VILIJA SAKALAUSKIENĖ

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

Research interests: lexicography, lexicology, ethnolinguistics.

ZOFIA SAWANIEWSKA-MOCHOWA

Institute of Slavic Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences

Research interests: lexicography, lexicology, ethnolinguistics, the history of the Polish language.

BILINGUAL DICTIONARIES AS CULTURAL TEXTS (Based on the 19th-century dictionaries of Rev. Antanas Juška)

Translational Dictionaries as Texts of Culture (On the Example of the Nineteenth-Century Dictionaries by Rev. Antanas Juška)

ABSTRACT

The article focuses on the Lithuanian and Polish vocabulary of Antanas Juška’s bilingual dictionary, through which the conceptualization of the HUMAN is reflected in descriptions of physical appearance, psyche, emotions, social status, beliefs, and rites. The question of equivalence is raised in an effort to discern similarities and differences between the two cultures.

The article analyzes linguistic material selected from A. Juška’s Lithuanian–Polish and Polish–Lithuanian dictionaries. The authors pose the central question of whether information about people can be “read” from 19th-century bilingual dictionaries, understood as multifaceted texts of Lithuanian culture.

KEYWORDS: Antanas Juška, translated dictionaries, 19th century, cultural text, ethnolinguistics.

Straipsniai / Articles

89

VILIJA SAKALAUSKIENĖ, ZOFIA SAWANEWSKA-MOCHOWA

ANNOTATION

The article is the attempt to analyze linguistic material, excerpted from the lexographical legacy of Rev. Antanas Juška. This idea fits well into the paradigm of ethnolinguistic research. The authors pose themselves a fundamental question, whether information about a human being can be “read out” of the nineteenth-century translational dictionaries, when they are approached as texts of culture of multilingual community in Lithuania.

KEYWORDS: Antanas Juška, translational dictionaries, 19^th century, text of culture, ethnolinguistics.

INTRODUCTION

First of all, it is necessary to define how the term cultural text will be used in this article. In contemporary humanities literature, this concept is applied to describe various works of human cultural activity, not only verbal utterances but also, in the broad semiotic sense, folklore arising from sequences of signs of different kinds (Bartmiński, Niebrzegowska-Bartmińska 2009: 72).

The study is based on bilingual dictionaries and, consequently, on verbal utterances whose important structural foundation consists of the comparison and evaluation of linguistic systems, while their linguistic sources include various cultural codes. This definition of cultural verbal utterances is appropriate for the nineteenth-century dictionaries of the priest Antanas Juška, whose systematic data occupy an important place in cognitive ethnolinguistic research, since researchers seek to reveal the realities of that period and their evaluation through linguistic data. Although A. Juška’s texts have still not been properly appreciated by scholars, in view of the comparison of two (or more) different languages, they constitute an important part of Lithuanian and Polish cultural heritage. A bilingual dictionary is useful also because it has what is known as a semantic metalanguage: meanings are described through paraphrases, and collocations and synonyms are provided.

Thus, the research task is formulated as identifying the differences and similarities in how two peoples, each with a narrative of its own past, perceive and evaluate the world. Although this is a difficult task, it is feasible—but only through collaboration between Lithuanian and Polish researchers, who consider that bilingual dictionaries, despite their pragmatic dimension, provide ethnolinguistic information about the nature of a collective’s subjectification.

This article focuses on the Lithuanian and Polish lexemes in A. Juška’s bilingual dictionary through which the conceptualization of the HUMAN BEING is presented, describing physical appearance, psyche, emotions, social status, beliefs, and the performance of rites. The aim of the study is to determine whether the Lithuanian and Polish linguistic expressions presented in bilingual dictionaries, which are

90

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI

Bilingual Dictionaries as Cultural Texts (Based on the Nineteenth-Century Dictionaries of the Priest Antanas Juška)

assigned to a particular semantic group are characterized by complete equivalence of meaning or approximate equivalence, or whether some lexical-semantic asymmetry in meaning appears between the two languages being compared.

Using specific examples of equivalents presented in A. Juška’s dictionary, the study seeks to show whether the image of the human being in Lithuanian and Polish is symmetrical and equally detailed, or whether certain semantic, stylistic, or even pragmatic differences relating to the human being are evident.

Terms categorizing the HUMAN BEING (for the purposes of this article, based on noun and adjective forms) are divided into semantic groups. In the bilingual Lithuanian–Polish dictionary, Lithuanian words are matched with Polish equivalents, as well as synonyms. The author often used descriptive translation, rendering Lithuanian equivalents on the basis of semantic relations, possible collocations, or comments explaining the meaning, which are given in parentheses alongside the main noun equivalent.

For example, Renata Miseviča-Trillia (2012; 2013: 162–171) described in detail the methods used to translate Latvian equivalents into Polish in A. Juška’s trilingual Latvian–Lithuanian–Polish dictionary. It should be emphasized that A. Juška’s dictionaries are not only translation dictionaries but also explanatory translation dictionaries, which are extremely important for ethnolinguists seeking to investigate how two peoples living in the same territory categorize the world on the basis of a comparison of their languages. “Translation dictionaries compiled by bilinguals are not only valuable collections of material for conducting systematic research, but also reveal the influence of bilingualism on the language system, where the author’s bilingualism is embedded in the cultures of two peoples” (Sawaniewska-Mochowa 2014: 131).

The study begins with the selection of a methodology and the definition of concepts, based on A. Juška’s bilingual Polish and Lithuanian dictionaries. The object of the study is the lexicographic legacy, which, in addition to the published portion, survives in various manuscript versions that were supplemented and corrected by other authors. The material is therefore assessed critically. It is necessary to take into account lexical-semantic aspects of the expressions that were changed by later editors. The material was selected in this way because equivalents must be presented in both the Lithuanian and Polish sections of the dictionary.

Let us assume that bilingual dictionaries constitute a specific type of text. This raises the question of what information can be read from the text of such a historical dictionary if we regard and evaluate it as a whole, treating it as a particular kind of work and as a cultural monument of a multilingual community, rather than merely as a collection of headwords and their corresponding translations, created solely for practical purposes—for example, for use only during the period when one is learning a language.

Straipsniai / Articles

91

VILIJA SAKALAUSKIENĖ, ZOFIA SAWANEWSKA-MOCHOWA

The claim that “a dictionary is a type of text” implies, according to the ethnolinguist Wojciech Chlebda, several main theses: 1) since a dictionary is a type of text, it is also an utterance; since a dictionary is regarded as an utterance, it is part of the communal discourse of a particular place and time. This means that a dictionary has its own addresser and addressee, as well as a particular reality to which the utterance relates; 2) since a dictionary is a text (utterance), it is also an interpretive account of a particular reality (including linguistic reality) (Chlebda 2010: 202).

This raises the question: who is the subject of the narrative in a bilingual Lithuanian dictionary of the nineteenth century, when Lithuania, like Poland, was then ruled by tsars?

Dictionaries of this kind are characterized by the presence of various imagined subjects. First of all, they reflect the perspective of a collective subject, namely a linguistic-cultural community made up of smaller communities, for example, regional, environmental, or religious communities (Chlebda 2010: 202).

When discussing A. Juška’s bilingual dictionaries, we encounter the coexistence of the linguistic collectives of two subjects—the Lithuanians and the Poles—and of two subject worldviews. From an ethnolinguistic perspective, it is interesting to examine whether the visions that tell of the existence of a mental community of the inhabitants of Lithuania at that time (referred to as “mental maps” in psycholinguistic terminology) are symmetrical. Do two different interpretations of reality emerge here, presented through different lexical and stylistic forms, stereotypes, and cultural images? But the subjectivity of a dictionary belongs not only to the collective: it is also determined by the dictionary’s creator—the lexicographer, so to speak, the author of a text or utterance intended to serve a particular addressee’s purpose at a specific time and place. It is the lexicographer who constructs the dictionary; its macrostructure, the selection of equivalents in the other language, and the inclusion of additional explanations, context, or grammatical information all depend on them.

An ethnolinguist must understand that, alongside the collective imagination, a dictionary also expresses the individual imagination presented by its author, including through the selection of particular lexemes. Lexicographers are always faced with a multitude of decisions, both when selecting material and when arranging it, since it is impossible to create a dictionary whose macrostructure encompasses every possible designation that exists in a language. When compiling a dictionary corpus, the usual aim is to present a set of words that reflects the world-concept of a linguistic-cultural community.

A. Juška was precisely such an author, one who ambitiously sought to present in his dictionaries a comprehensive worldview of that period. As a bilingual lexicographer, he was not only an attentive observer and chronicler of various manifestations of Lithuanian and Polish life where two languages and cultures meet, but, in many cases, was also, in W. Chlebda’s terms, an interpreter of the reality of the time, assessing it objectively and providing numerous accounts of realia. He did so in an easily understandable way, revealing

92

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI

Bilingual Dictionaries as Cultural Texts (Based on the Dictionaries of Rev. Antanas Juška from the Nineteenth Century)

dalyko esmę, vengdamas moksliškumo ir enciklopediškumo (Chlebda 1993: 205; Sawaniewska-Mochowa 2014: 135). Jis siekė ne tik suregistruoti lietuvių gyvosios kalbos turtus, bet ir puikiai išmanė lenkų kalbos regioninį variantą (specifinį sociolektą), kuriuo kalbėjo sulenkėję Kauno gubernijos bajorai (Sawaniewska-Mochowa 2002). Pasak Baudouino de Courtenay, A. Juška buvo geriausias to laikotarpio lietuvių gyvenimo žinovas (de Courtenay 1880: 2).

Translated dictionaries compiled by bilingual individuals are valuable not only as collections of material for systematic research, but also as sources that make it possible to reveal the influence of bilingualism on the language system, when the author’s bilingualism entails the cultures of two nations (Sawaniewska-Mochowa 2014: 131). A. Juška’s bilingual dictionaries are an exceptionally valuable source for ethnolinguists studying two linguistic systems as a subjective narrative that categorizes everyday life at a time when two different spoken languages, shaped by language norms, were in use.

A comparison of the Lithuanian headwords in A. Juška’s dictionaries and their Polish equivalents reveals similarities between certain lexical-semantic groups, for example, words describing a person, their activities, and so on. Such equivalences between Polish and Lithuanian words used by bilingual speakers, and between Lithuanian and Polish words, give rise to cultural interference among bilingual inhabitants, resulting in shared terminology for designating attributes in various spheres, as well as the conscious choice of a Polish or Lithuanian designation depending on the linguistic situation (Sawaniewska-Mochowa 2014: 135).

THE SPHERE OF THE BODY,

PHYSICAL (EXTERNAL) FEATURES

A. Juška wrote down everything he managed to overhear in everyday speech, without dividing the words of the peasants’ speech into acceptable and unacceptable ones. He avoided coarse and vulgar words and expressions, considering them unsuitable for a dictionary and, more generally, unacceptable to the reading public (Tolutienė 1961: 151):

Lith. biksuōkis (a compound of biksuos + to shit) = Pol. expressive sracz do portek ‘someone who has soiled their trousers’¹ (L B² I 15, L B II 26), fajdajacy się do portek (J I 207);

¹ Kurs šią į biksves, tas biksvašikis ‘one who defecates (?) and soils (?) their trousers’ (J I 207).

² Słownik litewsko–polski abbreviation conventions: lowercase capital letters after the symbol L indicate that the Polish-language material was taken from the corresponding Lithuanian sections from A to Ž; the numerals I, II, III indicate the order of editions; the abbreviation dr denotes dictionary parts published or republished, L Bug – K. Būga’s edition, and Arabic numerals indicate cards added to the manuscript or page numbers.

Straipsniai / Articles

93

VILIJA SAKALAUSKIENĖ, ZOFIA SAWANEWSKA-MOCHOWA

Lith. bunõsa (a compound of buka + nosis) ‘snub-nosed’ = Pol. tęponos (L B I 37, L B II 60, J I 248): Tas buknõsa, kuriõ bukà nosė. According to LKŽ, recorded in Jurgis Šlapelis’s dictionary;

Lith. dublỹs ‘big-bellied person’ = Pol. brzuchal (J I 357); in Polish dialects, brzu-chal, brzuchal are used to mean ‘a person with a large belly, a fat man’ (central and northern Poland); according to LKŽ, the word is used in the present-day Eastern Aukštaitian Panevėžys subdialect (around Panevėžys), while the variant dūblis is used in Eišiškės, Počiūnėliai (Radviliškis district), and Pakruojis;

Lith. memelis ‘one who stumbles over words when speaking, stutters, a stutterer’ (L M dr 30) // memelis ‘one who stumbles over words when speaking, stutters, a stutterer’ (L M dr 34) = Pol. zajękliwy ‘stuttering’ ib.; momot ‘stutterer (one who stutters)’ (L M II 30); zajękliwy (L M II 30). In Polish dialects (Lesser Poland), such a person is called momot, zajękal, zajękliwy. The word is quite widespread in Lithuanian dialects: memelis—in the Eastern Aukštaitian Panevėžys subdialect (around Panevėžys) and the Eastern Aukštaitian Utena subdialect (Dusetos); memelis—in Western Aukštaitian Kaunas dialects (Skirsnemunė, Lukšiai);

Lith. rukšnà ‘someone who is frowning, knitted-browed; sullen, a grouch’: Kur susiraukęs vis tas rukšnà, variantas rukslà = In Polish dialects, zmarszczoch (człowiek cały zmarszczony) ‘a frown-faced person (a person whose face is completely wrinkled)’ is used (L R I 25). Names with the suffix -ocha were characteristic of old Poland, but to this day remain productive in Polish dialects as names for agents or bearers of qualities, sometimes expressing a negative emotional coloring. In Lithuanian, rukšnà, rukšlà mean ‘a person who is frowning, making a face, scowling; a grouch’. Rukšnà is widespread in Western Aukštaitian Kaunas dialects (around Marijampolė, Vilkaviškis, Jurbarkas) and Southern Aukštaitian dialects (around Alytus); rukšlà is used in Žemaitian dialects (Kretinga, Varniai, Raseiniai subdialects);

Lith. stìvas, cf. LKŽ stỹvas, Ger. dial. stîw, Pol. sztywny ‘grinning, straight’: Kas tiesus, neapsikumpinęs, stačias ir lygus kaip rąstas vienuolinis, tas stìvas (J). ~ Pol. prosty jak świeca ‘straight as a candle’ (L S I 60); according to LKŽ, stìvas is recorded in Kuršėnai. In Lithuanian dialects, especially Western Aukštaitian Kaunas dialects, the variant štyvas is widespread; it was included in Friedrich Kurschat’s Lithuanian–German dictionary, whose data were collected from the spoken language of Lithuanians in Lithuania Minor and from printed sources.

CHARACTER TRAITS

Lith. akýplėša (a compound of akìs ‘eye’ + plėšti ‘to tear’) ‘an insolent, coarse, ill-mannered person’: Vālo agintas vājkas tāp akýplėša, t. y. žėdam akis draska. Kas akis plėšia, priešinas, tas akyplėša (J I 7) = Polish expressive okdzior (a compound of drzeć + oko), drapieżny ‘predatory’ (L A II 8, L A III 4, J I 7). L. Ivinskis translates drapieżny as plėšans, –nčia (I

94

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI

Dvikalbiai žodynai kaip kultūros tekstai (XIX a. kun. Antano Juškos žodynų pagrindu)

54). It is used in Lithuanian dialects (Western Aukštaitian Kaunas subdialect, Northern Samogitian Kretinga subdialect) and has entered the standard language;

Lith. jumperis ‘one who clings, attaches oneself’ ~ Polish przywiązany jak kleszcz ‘clinging like a tick’ (L ı I 5); the part edited by Jonas Jablonskis gives jumperė, -ės (cf. Ger. Jungferchen) ‘young lady (Pol. panienka)’ (said contemptuously): Ta motriška jo (keleiviai) jumperė, t.y. prijunta prie jo, kaip erkė įsirta (i.e. ‘sucks itself in’) (J II 687). Jumpere gasuės vaikščiojo (J II 687), cf. jumperis, -ė, recorded in LKŽ from A. Juška’s dictionary. Also cf. jumprovą ‘young lady’ (cf. Ger. Jungfrau), which likewise has a negative connotation: jumprova nemoka nei kokio darbelio; recorded in Pilypas Ruigys’s Lietuvių–vokiečių ir vokiečių–lietuvių kalbų žodyne, Vilius Kalvaitis’s Prūsijos lietuvių dainose (Kalvaitis 1905: 123), August Schleicher’s Litauisches Lesebuch und Glossar (Schleicher 1857: 172), frequently occurs in the songs recorded by A. Juška, and is also found in the song collections of Liudvikas Rėza (1935, 1937) and August Leskien and Karl Brugmann (Leskien, Brugmann 1882: 65), and was used by Kristijonas Donelaitis;

Lith. gerùlis = Pol. dobruti (L g I 19), Ø rozkosznik (‘debauched person’) (L g II 34), dobry człowiek (this equivalent is given by J. Jablonskis, who also notes that Juška used palainintas rozkosznik ‘one who has given himself over to debauchery’) (J II 429). Cf. Swil, as in L. Ivinskis’s dictionary (I 460), means ‘a lecher, a libertine, a debauchee’, and is related to gosus ‘lecherous, lustful’ and raškanas ‘mischievous, merry’. A. Juška probably intended to give this designation a different shade of meaning: ‘one who brings bliss to others’. In LKŽ the word means ‘a good person, a good fellow’: Iš šelmio gerulio nepadarysi (Valkininkai, Varėna district). L. Ivinskis’s dobruti is an adjective, translated as gerutis, geručia (Girėnūtis, -ūčia I 46);

Lith. minkštaútis is used disparagingly of an ineffectual, spineless man; pačiužys means ‘soft-boiled egg’ = Polish expressive miękaja ‘a submissive / yielding person’ (L m II 48v, L m dr 45. L m II 48v, L m dr 45). In Lithuanian it means a weak, submissive person who is easily influenced by others; also cf. Lith. minkšprótis (L m II 49), minkšprótis (L m dr 45) = Polish słabomyślny;

Lith. kiršlys. A. Juška explains the meaning of this word with an illustrative example: Kurš kiršina, erzina kitus žmones, tas kiršlys ~ Polish expressive rozuzyciel ‘one who foments discord, provokes anger’ (L K I 41, J III 129). F. Kursaitis gives a similar explanation in his dictionary: kiršintojas: Kiršintojas – kurs kiršina (K I 67). This designation describes a person who irritates, angers, and incites others against one another. L. Ivinskis translates the adjective rozuzy as įbūgęs (= įutęs), patrakęs, įdūkęs, įšėlęs (I 456).

Without context, it is difficult to reconstruct the precise meaning from the Polish equivalent. The word rozuzyciel is used neither in the current standard language nor in dialects, but formations of this structure, based on the historical productive Polish pattern with the formant -iciel / -yciel, may have existed in usage at the time. In A. Juška’s dictionary, the Polish material also includes items with the meaning of nomen agentis (cf.

Straipsniai / Articles

95

VILIJA SAKALAUSKIENĖ, ZOFIA SAWANIEWSKA-MOCHOWA

grabiel, gryiziel, nagiel, strasziel, zvodziciel) there are quite a few examples of envy. It is also possible that A. Juška, seeking symmetry in translation, formed such an agent noun from pairs of verbal aspects: rožusýti intransitive – rožusaz transitive ‘drive (lead) to the point of madness, make (drive) furious’ or rožusyȯ intransitive – rožusaž transitive ‘become enraged (rage), get angry (be angry), rage at someone for some reason’.

Compare also compounds with a symmetrical structure: Lithuanian arėkergis = Polish wodkopój, girtuo-klis (L A II 106): Ten arėkergėj, užsidarė į urzdinė, gėra (J I 107); Ivinskis’s dictionary records girtūklis ‘drunkard’ (I 279).

The meanings of many of the words mentioned are grounded in the speaker’s negative emotional attitude toward the thing being referred to. This is the speaker’s opinion of a particular person’s worth, and that opinion is presented not as a logical judgment but as the speaker’s experience or feeling. These words encode a negative evaluation.

MANNER OF LIVING, LIFESTYLE, ACTIVITY

Lithuanian baldõšius masculine, baldõšė feminine: Kas par naktis bãldos, tas baldõšius (J I 186) ~ Polish tluk (L B I 3); wąsęjący się, tłuczący się ‘one who wanders about’ (J I 186). A. Juška also gives the synonym pabalda.

It is evident that the Lithuanian word form describes a person who roams about and loiters at night, i.e. night rover. Meanwhile, the Polish equivalents rather express the general meaning ‘wanders about, łazi, łaźę’ < into action. to tramp about ‘to travel somewhere without purpose, to be who knows where, to wander, roam, tramp about’, in the Lesser Poland dialect a roamer ‘a person who likes to tramp about’, also used dialectally as a nickname when referring to a carefree disposition, especially with women in mind;

Lithuanian laidotùvininkas (L L II 4, L Bug Als) ~ Polish pogrzebnik (Sw), compare ‘one who takes care of a funeral, arranges a funeral’. Likewise, in L. Ivinskis’s dictionary, pogrzebnik is translated as laidojas ‘one who buries the dead’, būdininkas (?) (I 296). It seems that A. Juška understood the Polish equivalent pogrzebnik as someone attending a funeral. This meaning of the term is used in Silesia and Kashubia. The LKŽ also gives this meaning of laidotuvininkas. A. Juška’s sentence is also found here: Laidotùvininkai grįžta iš kapų, in which laidotùvininkai most likely likewise means ‘funeral attendees’;

Lithuanian prągininkas = Polish porżnik ‘one who bakes and sells pies’ (L P I 83); according to SWi, ‘one who makes pies, sells them or eats them’, cf. Lithuanian pyrãgininkas ‘confectioner, pie baker’. This term is recorded in the dictionary of Jonas Henrikas Kunmanas (which we call Krause’s dictionary); F. Kuršaitis had also included it in his dictionary. It is also mentioned in Bretkūnas’s Bible and is used

96

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI

Bilingual Dictionaries as Cultural Texts (Based on the Dictionaries of the 19th-Century Priest Antanas Juška)

in the dialects: Eastern Aukštaitian Panevėžys subdialects (in Grūžiai, Pasvalys District) and Southern Samogitian Raseiniai subdialects (around Tauragė).

SOCIAL STATUS (DICHOTOMOUS DIVISION OF THE COMMUNITY INTO LORDS, NOBLES, AND PEASANTS)

A very large group of names in Lithuanian is based on the word bajoras, e.g.: dialectal bájoras, –rė (L₁ I 2, L₁ II 3, J I 183) ‘privileged landowner, originally middle-ranking landowner; person of privileged descent, gentry: Iš Laudes³ bajoras, o tu karčiuotas⁴. Atsky das muikas nu bajoru, t.y. iškiriamas. Jinai bajorė iš gima ir po vyru bajorė (J I 183–184). The connotation of this word in 19th-century Lithuanian is neutral or positive. Therefore, an equals sign may be placed between: = Polish equivalents bójar ‘bajoras’, szlachcic ‘bajoras’. In the manuscript, A. Juška had entered rycerz ‘knight’ (L₁ I 2), bohatyr ‘hero’ (L₁ II 3). In the printed version, however, there is only szlachcic (J I 184); dialectal bajorâtė = Polish ‘a lady or maiden of noble lineage, a nobleman’s daughter’ (J I 183); dialectal bajorùkas = Polish 1. diminutive name meaning ‘(little) son of a nobleman’; 2. ‘poor nobleman’; 3. (with a shade of pity) ‘petty noble’ (L₁ III 4); in the printed version: son of a nobleman; poor nobleman; petty noble (J I 184); the second and third meanings are not recorded in LKŽe; dialectal bajóvedis: Bajorėdis yra vadas bajorų (J I 184) ‘leader of the boyars’ ~ Polish dialectal marszałek ‘leader, master of ceremonies; the highest French military rank in the time of Napoleon I and III; elder; senior participant at a wedding, etc.’ (Pol I 443). In LKŽ, maršalka denotes a person in a position of authority: 1. ‘an administrator or leader in the apparatus of a feudal state; leader of the nobles’; 2. ‘person presiding over festivities’; 3. ‘matchmaker’; 4. ‘participant in the wedding party.’ Marsalek (cf. medieval German marschalk ‘servant of the royal household’) is a historical term ‘15th–17th centuries – first minister, state official,’

Liudė is the name of a historical region comprising the noble villages on the right bank of the Nevėžis, mostly in the Pociūnėliai–Dotnuva area. Considerable information about Lithuanian nobles is provided by late-16th-century Raseiniai land court records, sales and other documents (LE XIV 501–502).

Karčiuotas ‘shabby, unkempt-haired’.

Straipsniai / Articles

97

VILIJA SAKALAUSKIENĖ, ZOFIA SAWANEWSKA-MOCHOWA

having broad powers. A. Juška does not assign it the meaning of a state official, a function performed by the marshal in the Sejm of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth; rather, he most likely had in mind the suitability of a marshal elected at gatherings of the nobility. The marshal presided over the proceedings of various kinds of local assemblies. However, this name is not equivalent to its Lithuanian counterpart, which is a compound, since the Polish name is a term of history and law;

Lithuanian didikas = Polish mocarz, pan (wielki) ‘potentate, lord (great)’ (L D I 18), (J I 321). It should be noted that although A. Juška had a broad range of Polish lexemes at his disposal for describing a person of high financial and social standing (wielmoża, możnowładca, arystokrata, magnat, właściciel ziemski), he uses the axiologically (in terms of value) significant designation pan, which he supplements with the epithet wielki (great). Synonyms for didikas include didžulis ‘proud, haughty, conceited’: Kurs didžiuojas, tas didžulis (J I 322), kryvis ‘ancient Lithuanian cleric, priest’, galūnas ‘potentate, grandee’, the latter used with this meaning by Antanas Baranauskas and Konstantinas Sirvydas;

Lithuanian didikas means a person of high birth in Lithuanian, cf. the derivatives Lithuanian didūne, Polish zbior wielkich (panów), arystokracya (assembly of great lords): Čė didūne, o tenajs visūme susirinko (L D I 18), (J I 321); państwo, zbior wielkich panów (assemblage of grandees, gathering of nobles) (L D II 46).

RELIGIOSITY, BELIEFS, RITUALS

Lith. dievameldis = Pol. bogomolca (P Ł 4v), arch. bogomólca (second half of the 16th century); dievameldis is included in Dominikas Sutkevičius’s dictionary (Sut), while the variant dievomeldis ‘a devout person’ is found in K. Sirvydas’s dictionary. L. Ivinskis’s dictionary contains bogomolca, explained as Duodas malda Diewuj; the synonym dievameldis, -džia (I 20);

Lith. dievargingas ‘devout’ = Pol. chwalibog (devout) (L D I 16); in Polish dialects (southern Lesser Poland), chwalibóg is used with a different meaning, ‘a person who likes to defend themself, a braggart’ (SGP PAN IV 152); according to LKŽ, dievargingas was recorded in this sense in the manuscript glossary of Silvestras Gimžauskas (around 1879–1881);

Lith. maldininkas ‘a devout person, one who prays a lot’ ~ Pol. nabożniś (L M II 8v): Kurs nuolat meldžias, tas maldininkas. ‘Whoever prays constantly is a maldininkas.’ The Lithuanian form is neutral, whereas the Polish expression is used with an ironic tinge and refers to an excessively religious person who takes great pride in their religiosity;

nabożniś ‘devout’, a term for świętoszek (dewotka), dewot (dewotka), bigot (dewotka). The Lithuanian equivalent has a derogatory connotation and means ‘an excessively devout person (especially of women)’.

98

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI

Bilingual Dictionaries as Cultural Texts (Based on the 19th-Century Dictionaries of Rev. Antanas Juška)

In A. Juška’s dictionary, a person is described as devout, though not necessarily as praying excessively; the person also believes in the spiritual world and the existence of devils, since the dictionary includes words such as:

Lith. ãjt̄aras // ãjč̄aras = Pol. ajtwar = kite ~ evil spirit ‘evil spirit’ (Lₐ I 3, Lₐ II 6, Lₐ II 4, J I 6).

L. Ivinskis’s dictionary also includes ãjt̄aras – Latawiec ‘a legendary being that does not exist among people’ (I 131). In Lithuanian and Baltic mythology, an aitvaras is a being that brings material wealth. It is sometimes regarded as good and sometimes as evil. It works secretly and is unusual. People often do not even suspect that they have an aitvaras. It protects good, ungreedy people who are mistreated by others, bringing them all kinds of wealth. It is believed that the wealth brought by an aitvaras does no good. It is depicted as a rooster, a fiery snake, a grass snake, a whirlwind, or a fiery or black bird-shaped stick (Džigol 2004: 17).

The illustrative sentences in A. Juška’s dictionary are: Aitvaras drieksi kad su pinigais, tai ugninas. Aičūras kaip pilas – mėlynas, kaip dykas – šviesus menga, t. y. leka (J I 6).

The Lithuanian forms ãit(i)varas, ãič̄aras, eit(i)varas (Fraenkel I 4), or their dialectal equivalents, used in northeastern Poland, describe a household spirit that brings money previously collected for another master, when stars fall: Tatar ajtwaras (SGP PAN I 63), ajwar (SGP PAN I 60), atwor (SGP PAN I 182).

Information recorded by Helena Szeikowska in the Panevėžys area in 1926 states that ajtwaras means ‘a name for the devil’: Aitvaras, tai toks velnias, kas jam siela parduos, tas visą gyvenimą turės pinų, pieno, sūrio, sviesto, o kam greitai dingsta (...), that is: aitvaras iš jo viską ima, o kitam duoda⁵.

In turn, the Polish equivalent latawiec in Pomerania and Mazovia means ‘a household devil that appears during the day; it is depicted as a flying pillar of fire, a spot, a ball with a long blazing tail, a fiery bird, a snake, or a dragon; in southern Poland, the term refers to an entirely different spirit of devilish nature—a harmful, unbaptized child’s spirit that takes the form of a bird’ (Džigol 2004: 17).

The meaning of the Lithuanian form ajtwar and that of the Polish latawiec are similar. This suggests that the inhabitants of Lithuania at the time brought closer to themselves (a claim that still requires substantiation through more extensive research) a shared image of domestic demonic beings, and perhaps even borrowed ways of conceptualizing the world.

⁵ “The following information comes from the Panevėžys district, recorded by Helena Szeikowska in 1926, that ajtwaras is ‘a name for the devil’: ajtwaras to taki d’ abł, któremuś sprzeda, to on psa ca życ’a nos’i pieniązy, m’leka, syru, masła, i akkumuzafśyk’im naspna [the milk runs out quickly, that is: ajtwaras od niego odbiera, a drugiemu daji“ (Nitsch 1968: 368, SGP PAN I 63, Džigol 2004: 26–27). Translated by Vilija Sakalauskienė.

Straipsniai / Articles

99

VILIJA SAKALAUSKIENĖ, ZOFIA SAWANIEWSKA-MOCHOWA

CONCLUSIONS

So far, a full analysis has not yet been conducted of the linguistic material in A. Juška’s bilingual dictionaries of the 19th century, which reflects the conceptualization of the perception of HUMAN BEINGS in spoken Lithuanian and in the Polish variety known as the sociolect of the petty nobility of Kaunas. This article examined verb forms in Lithuanian and Polish. This is undoubtedly a very rich part of the dictionary, revealing a comprehensive image of the human being through the activities they perform and their physical and mental state.

This preliminary comparative analysis has led to several insights relevant to ethnolinguists interested in bilingual dictionaries:

1. With regard to human activity (which differs particularly from the norms accepted in that country), one can speak of the existence of asymmetry between Lithuanian and Polish linguistic forms recorded in the 19th-century dictionary. The Lithuanian linguistic units used in the dictionary have such meanings and describe and evaluate people and their surroundings in such detail that there are no adequate single-word equivalents in Polish.

2. To preserve the semantic diversity of Lithuanian designations, A. Juška attempts to compensate for these shortcomings with descriptions. It is worth noting that polonisms also appear in the macrostructure of A. Juška’s dictionary, but that is another question, one that may be addressed in the future.

Nevertheless, no categorical conclusions can be drawn about the existence of a clear dichotomy in the worldviews of the Lithuanian- and Polish-speaking inhabitants of Lithuania at the time. There is considerable convergence in the interpretation of the surrounding world. This style of conceptualizing reality, close to the vernacular, is manifested in the bilingual dictionary in the fact that Lithuanian terms corresponding to vernacular designations are matched with equivalent Polish dialectisms and archaisms preserved in the Polish sociolect of the petty nobility. In both the Lithuanian and Polish material, the use of designations that are stylistically neutral as well as expressive, and sometimes even explicit rather than allusive, is clearly evident.

SYMBOLS AND CONVENTIONS

The following symbols are used to describe comparative units in Lithuanian and Polish:

= complete equivalence,

~ approximate equivalence,

Ø absence of equivalence.

100

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI

Bilingual Dictionaries as Cultural Texts

(Based on the 19th-century dictionaries of Rev. Antanas Juška)

ŠALTINIAI

I – Lauryno Ivinskio lenkų–lietuvių kalbų žodynas, par. Ona Kažukauskaitė. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2010.

J – Литовскій словарь А. Юшкевича съ толкованіемъ словъ на русскомъ польскомъ языкѣ, том 1, вып. 1, Санктпетербург 1897; вып. 2, Санктпетербург 1904; вып. 3 (тома II-го вып. 1). Петроград, 1922.

K – Litauisch-deutsches Wörterbuch von Fridrich Kurschat. Halle a. S. 1883.

L – Słownik litewsko-polski (Lietuvių–lenkų kalbos žodynas). Juška Antanas, sygn. od F1–2163 do F1–2174.

L II – Słownik litewsko-polski A. Juskiewicza, druga redakcja haseł na M, rękopis w zbiorach LTIMBR, sygn. F1–2175, 74 arkusze in folio.

LE – Lietuvių enciklopedija 14, red. Juozas Girnius. Boston: Lietuvių enciklopedijos leidykla, 1958.

LKŽe – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 1–20, 1941–2002, elektroninis variantas, red. kolegija: Gertrūda Naktinienė (vyr. redaktorė), Jonas Paulauskas, Ritūtė Petrokienė, Vytautas Vitkauskas, Jolanta Zabarskaitė. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2005; atnaujinta versija, 2008. Prieiga internete: www.lkz.lt.

LTIMBR – Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos instituto mokslinės bibliotekos rankraštis.

PL – A. Juška, Słownik Polsko-Litewski A–Z (Lenkų–lietuvių kalbos žodynas), rękopis w zbiorach LTIMBR, sygn. F1–2178, 137 kart.

PolŽ I – Kregždys Rolandas 2016: Lietuvių kalbos polonizmų žodynas 1. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

RD – Ludo Rezos dainos. Pirmojo lietuviško dainyno II leidimas. M. Biržiškos spaudai parengta. I ir II dalis. Kaunas, 1935, 1937.

SG PAN – Słownik gwar polskich, 1977–2015, Źródła, t. I, red. M. Karaś, J. Reichan, t. II–V, red. J. Reichan, S. Urbańczyk, t. VI, red. J. Okoniowa, J. Reichan, t. VII i VIII, z. 1, red. J. Okoniowa, J. Reichan, B. Grabka, t. VIII, z. 2–4, t. IX, z. 1, red. J. Okoniowa; t. IX, z. 2, red. R. Kucharzyk; t. I–II, Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1997–1991, t. IV–IX. Kraków: Instytut Języka Polskiego PAN, 1992–2015.

Sirvydas – Pirmasis lietuvių kalbos žodynas. Konstantinas Sirvydas, Dictionarium trium linguarum, par. Kazys Pakalka. Vilnius: Mokslas, 1979.

St – Słownik Litewsko-Żmudzko-Polski, ułożony przez Księdza Dominika Sutkiewicza [...] Datur Rossiensis 1835, rękopis.

Straipsniai / Articles

101

VILIJA SAKALAUSKIENĖ, ZOFIA SAWANIEWSKA-MOCHOWA

Swil – Słownik języka polskiego [tzw. Słownik wileński], I. A–O; II. P–Z. Wilno: Wydany staraniem i kosztem Maurycego Orgelbranda, 1861.

LITERATŪRA

Bartmiński Jerzy, Niebrzegowska-Bartmińska Stanisława 2009: Tekstologia. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.

Chlebda Wojciech 1993: Słownik a „dwuczłonowe” postrzeganie świata. – O definicjach i definiowaniu, red. J. Bartmiński, R. Tokarski. Lublin: Wydawnictwo UMCS, 195–205.

Chlebda Wojciech 2010: W jakim zakresie słownik dwujęzyczny może być źródłem informacji etnolingwistycznej. – Etnolingwistyka i leksykografia. Tom poświęcony Profesorowi Jerzemu Bartmińskiemu, red. naukowa W. Chlebda. Opole: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Opolskiego, 201–208.

de Courtenay Baudouin, Niecislaw Jan 1880: Ksiądz Antoni Juszkiewicz. – Nowiny (przed nr. 329), 2–4. Przedruk: J. N. Baudouin de Courtenay 1983: Dzieła wybrane 6, red. Z. Jakubowski, J. Kulczycka-Saloni. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 35–39.

Dźwigł Renata 2004: Polskie ludowe słownictwo mitologiczne. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Akademii Pedagogicznej.

Fraenkel I–II – Fraenkel Ernst 1962–1965: Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg: Winter.

Kalvaitis Vilius 1905: Prusijos Lietuvių Dainos. Surinko [...] Vilius Kalvaitis. Tilžė.

Kemėnski Andrej Maria 1993: Słownik mitologii ludów indoeuropejskich. Warszawa: Kantor Wydawniczy SAW.

Leskien August, Brugmann Karl 1882: Litauische Volkslieder und Märchen aus dem preussischen und dem russischen Litauen. Strasburg: K. J. Trübner.

Miseviča-Triliča Renata 2012: Lauku dzīves atainojums Antana Juškas latviešu–lietuviešu–poļu vārdnīcā. – Balu filoloģija 21(2), 43–62

Miseviča-Triliča Renata 2013: Poļu ekvivalenti Antana Juškas latviešu–lietuviešu–poļu manuskriptā. – Vārds un tā pētišanas aspekti 17(1), 162–171.

Nitsch Kazimierz 1968: Wybór polskich tekstów gwarowych, red. Z. Stamirowska. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.

Ruhig Philipp 1747: Littauisch–Deutsches und Deutsch–Littauisches Lexicon. Königsberg.

102

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI

Dvikalbiai žodynai kaip kultūros tekstai (XIX a. kun. Antano Juškos žodynų pagrindu)

Sawaniewska-Mochowa Zofia 2002: Ze studiów nad socjolektem drobnej szlachty kobieńskiej XIX wieku (na postawie 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. – Lekiskografija ir leksikologija 4, 123–138.

Schleicher August 1857: Litauisches Lesebuch und Glossar. Prag: J. G. Calve’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.

Tolutienė Birutė 1961: Antanas Juška leksikografas. – Literatūra ir kalba 5, 87–377.

Translational Dictionaries as Texts of Culture (On the Example of the Nineteenth-Century Dictionaries by Rev. Antanas Juška)

SUMMARY

The analysis in this article concentrates on the nineteenth century Polish-Lithuanian and Lithuanian-Polish translational dictionaries by Rev. Antanas Juška, which we interpret as a kind of texts of culture. These types of sources provide valuable ethnolinguistic information for both Lithuanians and researchers of the Polish language. For ethnolinguists bilingual dictionary is a place of coexistence of two visions of the world: individual – the perspective of lexicographer, and collective – the perspective of collective entities/ linguistic-cultural communities.

Taking into account the view that the translational dictionaries form the textual genre and narration about the world, we strive to find answers to two questions:

1. To what extent could the Lithuanian and Polish vocabulary, contained in the macro- and microstructures of these dictionaries, reconstruct a common mentality of the then inhabitants of Lithuania?

2. To what extent does the material disclosed in the dictionaries indicate image of the world of the lexicographer himself and, at the same time, present the distinct visions of the world embraced by Lithuanians and Poles, that are expressed by the other pragmatic and stylistic means, and cultural patterns?

We can interpret more accurately those Lithuanian and Polish components in the structure of the dictionaries by Rev. Juška, that reflect conceptualization of HUMAN BEING

Straipsniai / Articles

103

VILIJA SAKALAUSKIENĖ, ZOFIA SAWANIEWSKA-MOCHOWA

with reference to his/her physicality, psyche and mentality, express of emotions, relation to other/alien, practicing religion and rituals.

Įteikta 2017 m. balandžio 4 d.

VILIJA SAKALAUSKIENĖ

Lietuvių kalbos institutas

Petro Vileišio g. 5, LT–10308 Vilnius, Lietuva

[email protected]

ZOFIA SAWANIEWSKA-MOCHOWA

Institute of Slavic Studies, Polish Academy of Sciences

J. Bartoszewicza g. 1B/17, 00-337 Warszawa, Polska

[email protected]

104

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI