized spelling and accentuation in practice, but how can explanations of their origins be put to practical use (cf. taikyti – ‘to have practical significance, to use in practice’ (DŽ))? The scholar’s conclusion: the Dictionary of Lithuanian Place Names de facto is undoubtedly a major research work, because it investigates the formation and, especially, the origins of Lithuanian place names. It differs from monographs or articles only in that, owing to the specific nature of the publication, it has no generalizations.

This presentation stood out for its highly informative illustrative examples. Given the scholarly dictionary’s (in this case, terminology dictionary’s) nature, in her presentation “Terminological Dictionaries: The Evolution of Approaches to the Terminological Dictionary and Prospects for Their Compilation,” delivered to her colleagues at the second Vilia Ragaišienė (LKI) argued that two things reveal the lexicographic approach to a terminological dictionary: the selection of material and the structure of the dictionary (which is related to its intended users). To date, 15 terminology dictionaries have been published. Mentioning all of them and discussing them to varying degrees, the presenter identified three stages in their compilation, according to the approach to terminological dictionaries. I — the period of compiling differential (specialized) terminology dictionaries. An example of a good differential dictionary is Vytautas Vitkauskas’s Dictionary of the Northeastern Dūnininkai Dialects, published in 1976; its material was selected according to very carefully considered criteria. II — the period of compiling comprehensive terminology dictionaries. The series began with dictionaries of borderland dialects, whose character was shaped by the then-prevailing view that borderland dialects, rich in ancient linguistic relics, were rapidly disappearing, making it essential to record as much data as possible and publish the most comprehensive sources on these dialects. The major comprehensive dictionary was considered to be the Kupiškėnai Dictionary (2007–2013), compiled by the experienced lexicographer Klementina Vosylītė in four volumes of her native parish. III — the period of comprehensive systematic

Apžvalgos / Surveys

309

DAIVA MURMULAITYTĖ

dialect dictionary compilation, which began in 2014 with the Dictionary of the Vidiškiai Dialect, prepared by Žaneta Markevičienė and Aurinas Markevičius. This classification shows that all dialect dictionaries, regardless of their principles for selecting material and the nature of their structure, were compiled as scholarly sources. Compiling dictionaries is a genuine linguistic activity that requires not only scholarly competence but also knowledge of the history, culture, ethnography, and other aspects of the region concerned. In her conclusion, the speaker observed that compiling dialect dictionaries in Lithuania is still not regarded as serious scholarly work. Yet dictionary makers are also partly to blame: not a single substantial review of a dialect dictionary has been published, and only a few articles have been written on fundamental theoretical problems in lexicography (dictionary typology, structures, and compilation methodology). Clearly, the work of lexicographers has not been properly assessed from the perspective of professional linguists.

Jolita Urbanavičienė (LKŽ) brought the audience back to the academic Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, written and edited by I. Ermanytė together with her colleagues. Her presentation was entitled “The Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language Card File Today: Challenges and Opportunities in the Digital Age.” The talk covered the types of card files for this dictionary, their data structure, expansion (results from 2011–2016), prospects, and problems. The LKŽ has three card files: the Main, Supplementary (K1 and K2), and Dialect card files. The Main card file contains approximately 4.5 million cards—the lexical material used to compile volumes 1–20 of the LKŽ from 1942 to 2002. It is the only completed LKŽ card file, accumulated from 1902 to 2002. The Supplementary card files currently contain approximately 0.7 million cards. The K1 card file consists of written and spoken material collected up to 2009 and archived alphabetically, presented by word family; K2 contains words from spoken language (dialects) only, archived according to dialect from 2009 onward. The Dialect card file has been compiled since 2014. It is the first virtual card file open to the public; it contains only lexical data from spoken language (dialects), precise maps showing dialect areas and the locations where words were recorded, and presents words by word family. This card file now contains approximately 2,600 lexical items. The presentation examined the card files’ data structures in detail and illustrated them clearly. The Dialect card file, the Supplementary K1 card file (except for the letters O and Š), and images and metadata for cards from the A and G sections of the Main card file can currently be viewed in the database of the Lithuanian Language Resources Information System (LKIS) at http://lki.lt.

From 2011 to 2016, three projects were carried out to expand the LKŽ card files; 85 field trips were conducted and approximately 40,000 words were recorded. The presentation concluded with a brief discussion of current problems and prospects: systematic collection of new LKŽ data (for example, by creating a network of contributors), revision of LKŽ entries, the qualifications of lexical data collectors, expansion of the card files with the latest written vocabulary, and linking their material with that of dialect dictionaries.

310

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVII

Seminaro apžvalga

The final paper at the seminar, “The Image of the Dictionary in the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language,” was read by Aurelija Gritėnienė (LKI). Drawing on the broad and varied discourse of the dictionary’s twenty volumes, the author sought to analyze the semantic image of the dictionary that has taken shape in the hypertext of LKŽe and to determine which features of this image are considered the most important and relevant. She examined 211 secondary entries in LKŽe whose illustrative examples mention the word “dictionary.” Most (as many as 98%) of these examples were excerpted from the writings of various authors (mainly linguists and cultural and public figures). The principal features of the dictionary’s image were identified: its structure, type, author, scope, material, workflow, difficulties in compiling dictionaries, and their shortcomings and value. After discussing each feature and illustrating it with examples of usage recorded in LKŽe, the paper also characterized the image of the dictionary that has taken shape in this dictionary: “A dictionary is a book in one, several, a dozen, or several dozen volumes, written by one author or collectively, and has its own macrostructure and microstructure; in a dictionary, material gathered from one or various sources (most often compiled in a card index) is used to present words or word combinations alphabetically, by topic, or according to another system; the meaning of a word is usually defined, and its origin and history may also be indicated, along with grammatical, accentual, and stylistic information, examples of usage, and translations into one or several languages. Such a publication has practical and scholarly value (it is useful for learning one’s own or a foreign language and is needed as a source for various linguistic and cultural studies).”

Guests who had attended the seminar also commented on it. Z. Babickienė, noting the comprehensiveness of the papers and the relevance of their topics, observed that all the papers addressed theoretical problems in lexicography to a greater or lesser extent. She therefore suggested considering whether the Lexicographers’ Workshops—which are becoming a tradition (the first was held on 5 July 2016)—might in future be called Lexicographers’ Studies or Research. J. Klimavičius emphasized that lexicography is a branch of lexicology and that its status as a science is beyond doubt. The linguist had comments for the compilers of the Dictionary of Standard Lithuanian. In his view, dictionaries should include diminutives only when they have acquired specialized meanings (cf. drobė and drobelė). He also believed that words should not be illustrated with atypical examples that fail to show semantic relations (specifically, sentences about broken shoe straps or laces, as well as shoes chewed by a dog, should not illustrate the use of the word batas). The chief editor of the Dictionary of Standard Lithuanian, D. Liutkevičienė, responded that diminutives should be included in a dictionary not only when they have become terms, acquired specialized meanings, or the like. As is often stated, Lithuanian is characterized by an abundance and variety of diminutives, yet this is not reflected particularly well in dictionaries. Diminutives are rarely given separate entries as headwords. When they do appear, it is in entries for base words, usually among the illustrative examples of usage. We still have no dictionary of diminutives, either. Moreover, it happens that

Apžvalgos / Surveys

311

DAIVA MURMULAITYTĖ

according to corpus data, some diminutives with no specialized meanings are used more frequently than their base, non-diminutive words. Why, then, should the latter be given preference in dictionaries? As for the word bas (more precisely, basutė, whose entry from BŽ was given as an example in one of the papers), it was explained that the sentence Šuo apgraužė dvi basutes—“The dog chewed two slippers”—was included in the dictionary deliberately. It is intended to show the difference between the ordinary plural of the word basutė (in this case, there may be two, three, and so on, individual items of this footwear) and the plural-only noun basutės, meaning a pair of such shoes; cf. two basutės – dvejos basutės /two pairs of slippers. Moreover, the situation is not imaginary, impossible, artificially contrived, or difficult to understand.

An exhibition of her scholarly work, “The Great Love of Her Life—Antonyms,” was mounted in the library of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language to mark the anniversary of Irena Erm〈?〉tytė (curated by Violeta Černė and Rūta Stakėvičiūtė). Seminar participants could also view an exhibition of photographs from her personal archive and other photographs commemorating lexicographers of the older generation.

Received on 22 July 2017.

DAIVA MURMULAITYTĖ

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

5 Petro Vileišio St., LT-10308 Vilnius, Lithuania

[email protected]

312

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVII