Lietuvių kalbotyra 2003-aisiais metais: Lietuvoje išleisti darbai

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA LI (2004), 125-139 Survey of Recent Publications LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE IN 2003: PUBLISHED WORKS IN LITHUANIA Two thousand thirds of Lithuanian linguists were not generous. This year, three monographs (Vytautas Kardelis, Rita Miliūnaitė, Juozas Jurkėnas), three collections of articles (Problems of Lexicography and Lexicology, Studies of Syntactic Relations, Volume 3 of Selected Articles by Zigmantas Zinkevičius) and a publication of the Old Lithuanian Names Book (John Palionis’s Personal Names and Place Names of Punia Parish in the Second Half of the 17th Century) have been published in Lithuania and are reviewed here. Vytautas Kardelis’ monograph Rytų aukštaičių šnektų slavizmų fonologijos bruožai (Vilnius: Vilnius University Press, 2003, 195 p., ISBN 9986-19-562-4 [Scientific works of the Faculty of Philology of Vilnius University]) was prepared on the basis of a dissertation defended in 1999. It consists of a preface, an introduction and three chapters. At the end of the book is printed a detailed German summary of the work translated by Bjrno Wiemer (pp. 146-158), an extensive list of literature (pp. 159-168), an abbreviated explanation (pp. 169) and an alphabetical list of slavizmy (pp. 170-195), which indicates the grammatical forms, pronunciation, meaning, and possible sources of borrowing of each Slavism. In the introduction (p. 9-10) the relevance of the work is justified: although the Slavisms of the Lithuanian language have already been studied quite a bit, but still “there is a lack of structural and especially diachronic Slavisms studies. One of the least studied areas is the phonology of Slavisms” (p. 9). The fairly extensive introduction (p. 11-33) discusses the directions of the study of Lithuanian Slavisms, the problems, the methodological principles of research and reconstruction. Internal reconstruction was chosen as the main research method; the study is considered an introduction to further and broader studies of the integration of Slavisms (p. 27). The research material has been carefully selected from primary sources (cf. pp. 27—28) and is therefore reliable and unquestionable. The introduction concludes with a brief overview of the principles of phonological reconstruction (pp. 29-33). It is noteworthy that the author felt the need to emphasize in the introduction such basic theoretical issues as the different chronology of borrowed words or the systematicity of phonological integration. In the first chapter of the book, “The phonological system of dialects” (pp. 33-44), the most important and distinctive features of dialects, phoneme distribution, differential features, phonological system are briefly discussed. In the second chapter “Vocal features of Slavic languages” (p. 44-62), which together with the previous one forms the introductory part of the study, the necessary terms and classifications of Slavic languages are discussed, and the vowel system of Slavic languages is reviewed. The section is informative, but somewhat too broad, it does not avoid repetitions. The third, main, chapter “The development of the integration of Slavisms” (p. 62-145) examines the qualitative and quantitative integration of Slavic vowels and its development, summarizes the influence of Slavisms on the system of vocalism of the Snakes. 126 | ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS The study of qualitative integration begins with the vowels o, e. The main laws of integration of the pronounced position “Slavic 0 —Slavisms pronounced half-length d.”, “Slavic e —Slavisms pronounced half-length ė.” are identified and their transformation into the laws “Slavic 0 —Slavisms pronounced half-length u3.”, “Slavic e —Slavisms pronounced half-length iė.” is shown. Relative chronology corresponding to the change of the laws of integration: Slavisms with pronounced semilongs d., ė. are said to be older, and with pronounced semilongs u3., iė. —naujesni (p. 76). The more non-etymological “Slavic 0, e —slavizmy pronounced semi-long i., i.” are due to the evolution of the vocalism systems of the Slavic languages: the w and i-type vowels originated from the “yer” during the borrowing process and later coincided with suo and e in these languages (pp. 78-81). Slavisms with vocalisms of this origin form the oldest layer of Schnekt Slavisms: they are said to have been borrowed before the 12th century. The Slavisms of the Shnekts with the pronounced long ie" are interpreted differently than in the Bogs not by the diphthong pronunciation of the former Slavic "yachi", but by the evolution of the vowel ie" of the Shnekts themselves: at the time of borrowing, the nearest narrow vowel of the middle elevation of the anterior row of the Shnekts *ewas pronounced "yachi", from which the later pronounced position erupted ie". (p. 84-85). This argument seems to take insufficient account of the chronology and semantics of the borrowed words. Examining the laws of the integration of the Slavic vowel a, their change is beautifully revealed, which was spurred by the change of the *a-—> schnekts (pp. 89-91). Convincingly showed the interrelationships of Slavic vowels 0, e, a, integration laws and revealed the development of vocalism in the Snakes determined by its motives. Based on the earlier distribution of the *air *e of the snarling vowels (after the soft consonants, in the neutralization position, only the vowel *ecould be used) the interpretation of Buga that Slavisms with different Slavic equivalents in dialects are borrowed not at the same time is rejected (Būga 1912/1958: 347). The formation of the integration law "Slavic y — Slavisms pronounced bivowel ui" is explained by phonological reasons. It rejects the view of Boge that wi in Slavisms could have originated from the back row of Slavic y (1912/1958: 348) and puts forward the hypothesis that it “could have formed when w, ų from the sonanty became vowels. With this change in the status of w, ų, u, as a vowel, could form the first element of a diphthong” (p. 103). This interpretation of the origin of the diphthong ui is not very convincing. In contrast to Bogus (1912/1958: 344), the quantitative integration in the book explains the differences in the number of vowels in Slavisms not by the length or shortness of the Slavic vowels themselves, but by the development of the phonetic system of the dialects. Slavisms with vowels of different lengths were allegedly borrowed at different times and reflected the evolution of the vowel system in the Snoek dialects: the short vowels pronounced in the Snoek dialects were not yet elongated and unstressed, therefore, according to the differential stress characteristic, the Slavic i, y, u were closer to the long i, uof the Snoek dialects. Later, in the 1990s, he appeared in the sitcom I'm a Celebrity. the mentioned Slavic vowels correlated with them (p. 111-113). The unpronounced positions were adapted to the pronounced ones. The new interpretation seems convincing, but it should be supported by studies of the chronology and semantics of Slavisms. The change of laws in the development of quantitative integration is explained by the historical change of the phonological center of integration: initially it was made up of the long vowel subsystem, later — semi-long vowels. Quantitative change of vowels, which led to the change of the phonological center — the elongation of short i, u in the accented position to semivocals (pp. 116-119). The integration of the Slavic vowel a, it in the unaccented position is explained in an argumentative and insightful way: the most important thing in integrating low-rising vowels is not the quantity (or tension) of the signs, but the quality (pp. 122-124). Summarizing the influence of Slavisms on the system of vocalism of the Shnekts, it is stated that it was not great: “all Slavic borrowed vowels are integrated into the system, adapted to its syntactic and paradigmatic characteristics. OVERVIEW OF NEW WORKS | 127 mini relationship model” (p. 124). The system is completed by only two elements —longitudinal ie., u>., available in both accentuated and unaccentuated positions. The essay “On the combinations /e, re, se in Slavisms” (p. 126-138) examines the so-called hardening of the consonants /, r, s in eastern Highland dialects. In the conclusions of the research (p. 138-145), which form the final part of the third chapter, the laws of integration and their development are discussed again. The relative chronology of all laws has been established. Only those Slavisms of the earliest layer are reliably dated, whose pronounced semilong (and, depending on the position, unpronounced short) i., I. represent the Slavic "jeras". The short vowels u, i in the accentuated position have been prolonged, resulting in new laws of integration and the border of the new layer of Slavisms. After the translation of the a", e-—2+, the newest layer of Slavisms began to form. Vytautas Kardelis’s research is characterized by systematic approach, good argumentation, insight and measured caution. Due to the consistently investigated abundant and reliable dialect material, new ideas and important conclusions, the work is significant for Lithuanian dialectology, historical phonology, lexicology and etymology. The book was reviewed by Danguolė Mikulėnienė and Olegas Poliakovas. Its publication was financed by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Lithuania and the State Lithuanian Language Commission. A more detailed review of the monograph was published in the journal Baltu filologija (Judžentis 2004). 2.Rita Miliūnaitė's monograph Basics of Lithuanian Grammar Standardization (Vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute Press, 2003, 332 p., ISSN 1648-3316, ISBN 9986-668-47-6 [Opera Linguistica Lithuanica 3]) also relies on a dissertation defended at Vilnius University in 1992. During the entire decade, this work “remains the only defended dissertation directly from the field of language culture” (p. 5). It is published as it was written, only with editorial notes in the footnotes where necessary (p. 6). The thesis consists of a preface, four chapters, and conclusions. At the end of the book is printed a list of sources and literature (pp. 301-306), data on the author’s articles published before and after the dissertation defence (pp. 306-307), a fairly detailed abstract of the work in English (pp. 309-323) and an index of persons prepared by the author (pp. 325-328). The user-friendly content of the work is placed at the beginning of the book (pp. 7—11). The preface of the book (pp. 13-17) presents the concept of the formation and development of common language. After a brief review of the history of the Lithuanian common language, it is concluded that “today a significant part of linguists are of the opinion that a coherent scientific theory of Lithuanian common language standardization has not yet been created” (p. 13-14), so in the practical standardization work “each linguist relies not only on established standardization traditions, but also on his own experience, intuition, sense of language, the basis of the existing dialect” (p. 14). The research object of the thesis was chosen “not the language system itself, 0 the conscious influence of linguists on the common language, its norms regulation motives” (p. 14-15), the corresponding work goals were set —to try to reveal methods of evaluation of grammar phenomena (motives- ), to search for the laws of grammar norming (p. 15). The following subparagraph lists the sources of research data, the methodology, structure and approval of the work. The first, introductory chapter of the book (p. 19-53) discusses the theoretical aspects of grammar standardization, describes the sources of recommendations and the methodology of their examination, defines the main concepts (grammar, current language, norm, variant, standardization). The course begins with the most general subjects — normative linguistics, language conjugations, language change and functioning, language development. The reasons and assumptions of language change are discussed, language 128 | ARTÚR MUDŽENTIS development problem. These themes are examined on the basis of theoretical literature of the 1960s and 1970s (mainly Russian and Czech), which often continues to discuss linguistic ideas of the first half of the 20th century. The limits of synchronous research of the grammar system are established: the 60-year period from Jablonski’s death to the recovery of independence (1930-1990). The concept of language norm, which is significant for the whole work, is described: the understanding of language norm by the Prague School and Eugen Coseriu is insufficient, “needs substantial supplementation and clarification” (p. 32), because it does not take into account the contradiction between popular language and common language, one of the most essential features of which is the conscious striving to comply with language norms. Since the concept of common language is not discussed in the book, the contradiction between folk language and common language remains unclear. On the other hand, the role of “conscious creation and regulation” (p. 32), at least at the present stage of the development of common language, seems exaggerated. The tendency of Lithuanian language cultural practitioners to identify language norm with codification is accurately noted (p. 33). The proposed concept of a real general language norm, which “exists in the field of tension between bk usage and the effect of codification (i.e. the codified norm)” (p. 35), does not seem to be very clear or necessary. It becomes even more unclear when it is stated that the current real norm of common language “exists insofar as it is supported by codification and consciously developed habits” (p. 37). Codification is understood by the author (and by many practitioners of language culture) as part of normative activity, one of its stages (others — the refinement of codified norms and their introduction into usage) (p. 42). The introduction describes the sources of the recommendations under investigation: Juozas Balčikonis’s Selected papers and journals Gimtoji kalba (1933-1941), Gimtoji kalba (1958-1968), Kalbos kultūra (1961-1990), Mūsų kalba (1968-1989), and provides statistics of the recommendations published in them (p. 50). A brief overview of the recommendations of the 1930 journal Kalba on the standardization of grammar. At the end of the introduction, the methodology of studying language corrections is discussed, recommendations are defined, its motive and some other concepts are discussed. The second chapter, “Overview of the norming of grammatical phenomena” (pp. 55—213), is the largest — it comprises half of the whole book. It aims to investigate “on what basis specific grammatical phenomena discussed in the collected recommendations were regulated” (p. 55). At the beginning of the chapter, methodological notes are discussed, the notion of grammar variant, distribution of variants, issues of interpretation of recommendations are examined. It is emphasized that the evaluation of grammatical phenomena in the book is not corrected, only trying to understand the author's thought. Variant grammatical phenomena are divided into five groups: starting with word forms, word combinations and constructions, indirect sentence components, compound sentences and word order in a sentence are discussed. The chapter concludes with a summary. The interpretation of the grammatical corrections under consideration lacks critical evaluation. Recommendations which are unfounded or insufficiently justified shall be discussed together with well-founded recommendations. For example, the suggestion not to use conjunctive sentences with the conjunction when meanwhile to indicate similarity, because this conjunction has appeared in translations (p. 189), is classified as justified by the requirement of purity. However, without assessing whether the recommendation is sufficiently justified or whether the foreign origin of the relevant sentences has been proven, its interpretation loses its basis. Similarly in other cases (sentences with if(gu)..., then; when; tegu(!); secondary sentences of discount with the verb prefix be-) —classification of recommendations according to the reasons stated by the authors themselves, regardless of the validity of those reasons, does not seem meaningful. The author herself notes that “irregularity and the tradition of corrections —in themselves are not sufficiently informative” reasons for corrections (p. 196). The author does not always observe the chronology of the corrections, which should be quite important for the study. For example, sentences with OVERVIEW OF NEW WORKS | 129 and also, according to the author, Aldonas Pupkis (1970 and later) was the first to start editing, but the overview of corrections begins with Stasys Keinis (1977) and Angela Kaulakienė (1983) (p. 189). This part of the work is a good thematic register of grammatical recommendations for the period covered by the book. In the summary notes of the chapter, the varying grammatical phenomena are divided into formal and functional, and their distribution in terms of the real general language norm is discussed. Since the work does not take into account the validity of the recommendations, the state of the investigation of the evaluated phenomena and the psychological factors indicated by the author herself (see p. 212), the system of degrees of evaluation of variant grammatical phenomena (p. 209-212) does not seem to be sufficiently justified. The third chapter (pp. 215-278) compares the reasons for the discussed grammar recommendations. For example, the following motifs of Juozas Balčikonis’s corrections are distinguished: living language, fictional literature and ancient writings, the authority of Jonas Jablonskis, regularity, purity, functional stylistic purposefulness and some others (sense of language, language etiquette). The section does not take into account the accuracy and validity of the reasoning in the recommendations. The fourth chapter “Principles and criteria of grammar standardization” (pp. 279-292) is summarizing. It discusses the principles and criteria that guided the authors of the recommendations examined. It begins with the motivation according to the sphere of consumption, i.e. the source of norms. Other evaluation principles and criteria are grouped into basic (systematics, regularity, purity) and auxiliary (sense of language, language etiquette, language aesthetics, language economy, convenience of use, clarity). The main criteria are "oriented to the language's essence", and the auxiliary criteria are "oriented to the language user" (p. 283). Separately from all of them, the “most general, language-user-oriented principle — purposefulness” (p. 288) and non-standard ways of motivating recommendations are discussed. The essence of the listed principles and criteria is revealed, their interaction is shown, often unclear boundaries. The conclusions of the book (pp. 293-300) recall the most important statements of the work. In this part of the book, the principles of standardization of common language (stability of norms and respect for changes in usage) are perhaps most clearly distinguished from the criteria, the first principle being considered more important (p. 296). The conclusions contain the author’s insightful remarks about the unequal evaluation of the same phenomenon in different recommendations and the subjective reasons for such evaluation (p. 295), about the rather aprioristic, insufficiently based on factual data theoretical considerations of the last decades on the subject of the principles and criteria of the standardization of the common language (p. 297), about the fact that each language phenomenon has its own peculiarities of use and evaluation (p. 298) and therefore it is impossible to establish a universal scheme of principles and criteria for all grammatical phenomena (p. 299), that clear boundaries cannot be drawn between the functional styles of the common language (ibid.). The examined material allows the author to state that “in the normative work there are also inconsistencies, sometimes somewhat superficial, insufficiently scientifically based motivation” (ibid.). Emphasizing the importance of the metalanguage of normative work —the lack of “a clearer and more defined terminology (in the sense of the conceptual system of language culture) that would allow the language user to unequivocally perceive the value of one or another phenomenon” (p. 299) for some corrections (among other things) —the role of linguists and the terminology they create is somewhat exaggerated. Rita Miliūnaitė’s investigation was conducted honestly, thoroughly and trustworthy. It gives definitions of the main terms, explanations of concepts will be useful for the further development of applied linguistics. For researchers of the grammar structure of the contemporary Lithuanian language, this book is useful as a register of varying grammatical phenomena, reflecting the level of their study. Sociolinguists and linguists 130 | ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS It is useful for historians to understand the state of Lithuanian language culture in the middle and second half of the 20th century. The book is undoubtedly particularly important for further work on the codification of the common Lithuanian language. The publication of the book was supported by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Lithuania. The monograph was reviewed in the journal Kalbos kultūra (Labutis 2004). In Juozas Jurkėnas’ book Baltų irslavų antroponimikos pagrindai (Ocnoebi baamuiickoi u caasanckou anmpononumuxu, Vilnius: UAB Ciklonas, 2003, 194 p., ISBN 9955-49740-8), written in Russian, the old Lithuanian nomenclature is examined. It summarizes the author’s research over many years (see publications in the list of literature, pp. 186-187). In 1980, he defended his doctoral dissertation (now a habilitation) in Moscow on the theme "Animization of Appellatives and the Development of Anthroponymic Systems in Indo-European Languages". The issues discussed in the book are considered to be at the intersection of linguistics, cultural history, ethnogenesis and even psychology (see p. 10). The combination of cultural and linguistic origins is also emphasized on cover IV, where the book is presented as a description of ways and methods of reconstruction of thinking reflected in the actual names that have come to us. The introduction (p. 9-10) explains the circumstances that prompted the study of ancient anthroponymy: it is dissatisfaction with the studies of Baltic and Slavic anthroponymy, which were carried out according to the same methodology, although without fault. After carefully searching for an answer to the questions, why real names are formed only on the basis of certain adjectives and can sufficiently reasoned and acceptable etymologies, which are based only on the formal similarity of the anthroponym root and the corresponding adjective, be considered? It is believed that the origin of the real name is determined not so much by the form of the motivating adjective as by the semantic structure. The old European system of anthroponyms was attempted to be described complexly, in various aspects. The tasks in the book are to identify a defined number of roots having common semantic components and prone to becoming anthroponyms; distinguish the nests of words from related languages, from which personal names are made in different languages; to draw attention to the possibilities and prospects of anthroponyms area research; to formulate preliminary observations about the points of contact and interaction of Baltic and Slavic anthroponyms („Introduction“, p. 14). The study consists of six chapters. In the first, based on the views of linguists, philosophers, and culturologists of different times and schools, the place of actual words in the lexical system is discussed („Tikrovų žodžių vieta kalbos leksinėje sistemoje“, pp. 16-20). In the second chapter “Methodological problems of anthroponymy” (pp. 21-35) the author emphasizes the inadequacy of etymology based solely on the formal side of language, the borrowing of anthroponymy, the mutual influence of anthroponym systems, the inclusion of elements of one anthroponym system into another system, homonymy, etc. What Tomas Gamkrepidze and Vyaceslavas Ivanovas (1984) call the model of the world (mythology and ritual), Jurkenas associates with the cognitive aspect of language (cf. p. 39), therefore in the chapter “Cognitive aspects of anthroponymy” (p. 36-46) he examines the role of semantic oppositions and semantic components in ancient anthroponymy. The main and largest fourth chapter of the book is “The system of units that played a special role in the formation of anthroponyms in Indo-European languages” (pp. 47—115). Since the etymology of real words is understood as the determination of the onimization patterns of the common words that gave them their basis (p. 47), the main focus in this chapter is on the principles of selection of words that tend to become real (to be onimized). Gamkrepidze and Ivanovo (1984) found that OVERVIEW OF NEW WORKS | 131 The elements of the studied Indo-European world model are compared with the components of the ancient anthroponymy of various Indo-European languages, in order to create a synoptic scheme of the lexicon that played a major role in the process of the formation of anthroponymy of Indo-European languages (the outline of this scheme is given on p. According to the established scheme, common words of a certain meaning are consistently compared with anthroponyms of various Indo-European languages having roots of the corresponding meaning (pp. 53-115). The author's comments are few, neither the composition of the anthroponyms presented nor their etymology are examined, and the source from which they were taken is not always indicated (a general list of sources is attached at the end of the book). For example, this is how the new nest of anthroponyms associated with Lithuanian and its counterparts in other Indo-European languages, given in the section "Age, change of generations" (p. 108): Jlar.naūjas "HOBbIH"- ,JIp.-IIpyccK. nauns TO Xe, CT.-CJIaB. 1OV8,Tpeu4. Just "HOBEIH, MOJOJIONM", JIaT. novus, ‘HOBBIW, IP.~UPJL. naue TO Xe, TOT. niujis TO Xe, 1.-B.-H. HiUwiI TO Xe U T. I. //AHTpONOHHMEI: JT. Naujelis, Naujikas, Navulis; np.-npycck. Nawne, Naw-sude, Naw-tarre, Naw-tinte; Mr. Hoeux, Hoeak, nonbek. Nowo-siodl, Nowosz; repm. Nivo, Nevo, Niwilo, Neu-fred, Niwi-rat, Niwi-rich, Nivulf, Niujila, Newio-gast, Nevitta; xenvT. Neus, Nevica, Nevilla, Nevio-dinon, Novantius, Novanus, Novaros, Novellius, Novios; rped. Ne-avdpog, Ne-xkūje, Ne-giin, Neac. After discussing the ancient components of the Indo-European anthroponym system, the author proceeds to the area research of the namebook („Area research as the search for the remains of the oldest anthroponym state“, pp. 116-134). It is based on the call of Kazimieras Būga to compare river names with each other and only after determining their prevalence to undertake etymology — comparison with common words (1961: 510). Jurkėnas believes that some double-stemmed personal names and their abbreviations are relics of the old European name book (p. 119). The separation and investigation of the archaic anthroponym layer may provide additional information about the origin and development of the old system of real names. Such relict names are ar-, bur-, daun-, gail-, leik-/lik-, sei-/sai-, sal-, sar-(p. 120-130). It is pointed out that new anthroponyms are not only created by means of creation and conjugation, but also by mixing personal names of different anthroponymic orders (p. 131). Jurkėnas explains the similarities of European anthroponym systems by the spread of certain real names that already existed or by genetic similarity. He considers the results of his research as a complement to the work of Hans Krahe and Wolfgang P. Schmidt (p. 134). In the chapter, the author repeats his previously stated thoughts quite often. In the final, sixth chapter of the book („Anthroponomie as a source of information about the oldest linguistic and cultural relations of the Baltic and Slavic peoples“, pp. 135-153) it is emphasized that the results of the research of ancient personal names do not correspond to the genetic closeness of the Baltic and Slavic languages. Many of the Baltic personal names are archaic, and the Slavic anthroponym system is more innovative (p. 135-136). In order to determine the mutual influence of the anthroponym systems of the Baltic and Slavic languages, it is necessary, in the opinion of the author, to investigate their identical form actual words (or their components). These forms often have different etymologies, but may be related or borrowed. The functional, typological and arealy analysis of anthroponym systems allows to establish the interrelationships of isomorphic names and to clarify their etymology. The main role in such studies is to determine the place of anthroponym in the entire system of personal names. Jurkėnas gives examples of such isomorphic components of Baltic and Slavic personal names —he discusses the personal name roots but-, bub-, liaud-, nanir vaid-(p. 144-152). The final notes (p. 154-165) summarize the research. One of the most important laws of the development of anthroponymy Jurkėnas considers convergence, caused by formal anthropo- 132 | ARTÚRAS MUDŽENTIS similarity of names derived from different appellatives. Language contacts have played an important role in the formation of the vocabulary of different languages. The aim of typological research is to create a hypothetical model of anthroponymization of appellatives. At present, it is only possible to establish a system of quite commonly used roots, which can be distinguished in the anthroponymy of many Indo-European languages. The system of anthroponyms of the Balts consists of rather archaic units. Their research may be significant in reconstructing the Indo-European real-name system. The book ends with Lithuanian (p. 166-170) and English (p. 171-176) summaries, abbreviations (p. 177-179), lists of sources (p. 180-182) and literature (p. 183-190). As an appendix at the end of the book is a list of anthroponyms and their components related to two or more lines of anonymy (pp. 191-193). The monograph leaves a contradictory impression. Wide-ranging ambitions, far-reaching ideas, interesting interpretations of the development of ancient anthroponymy are not compatible with the fairly freely and unilaterally interpreted factual material, when insufficient attention is paid to the etymology and formation of personal names in individual languages. The best results would probably be expected from a comprehensive study of ancient anthroponyms, which would take into account both their semantics and expression. The book was reviewed by Simas Karaliūnas and Olegas Poliakovas, and its publication was funded by the 1996-2005 programme of the Republic of Lithuania for the use and education of the state language. 4. The collection of articles Problems of Lexicography and Lexicology (compiled by the Centre for Lexicography of the Lithuanian Language Institute, editors: Pietro U. Dini and others, Vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute publishing house, 2003, 344 p., ISBN 9986-668-53-- 0) contains twenty-seven articles on various topics of historical and contemporary lexicography. They are grouped into four sections according to the subject. Each article has a bibliography (and abbreviations if necessary) and an English or German abstract. The usual introduction for similar collections of articles is replaced by Evalda Jakaitienė- ’s article “Modern lexicography goals and tasks” (pp. 9—14). It discusses the most general issues of the theory and practice of lexicography. Lexicography is defined as “a scientific creative activity of an applied nature based on scientific data and statements” (p. 12). The stages of lexicographic activity are distinguished, the tasks of lexicographic theory are raised. The relationship between theory and practice of lexicography, the role of dictionaries, the meaning and value of the work of dictionaries are discussed. The general issues discussed in the article could have been more related to the current state of Lithuanian lexicography. The first chapter “History of lexicography” contains articles by Pietro U. Dini and Diego Ardoinas, Vidmantas Kuprevičius, Virginija Stankevičienė, Vilma Šaudina, Angela Vilutytė-Rimševičienė. The article of Ona Kažukauskaitė “Ne Jumskis, o Ivinskis” (p. 19-31) stands out from the others. It convincingly shows that the so-called “Jumskis dictionary” is nothing else than Laurynas Ivinskis’ “Dictionary of Polish-Lithuanian languages- ”. The author’s conclusion that it is time to publish this manuscript dictionary should also be supported. The second chapter, entitled "Modern Lexicography", is the largest in the book. Separately, I would like to discuss the articles of Aloyzas Gudavičius, Evalda Jakaitienė and Jolanta Viburytė. In Aloyzas Gudavičius’ article “The national aspect of the definition of word meaning” (p. 61—69) cognitive linguistic ideas are applied to lexicography. It is mainly based on Anna Wierzbicka's work. The nationality of the definition of meaning is based on “words that are used to name ordinary, everyday objects and phenomena, phenomena of the material and spiritual culture of the nation”, OVERVIEW OF NEW WORKS | 133 rich semantic structure, stronger associative links with other words (see p. 63). Such a definition of nationality and, accordingly, the principle of nationality are perceived too narrowly, straightforwardly, they seem to be simply taken over from another modern linguistic direction — ethnolinguistics. At the end of the article, the author himself relates the nature of the definitions of meaning to the purpose (type) of the dictionary. Evalda Jakaitienė- ’s article,,Homonymy in parallel dictionaries of Lithuanian language“ (p. 70-79) summarizes practical work experience. Specific problems and ways of solving them are examined, the discrepancies between lexicology and lexicography (or theory and practice of lexicography) are highlighted. It would be interesting to compare Lithuanian dictionaries with those of other languages in this respect. Jolanta Viburytė examines definitions of animal hair color in the Lithuanian language dictionary (p. 119-135). After performing a semantic analysis of the relevant word articles, she points out the shortcomings of the existing definitions and proposes defining animal hair colour according to the scheme “hair of a certain colour”. It is preferable to use the usual names of colors and shades. The article is analytical, the collected material according to the established criteria was carefully examined, the conclusions will be useful for future lexicographers. In addition to the analytical articles, this section also publishes articles by Vilija Sakalauskienė, Agris Timuškas, Jolanta Zabarskaitė. The articles by Jurgita Mikelionienė, Oleg Poliakov and Ieva Zuicena are review articles. In the third chapter “Lexicology and etymology” two historical articles (Bernd Gliwo and Jonas Klimavičius) are published. Not quite rightly Milda Norkaitienė’s article “Lithuanian zoonimes. "Sus domesticus". It also publishes a fairly superficial article by Vida Rudaitienė, “Lietuvių kalbos savitumas ir Vakarų kalbos”, and a larger publication by Zita Šimėnaitė, “Phraseologizmų su noun širdis semantika- ”. Bernd Gliwo’s work “Is Lithuanian Witch “BejsMa; witch; Hexe was a ‘reggae singer’? (p. 159— 169) attracts with interesting insights, good knowledge of the history of the question and the research material. However, the text is somewhat lengthy, difficult to read. Suggested new word witch etymology *numirėlis; the spirit of the dead; ghost' doesn't seem sufficiently semantically sound. Even more doubtful is the connection of the witch with the Latin rgina ‘vládové’ and so on. There is no shortage of interesting thoughts in Jono Klimavičiaus article „Auka, Apiera, ATNAŠA: istorijos ir vartojimo bruožai“ (p. 170-194). According to him, the opinion of Kazimieras Būga that the word auka is a semi-recreation of Simon Daukantas should be corrected: it is more reliable to believe that Daukantas created this derivative of the ending from the word aukuoti or restored the former word. The reader of the article has to crawl quite hard through the jungle of facts, because the author’s thoughts drown in the abundance of data. The fourth chapter of the book “Dialectology: Lexicon of dialects” contains publications on quite different topics. Aurelija Genelytė’s article “Actual Motivation of Folk Names of Plants: Comparative Aspects of Northern Panevėžys and Other Lithuanian Dialects” (pp. 271-306) is based on abundant authentic material, which is interestingly examined. Weak theoretical part of the article, inconsistent classification of motivation, low comparative aspect of dialects indicated in the title. Article without conclusions, ending only with some concluding remarks. In Rolandas Mikulskas’ article “Features of the functioning of dialectal nominative systems” (p. 322-332) the author’s original thinking and insight are revealed. How dryly the article start-