Lietuvių kalbotyra 2002-aisiais metais: Lietuvoje išleisti darbai

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA XLIX (2003), 153-170 OVERVIEW OF NEW PUBLICATIONS Survey of Recent Publications LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE IN 2002: PUBLICATIONS PUBLISHED IN LITHUANIA 2002 is remembered as a year of economic recovery and calmer scientific work. The great events of Lithuanian linguistics that resonated widely: the completion of the Academic Dictionary of Lithuanian Language and the 400th anniversary of the Lithuanian Bible translation by Jon Bretkūnas were imprinted in my memory. About a dozen books on linguistics have been published, eight of which are discussed in this review. It begins with monographs, then reviews the dissertations that have acquired the form of monographs, scientific publication of ancient writings and ends with selected writings. The second volume of Audronė Kaukienės monograph The History of the Lithuanian Verb (Klaipėda: Klaipėda University, 2002, 400 p.) continues the study of Lithuanian root verbs published eight years ago (Kaukienė 1994). This volume deals with a-stem (or, historically, d-stem) verbs with short i, u and long y, ū in the root. The book consists of a preface, five chapters, concluding notes (in Lithuanian and English) and lists of abbreviations. In each chapter, the short roots are discussed first, followed by the long roots. The book begins with an etymological register of the examined verbs, the aim of which is to “check and select the material, prepare it for further analysis of the various conjugations” (p. 3). In the register, verbs are divided into regular (meaning active action) and irregular (mutative and durative), then into basic (recorded in the dictionary of contemporary Lithuanian language) and dialectal (known only from some dialects or writing monuments). Attention is drawn to the problem of the reliability of the word or form. The etymology of regular verbs is given, irregular verbs are only registered. The opinions of various authors on the origin of one or another verb under consideration are referred to quite accurately. It is inevitable to show the differences in the interpretations of the origin, and sometimes to assess their reliability, which makes the book more valuable. In the second section, the parallel variants of the present and past tense of the other stems of the 0-stem verbs are examined. Starting from dialectal forms of Lithuanian and Latvian (id-stamp and interjection), the general variants of eastern Baltic languages are identified. All Lithuanian verbs are then compared with their counterparts in other languages with the same root structure. In the present tense, there are verbs with a null form, insertion, forms i or n. In this part of the monograph, the morphological comparison of related forms is essentially replaced by the etymological comparison of words, since the equivalents of other languages are usually indicated as lexicons (in some cases in the present tense form, in others — only in the communicative form). 154 | ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS Furthermore, the book examines the alteration of root vowels in the adjacent dialect forms of Lithuanian and in related words of other languages. The diachronic changes of verbs of the same root are presented as former synchronic variants, for example, in the case of bruk: braukia the apophony is considered to be caittive because “many such pairs once had to form one paradigm” (p. 119). This chapter is closely related to the previous one, and it repeats some of the previously formulated statements, for example, when discussing the alternance of vowels of CiC verbs in present forms (p. 122), some conclusions of the overview of present tense stem forms are repeated (cf. p. 100). The book repeatedly (p. 100 and elsewhere) emphasizes that the structure of the examined verbs (and their equivalents in related languages) is related to root vocalism, so the decision to examine stem variants and apophony separately is questionable. The fourth chapter of the monograph describes the semantics of okami verbs. The author has created a semantic classification of verbs in two levels: abstract meanings consist of the opposites of active: self-acting or state and transitive: intransitive; specific meanings are divided into semantic subgroups — restructuring, movement, biological, etc. Historical semantic analysis of verbs is based on the meaning of the primary root and comparison with the equivalents of related languages, the 0 non-semantic fields method (see Karaliūnas 1987: 26t). Unlike Karaliūnas, who prefers semantics to morph(no)- logy (cf.: “the determination of semantic filiations, the determination of the affiliation of meanings <...> is the proof of the etymological identity of the corresponding, i.e., having the same expression, lexems” 1987: 50), Kaukienė assigns to the semantics of verbs only an auxiliary role and leaves its review to the end of the study. The semantic analysis of verbs allows the author to conclude that the semantic nucleus of verbs with short roots are so-called contact verbs with a possible effect semantics, while many verbs of long vocalism are characterized by intensity semantics (pp. 198—199). Comparing the dir i0kamieński verbs, it is concluded that “The more different the range of [their] meanings, the greater the possibility of equal existence of both structural types of verbs” (p. 199). Most of the space (more than a third of the monograph) is devoted to the investigation of the operative relations of verbs with their derivatives. It is believed that the study of the Vedic is useful for determining the origin of the base verbs (p. 201). The Vedic is described according to the categories of action. Their composition, meaning, vocalism and pronunciation are discussed. The final notes of the book begin with the common Indo-European layer of verbs, but the monograph has written almost nothing about it… This part of the book would have been completely sufficient to summarize the development of verbs in the Lithuanian language, Eastern Baltic and the general Baltic language period. The monograph contains many new ideas, but it seems to avoid discussion: the opinions of other authors are rarely mentioned and examined (except for the etymological register of verbs). For example, in Karaliūnas’ monograph and articles on very similar topics, different opinions on the relationship and development of dir-infinitive verbs in Baltic languages are not mentioned at all, his opinion on the change of ei:iirei:y is mentioned only in a footnote (pp. 130-131) and so on. The book mixes synchronic and diachronic aspects of the research (for example, in the second chapter Lithuanian data of different ages and reliability are compared with data of other Indo-European languages of different ages and reliability, sometimes even with their reconstructed forms), structural and constructive, structural and etymological, constructive and etymological aspects of the research. The material of related languages for the work was mainly collected from etymological dictionaries of various authors and written at different times (this is best OVERVIEW OF NEW WORKS | 155 shows a list of literature and sources). Studies of the grammar of Indo-European languages, especially the newer ones (e.g., Koch 1990, Jasanoff 1994, etc.) have hardly been used. It is doubtful whether such material can be a sufficient basis for the planned historical examination of Lithuanian verbs in terms of morphology, morphonology and conjugation. In a work of this kind, such as this monograph, an index of words and forms should be a matter of course. Despite some of the shortcomings mentioned here, the monograph is undoubtedly one of the most significant studies of the history of the verb in Baltic languages. 2.Antanas Pakerio book Akcentologija 2: Skaitvardis, įvardis, žodis, prieveiksmis, dalelytė, prefiksas, jungtukas, jaustukas, ištiktukas (Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 2002, 630p.) continues the monograph published eight years ago (Pakerys 1994), which describes the pronunciation of nouns and adjectives. The second book follows the same principles of data collection and presentation. The aim is to examine the pronunciation of common language words as thoroughly as possible, “without omitting the rarer cases, highlighting the unevenness and fluctuations of the system” (p. 12). Thus, the book is of a descriptive nature, it should not be searched for deeper insights, theoretical considerations or general conclusions: all this the author promises to do in another work of a general nature (p. 12). As in the first book, the basis of the material under consideration is the data of the third edition of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language Dictionary (Keinys, ed. 1993). The introduction also mentions the fourth edition of this dictionary (Keinys, ed., 2000), which was published a couple of years ago and which “almost coincides with the third edition of this dictionary” (p. 12). It remains unclear whether the author has taken into account at least the errors and flaws of the third edition corrected in it: as can be seen from the “List of corrections” (Keinys, ed., 2000: 968), some spelling errors were also corrected in the fourth edition of the dictionary. By the way, in 2002 an electronic version of the fourth edition of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language Dictionary (Keinys, ed., 2002) was published, which the author apparently did not have time to use. The book refers extensively to other dictionaries, descriptions of dialects, articles, although nowhere is discussed the reliability of that material, the principles of presentation, the degree of codification, etc. The data of the general spoken language is used only indirectly — through the data of the written survey of students. This methodology makes the work not so much an investigation and descriptive of real spoken language data, as a comparative work of the history of pronunciation codification or dialectal and codified variants (recorded in linguistic works). The monograph examines and summarizes a wealth of factual material. It is described and examples are given based on the criteria of abundance and frequency. These criteria are followed even excessively consistently: the order of the examples written next to each other eight, eight, nine, nine, seven, seven seems strange (p. 15). Already in the preamble there are some contradictions in the selection of the samples examined. Since the aim is to describe the pronunciation of common language words, it is understood that dialects, as well as obsolete (and unpresentable) words of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language Dictionary, are not examined (p. 11). However, elsewhere the author emphasizes that both parts of the book “provide considerable data on dialects and other uncodified language” which allow “to grasp the essential features of dialect pronunciation” (p. 13). In fact, dialectal variants of phonetics and pronunciation of words are often presented in the book as cases of uncodified language. For example, the ten variants of the numerals are cited from three places in the Academic Dictionary of Lithuanian Language, the Dūnininkai šnektas dictionary, the Druskininkai, Lazūnai, Zietela dialect dictionaries, and almost a dozen references to publications by other authors have been added (p. 17). It becomes no longer clear why then the dialects of the Da- 156 | ARTURAS JUDZENTIS bartinés Lithuanian language dictionary of genders (for example, undiskurtas with abbreviation ryt. in this dictionary is the numerator fifteen (p. 538)? The author follows the principles of traditional morphological or constructive accentology: he links pronunciation with word formation. For example, when examining the pronunciation of numerals, primary numerals are discussed first, followed by vedic, punctual and invariant adult numerals. However, the author does not succeed in achieving complete consistency, because in addition to the criterion of the creative arrangement of the material under consideration, the criterion of the origin of the words is also observed (which is not mentioned in the preface): at the end of the chapter the pronunciation of numeral names of foreign origin is discussed separately (p. 25). The latter criterion is given preference only when examining the primary numerals of foreign origin, and when examining their derivatives, preference is given to the criterion of the form — derivatives of endings of foreign origin are examined together with the proper words of the corresponding form: milijardas, -a next to tūkstantis, -a (p. 20), milijonas, -a next to šimtas, -a (p. 21). The section on pronouns separately examines primary, derivative, enriched, adult, conjunctive, two-accent pronouns, noun pronouns and conjunction words. It is obvious that in synchronic study there cannot be such divisions as adult pronouns and nouns: the former could be described as primary or compound, 0 the latter — as primary numerals (by the way, even historically it is not easy to prove that the word itself is a noun of a noun, and not an old pronoun: Ernstas Fraenkelis pagrindine ide. *potis in meaning takes ‘selbst’ (Fraenkel 1962: 552), i.e., takes the noun as primary). It is also inconsistent to consider the part of the present tense pronouns — pronouns with two accents — separately from the other present tense pronouns. In the pronoun section, the hierarchy of classification criteria is unclear. In the content, this hierarchy is even more confused: the headings “Conjugated pronouns- ”, “Pronouns with first accent”, “Pronouns with second accent” and “Pronouns with two accented accents” are written as a single subheading (p. 6). In the section on particles, adult words and compound particles, judging by the size of the headings, are considered to be part of words that have become particles or their combinations, although at the beginning of the section it is written that „Skyrium [from the remaining- ?) mentioned composite (complex) and foreign origin particles” (p. 581). Similar inconsistencies are found in other chapters of the book. A relatively large space in the monograph is devoted to the data of the written survey of students: almost every subsection ends with a discussion of students’ spelling tendencies. The relative statistics of normative and surveyed variants are given. However, the methodology of the survey and its data processing are not sufficiently described, so there are doubts about how reliable they are. For example, according to the survey data, students always pronounce eight (49: 0), but we have all heard variants eight, even eight, which are not reflected in the survey data at all (maybe because of its written nature, maybe only Lithuanians were interviewed?). There are sometimes inconsistent terms used. Examining the pronunciation of particles, the term primary (ordinary) words is opposed not to the terms derived (vediniai), compound words (as in the previous part of the book), but to the term words that have become particles; its functional meaning is replaced by a historical one (cf.: „In this work, an effort is made to distinguish the primary particles from those that have arisen from the consolidation of individual words or their combinations“ (p. 581). Packer has done a great job, requiring a lot of care and patience (the list of literature and sources used is impressive!). Without any doubt, it will be useful for further studies of the pronunciation of Lithuanian language (not only common). OVERVIEW OF NEW WORKS | 157 3. In Juozas Abaravičius’ book Skirybos stilistika (Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 2002, 288 p.) the stylistic powers of separation and the stylistic use of punctuation marks are examined (cf. p. 7). This is the first monograph of this kind in Lithuanian linguistics. The author bases the separation on the grammatical, semantic and intonational breakdown of the text and its units (p. 8). Such a concept of separation is close to the views of A. Valeckienė (see Sližienė, Valeckienė 1992: 128-129; Morkūnas, par., 1999: 585-586) and differs from the purely syntactic concept of K. Gaivenis and S. Keinys (see Gaivenis, Keinys 1990: 186). The main focus of the book is on the semantic (especially emotional and expressive) and intonational basis of separation. In general, the term is used to refer to the use of language in a manner that is contrary to its propositional meaning. Following a similar approach, it would probably be possible to distinguish also spelling (using uppercase and lowercase letters, writing together and separately, etc.), prosody (pronunciation of clics, intonation of sentences, etc.) and other “stylistics- ”. In Western linguistics, punctuation stylistics is considered part of graphostylistics (see BuBmann, Hrsg., 2002: 265). The theoretical basis of the monograph consists of works of Russian authors (especially often referred to works of N. S. Valgina, L. G. Vedenina). Although the list of literature includes several Western European authors who have studied divorce issues, their opinions are usually only mentioned, mainly based on them, their works are quoted when examining issues of divorce history. The book consists of two parts. The first examines the relationship between punctuation and stylistics, defines the basic concepts, reviews the functions of punctuation marks. It is an introduction to the further study of punctuation in Lithuanian language, which forms the second part of the book. The functions of punctuation marks are discussed quite extensively in the monograph. According to R. Makarova’s classification, there are sixteen semiological functions: distinguishing, excluding, opposing, explaining, connecting, warning, adding, enumerating, boundary, totality, incompleteness, ellipse, emotional, expressive, modal, compositional, emblematic- ... (p. 12t). The functions are not divided into one level, of different scope. Individual functions are not sufficiently defined, their interrelationships are not established. For example, the denoting function of incompleteness is only part of the emotional (and) expressive function; distinguishing, connecting, boundary-- marking, perhaps other functions —parts of the compositional function, etc. The book further examines optional, author’s (and author’s) punctuation, texts without punctuation marks (hyphen punctuation). From a theoretical point of view, the concept of author’s (author’s) separation is perhaps the most carefully discussed (pp. 37-47), but its relationship with optional separation remains unclear (both chapters talk about author’s marks, etc., cf. pp. 26 and 38t). The origin and development of divorce in Western Europe is briefly and attractively outlined. The second part, which comprises the bulk of the book, discusses the use of punctuation and its stylistic powers. There are ten punctuation marks in Lithuanian. The use of each mark shall be described separately; it begins with a brief summary of the essential points, followed by a more detailed discussion. There are many examples of fictional literature. The short conclusions of the monograph (p. 245 —-253) would be better called a summary: they do not contain theoretical generalizations. The author has compiled a rather small “Index of Important Terms, Concepts and Descriptions” (pp. 271—284). Unfortunately, it only partially fulfils its role, because it is not composed in alphabetical order, but according to a systematic principle: the index itself still needs an index or at least content… The book is written in a lively colloquial language, which is rich in rhetorical figures and stylistically marked punctuation. Such language is very suitable for a popular work, perhaps a teaching tool (according to the author). 158 | ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS tory, its basis —a lectured course for Lithuanian students- ), but unusual for a scientific monograph. As it is written in the preface, the book is the result of a distinct research in terms of style, but it is not intended for the scientific community, but for lecturers, students, editors, stylists, authors (p. 6). This dual nature of the book is not its advantage... 4. Kazimieras Gaivenis’s book Lietuvių terminologija: teorijos ir tvarkybos metmenys (Vilnius: LKI leidykla, 148 p.) grew out of articles written at various times and on various topics (cf. Gaivenis 1979, 1983, 1985, 1994, 1996a, 1996b, 1997, 2000 and others). However, it is not a collection of articles: previous publications have been reworked and adapted to be part of a larger work. The book is a summary of the author’s four decades of scientific work in the field of terminology. This is how the author himself describes it in the preface, emphasizing that it is “neither a textbook of terminology, nor any publication of scientific research” (p. 11). Such an undefined genre of the work, unclear purpose and addressee greatly damages the book. It has mainly textbook characteristics, as it teaches elementary, basic terminology subjects. However, the teaching is not sufficiently consistent and thoughtful. For example, I never found the term itself in the definition book, although the first chapter is dedicated to this topic. Instead of a definition, several essential characteristics of the concept of “term” are indicated, the narrow (S. Šalkauskis and E. Jakaitienė quoted) and broad concept of the term (Lithuanian Soviet Encyclopedia quoted) are discussed. Already in the first chapter of the book (p. 17) undefined intentional and implicational terms are used, and the concept of the term intensity is explained only in the third chapter (p. It seems that the author is hiding behind quotations, references, but avoids to express his opinion, to express his thoughts directly and precisely. Terminology is considered by Gaivenis to be a branch of lexicology, although it is emphasized that it depends heavily on other sciences and serves them (19). Such a “linguistic” concept of terminology, which has taken hold in Lithuania, has been directly influenced by the works of Russian terminologists of the corresponding direction (e.g., V. Danilenko) and is close to the views of Prague and Canadian terminologists (cf. Laurėn, Picht, eds. 1993: 533t). It differs markedly from the views of the Viennese school and the terminologists of the Nordic countries, which are currently dominant in Western Europe, according to which terminology is considered as an independent branch of science forming on the border of linguistics, logic, ontology, computer science and subject sciences (Wūster 1974/2001:- 131t) or as a constellation of subject sciences, linguistics, general theory of science and philosophy (Laurėn, Myking, Picht 1998: 47). The approaches of these terminology directions to the relationship between term and concept, terminology and language culture and norms also differ substantially. (cf. Laurn, Picht, Hg. 1993: 493t). The book separately examines the requirements for terms (in the first chapter) and the principles of terminology creation and standardization (in the fourth chapter). Although the author himself considers the general requirements for terms as their evaluation criteria, the difference between the concepts ‘principle’ and ‘criterion’ cannot be denied. Due to the fact that they are discussed in different places, there is a recurrence and some confusion. Here the principle of correctness turns out to be nothing more than a requirement of correctness of terms, the author even gives a link to the corresponding page of another chapter. The principle of systematicity is not discussed in this chapter of the book in general (only its relation to regularity is indicated) — it is obvious that it cannot be anything other than the criterion of systematicity imposed on terms, discussed in the first chapter. In these cases, the names of the criteria and principles coincide. But they can also differ: from the explanation of the principle of economics (“The principle of economics states, OVERVIEW OF NEW WORKS | 159 that shorter units of language should be preferred“, p. 96) it is apparent that it coincides with the requirement of brevity imposed on terms. Many of the requirements for terms (correctness, accuracy, systematicity, conciseness, stylistic neutrality) correspond to the requirements of Soviet terminologists for terms. However, the term "pragmatics of terms" has already been taken from Western terminology (the author refers to the names of Cabré and Gajda). What is the content of this concept? In the article of the same title, the concept of pragmatics of terms is narrowed down to the requirements of reliability and accuracy of terms (Gaivenis 2000: 7). In this book, the pragmatics of terms is interpreted only as the reliability of terms, and the accuracy of terms is considered as a separate requirement. Such a superficial attempt to combine different linguistic traditions does not seem successful. The reliability of terms could also be linked to the principle of authority: it is no coincidence that both sections refer to standardized and officially approved terms (see pp. 33 and 94t). The second chapter discusses the sources of Lithuanian terminology. It develops the views of S. Šalkauskas (cf. pp. 51, 57-58). The author’s opinion differs somewhat from the sources of terminology indicated by S. Keinys —literary language dictionary, folk terms, word formation, borrowing of terms, valuations (cf. Keinys 1980: 60-96). The history of Lithuanian terminology is discussed in more detail in the third chapter of the book as the history of terminography. In the fifth chapter “Terminology directions, schools and minor researchers” it is described only in general terms. In this section, the peculiarities of post-war Lithuanian terminology are briefly and quite accurately described: ideological constraints, dependence on Russian terminology, lack of foreign theoretical literature. These circumstances are partly reflected in the work under consideration. The theories of E. Wooster and H. Felber are described in an excessively concise manner, contenting themselves with generalities. S. Gajda’s monograph Introduction to the Theory of the Term is discussed more in detail. Much more detailed analysis of the Soviet terminologists —D. The theories of Lotte, T. Kandelaki, V. Danilenko, S. Superanskaya, N. Podolskaya and N. Vasil'eva. The section on S. Šalkauskas’s terminology theory is based on an article published after the weakening of ideological supervision of science (Gaivenis 1983). By the way, the book shows the influence of Šalkauskas’s views on the author, in many respects he could be considered a continuation of Šalkauskas’s ideas: the same main sources of terminology are identified (even their hierarchy in the book is the same as in Šalkauskas’s works), the general principles of terminology purity, stability, convenience of production are raised, the extension and intensity of terms are examined. The book shows the great influence of the former Soviet Union terminologists (especially Lotte, Danilenko) on the author: analysis of the relationship between professionalisms and terminology, four main methods of terminology, normative evaluation of terminology. In the rare cases when the book recounts the views of Western terminologists, it relies only on secondary sources (cf. pp. 16, 19, 22, 110-112). The only exception is probably the monograph of S. Gaida. In the literature list I found only four publications of Western terminologists (not counting J. Hawthorn- ’s Modern Literary Theory Handbook translated into Lithuanian- ). Today, this is a serious gap in the monograph (and in Lithuanian terminology in general?) which needs to be filled as soon as possible. By the way, the literature list does not have a uniform way of presenting metrics, I missed the author’s own works. In the book, the names of foreign linguists are inconsistently presented. She would have benefited from an objective pointer. The whole of the book directs the reader to the past of terminology, to what and how it was, and not to the future: it does not raise the challenges facing Lithuanian terminology, does not point out its weak points, and almost does not discuss problematic issues. This is a summary of the Lithuanian terminology’s journey. 160 | ARTISTRY- 'S MOVEMENT 5. Jolanta Gelumbeckaitė’s book The Syntax of Verb and Prepositional Constructions in the Gospel of John Bretkūnas according to Luke (Vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute Press, 2002, 300 p.) The Lithuanian Language Institute is starting a new series “Opera linguistica Lithuanica”, in which it is planned to publish monographs prepared on the basis of defended doctoral theses. This series aims to make more valuable research of young Lithuanianists more accessible to the scientific community. Gelumbeckaitė’s monograph was prepared on the basis of the dissertation defended in 1999 (supervisor —V. Ambrazas- ). As the book's front cover states, it is "a slightly revised dissertation". The author has chosen an interesting and topical research topic, because so far in Lithuanian linguistics we have few syntax studies based on textological analysis of translation relations with the original (or originals). It is not surprising that the monograph has already received positive reviews (see Švambarytė 2003). The book consists of an introduction, two chapters (“Supplement” and “Context- ”), conclusions, list of sources and literature, explanations of abbreviations and a German summary. The introduction and both chapters begin with quotations from the letters of St. Jerome. The tasks of the thesis are to investigate the synonymy of verb and prepositional constructions and to determine the origin and development tendencies of these syntactic models by comparing the translation with the originals (see p. 11t). In the introduction, the author states that her main focus has been on “the relationship of the verb-dependent vowel and prepositional constructions, the substitution of vowels by prepositional constructions and vice versa” (p. 13), that is, on syntactic synonymy. Although syntactic units are further interpreted semantically, syntactic semantics is not the area of this work. The author needed a certain starting point in the semantic field in order to group the variants of syntactic expression and examine their mutual relationships. For this purpose, it would be quite sufficient to rely on the meaning of verbs connecting conjunctive or prepositional constructions, i.e., lexical semantics (this is how the authors themselves group the material under consideration). To rely on the theory of valence, to introduce the terms of semantic functions in the work seems unnecessary, unmotivated neither with regard to the investigated material, nor to the research goals (it should be noted that semantic concepts almost did not remain in the conclusions of the work). In addition, this causes a certain confusion, because the concepts of the semantic layer of language are indiscriminately mixed with the concepts of the syntactic layer, and the need to strictly separate them has been emphasized on several occasions by the supervisor of this work Vytautas Ambrazas (cf.: “to separate the syntactic and semantic layer in the first stage of analysis is necessary <...> in order to be able to define their relationships more precisely” (Ambrazas 1986: 29)). For example, the syntactic concept of adjective is defined not only on the basis of syntactic characteristics (it is connected to the adverb by a connective connection), but also on the basis of semantic relations —“is its [adverb!] necessary companion” (p. 15); the relationship between syntactic units — conjunctives and adverbs — is also determined “by the semantic connection of the verbs” (p. 15), etc. For example, the following semantic confusion of functions, syntactic functions (parts of a sentence) and verbal meanings: "In the Vulgate, the prepositional constructions de +abl. (used synonymously with the instrument ablative and bearing the shade of the part genitive [...])” (p. 81). In the monograph, the author examines the syntactic constructions of Bretkūnas and his correctors (main text and proofreading) as equal variants. In this way, things typical of different idiolects (maybe even different dialects) are mixed up. The work would be more valuable if Bretkūnas’s own language, its variants, were examined separately from the language of the proofreaders. The first chapter of the monograph examines the expression of objective semantic functions in the selected source. Interpretation of individual parts of the translation may be imprecise. For example, in the example of Luke 2,26 (table 2, p. 38) the accusative is controlled by Chriftu not by the negative, as in the positive, but by the positive participant; the word even in this sentence is a conjunction, not a negative particle (same as 56 OVERVIEW OF NEW WORKS | footnote 161, p. 40). In the sentence Lk 14, 24 (p. 39) the suffix after the verb ragauti is explained by the conjunction of this verb. This interpretation is absolutely correct, only the example itself is not suitable to discuss with the endings of the negation, because the verb in it (as in the Latin and German texts) is without negation! The form dufches in the sentence Luke 14,26 (p. 39) is considered to be a negative suffix used in a distant position from the negative verb that controls it. However, it would be more reasonable to consider it as a singular pronoun (dufche: dufches), since the Latin (and German) originals also have singular forms; Moreover, Gallus replaced this word with /sziwata, which is undoubtedly the singular origin (this correction is not noted or discussed by the author). The word neg in Lk 22,68 (table 3, p. 41) is not to be considered a negative particle, but a conjunction; the subsequent verb form is affirmative. With regard to the words that control suffixes with contentive function, “noun compounds with mental or physical adjectives full, alive” are also mentioned (p. 48). Most likely, the author has in mind noun adverbs, which are formed with the mentioned adjectives by the connection be (see p. 62); they could also be considered compounds, but not nouns but verbs. The servant who goes with the verb to satisfy Lk 15,16 and the compound to be satisfied Lk 16,21 is considered the servant of the instrument (p. 81). However, there is more reason to see the semantic function of the contentive here, all the more so because in the Latin source they correspond not to the ablative, but to the prepositional de constructions. The second chapter, which constitutes the main part of the monograph, deals with adverbial semantic functions. The circumstances in this chapter are simply identified with semantic functions (cf. pp. 84-85), but far from all of them occupy the positions of arguments opened by predicates. According to the traditional classification of circumstances, semantic functions of place, time, way, cause and purpose are distinguished. The semantic function of the place is further divided into the place inside and the place outside. A place between something based on the meaning of a syntactic construction or a dependent word is considered a subclass within the place (p. 116). The place inside is in turn divided into a place in confined space, a place in the plane and a place in the environment (p. 86). Based on lexical semantics: specific nouns denoting a place (sky, homeland, etc.) are assigned to the first group (p. 88), and abstract (1amsuma) and person-denoting nouns — to the third group (p. 106); Nouns denoting planeness (patalas) (essentially a subclass of specific nouns) are included in the third group (p. 104). In addition, the function of internal state is assigned to the space inside. It is based on the meaning of the dependent noun, controlling verb or construction (p. 110-111). The function of progress in consciousness is distinguished on the basis of the meaning of the controlling verb (verba dicendi, sentiendi, cogitandi) and the dependent noun (usually a personal pronoun) (p. 114). The location of the nevus is further divided into the surface, bottom or side. As can be seen, this rather complex classification is based on different criteria and is not very consistent. The meaning of the inner state can differ from the occurrence in the consciousness only by the meaning of the controlling verb, so the example in Acts 19:21 (p. 111) with the verb cogitandi nudumoio is more likely to be classified into the latter group. The boundary between concrete and abstract nouns is also blurred, so the example in Mt 4:16 (sitting in the shade) (p. 107) differs little from that in Lk 23:25 (the accused was in prison) (p. 92). Probably it would have been enough to allocate one semantic function of the place and examine the semantic contradictions ‘inside’: ‘not inside'; ‘concrete’: ‘abstract’, ‘living’: ‘dead’, ‘human’: ‘non-human’ effects on the syntactic expression of the translation and the originals. A greater problem is the heterogeneity of the criteria of division: in the same divisional domain, the dependency (place within and its subclasses, partly internal state) and/or the controlling (partly internal state, partly external state) are referred to. Great Dukedom of Lithuania has been replaced with Grand Duchy of Lithuania everywhere, several syntactic constructions have been corrected and several cases of prepositions and articles have been corrected. Reprint corrected proofreading errors, for example: last (<rotate) (I, p. 485, footnote 59); Gwagnini (<Gwagnin) 168 | ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS In many cases the author’s word order is strange, for example: author, having examined the language of the 1605 Catechism from the point of view of dialectology, determined 1, p. 481, cf. author, having examined the language of the 1605 Catechism from the point of view of dialectology, determined Zinkevičius 1972: 83; sv. John and other churches, having preached in Lithuanian to the townspeople for 10 years I, p. 488, cf.: even 10 years having preached in Lithuanian to the townspeople of St. John. Jono ir kitose bažnyčiose Zinkevičius 1972: 90. The word order remained unchanged: here are very common (<spread- >) <...> forms with a jote: baltėj, baltiej > balciej, baltūoj I, p. 485-486. The quotes are reprinted unchecked and uncorrected. For example, when quoting an article by K. Jablonskis, common language was changed to general language (Zinkevičius 1972: 91; cf. I 490), and for broader folds — to broad folds (ibid.); The quotation was further modified when the article was reprinted: the 7a dialect <...> was, of course, not established, it (<it]) became the central dialect by itself (I, p. 490). (I, p. 494, note 98), Orthodox (<provoslavs) (I, p. 490). Some things remained uncorrected: Merkinės (Turgelio (> Turgelių) dialect I, p. 489; aiškai (>aiškiai) I, p. 494; those texts, especially in the 18th century, mirgėte mirgėjo polonizmais 1, p. 497. As often happens, new errors were made in the reprint. For example, the comma was not and is not required in footnote 52 (I, p. 484); The title of J. Otrębski’s work in footnote 34 (I, p. 480) is written in lowercase; In footnote 18 (I, p. 479) an unnecessary comma (after the word Anna) appeared in the title of Bellarmine’s translation of the Catechism. In the author’s preface, it is stated that the spelling of foreign surnames and foreign personal names should not be uniformized, because it “was constantly changed in Lithuania and was not characterized by consistency” (I, p. 8). However, it would not have been very difficult to standardize the spelling of personal names by reprinting publications published at different times, and the publication would have become more consistent and easier to use. The publication does not harmonize the metrics of publications referred to in footnotes and bibliographies. There are also errors in the links. Here, p. 489, footnote 76 refers to K. Jablonskis, Senoji lietuviška knyga, Kaunas, 1947, 104-105. In fact, K. Jablonskis is not the author of the book mentioned, not even the editor (its editor-in-- chief was V. Mykolaitis) — this collection includes his article “Mažvydo gyvenimas ir aplinka”, which should have been mentioned in the footnote. The same error is repeated in the footnotes to Articles 90 and 93. There are also mistakes in the names of the old Lithuanian scripts. For example, in K. Sirvydas’s heading of the sentences in Punktai (p. 478, note 8): kazan (>kazan), Jezykiem (>Językami), after the word Litewfkiem the word Przez is omitted, W Wilne (>W Wilnie), the writing and non-writing of several diacritics raises doubts. In the footnotes, it seems strange that notes are printed to articles of the same author that have been published long ago and even republished in the same volume (see I, pp. 479, 482, 490, 494, 496...). A reference to the author's future monograph Vilnius Lithuanian in the 17th century (1, p. 494, footnote 97) is also left, which, as far as I know, has not yet been published... (probably referring to the book Lithuanian Anthroponymics: Vilnius Lithuanian Personal Names in the Early 17th Century, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1977). The author’s remarks and links between articles published at different times are lacking in other cases as well. For example, the 58th and 100th footnotes of the article “Lithuanian Oriental Writing Language in the 17th Century, Its Origin and Disappearance” published in the first volume correct the previously published and the second volume reprinted texts. OVERVIEW OF NEW WORKS | 169 statements in the article of the dynamo “On the dialect of the Catechism of 1605” (I, pp. 485, 495), but in the corresponding place of this article the same statements are not specified, not even references to a later article printed in the first volume of the collection are given (see II, pp. 48, 115). These and other cases raise doubts about the order of the articles in the collection. The articles published in the last chapter of the first volume, “The Origin of the Written Language”, are closely related to the articles reprinted in the second volume, “The Language of the Ancient Writings- ”, so it would have been convenient to put them in the same volume. Zinkevičius’s collection of articles is a useful book for every linguist (and baltist). The comments made in this review about the preparation of the publication do not diminish the value of the articles themselves. In closing the review, it is worth mentioning the works of linguistics published in 2002. These are dictionaries: in particular, the final, twentieth, volume of the Lithuanian Language Dictionary (letter Z, editor-in- -chief Vytautas Vitkauskas, Vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute publishing house, XXII, 1158 p.), the second revised edition of Antanas Lyberis’ Thesaurus (editor Jonas Paulauskas, Vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute publishing house, XIV, 586 p.) and the electronic version of the fourth edition of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language Dictionary (editor-in-chief Stasys Keinys, Vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute). Zita Šimėnaitė and Jolanta reminds of the great anniversaries of linguistics Zabarskaite’s collection of commemorative articles Twenty volumes of the Lithuanian language dictionary (Vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute, 48 p.) and the catalogue of the international exhibition Bible Translator Jonas Bretkūnas (Vilnius: Lithuanian Museum of Fine Arts, 159 p.) compiled by Ona Aleknavičienė and Jolanta Zabarskaite. Kazys Morkūnas and Klementina Vosylytė compiled a beautiful book about the dictionary writer Bronė Vosylytė (Bronė Vosylytė: kelias į didijį Žodyną, Vilnius: Lietuvos kalbos instituto leidykla, 198 p.). LITERATURE AMBRAZAS, V. 1986: Unites of the syntactic and semantic structure of the sentence in Lithuanian language. Language Studies 25, 4-44. BACEVICIUTE, R. 2001: Phonological system of the country schnect: prosody and vocalism. PhD dissertation, manuscript, Vilnius: Vilnius Pedagogical University. BALČIKONIS, J. 1955/1978: A document of language science found. Selected Writings I, compiled by Aldonas Pupkis, Vilnius, 246-249. BussMANN, H., ed. 2002: Lexikon der Sprachwissenschaft, third, updated and expanded edition, Stuttgart: Alfred Kroner Verlag. FRAENKEL, E. 1962: Lithuanian etymological dictionary 1: A —privekiūoti, Heidelberg: Carl Winter, Universitatsverlag. GAIVENIS, K. 1979: General principles of the creation and standardization of Lithuanian terminology. Lithuanian TSR MA works A 3 (68), 77-86. GAIVENIS, K. 1983: S. Šalkauskio terminology theory. 22: Special lexicon of Lithuanian language, 128—136. GAIVENIS, K. 1985: Lithuanian Language Professionalisms. Lietuvos TSR MA darbai A 4 (93), 74-80. GAIVENIS, K. 1994: Application of international terminology principles to our terminology. Lithuanian Linguistics Questions 31, 11-17. GAIVENIS, K. 1996a: On two principles of terminology standardization. Lituanistica 1 (25), 75-79. GAIVENIS, K. 1996b: Linguistic and Logic Requirements of Terms. Terminologija 3, 26-38. GAIVENIS, K. 1997: Termination and determination. Terminology 4, 4-7. GAIVENIS, K. 2000: Pragmatics of Terms. Terminology 7, 5-8. GAIVENIS, K., KEINYS, S. 1990: Dictionary of Language Terms, Kaunas: Šviesa. 170 | ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS GIRDENIS, A., GIRDENIENĖ, D. 1997: Index of Ziwato of 1795, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopedia Publishing. JASANOFF, J. H. 1994: Aspects of the Internal History of the PIE Verbal System. Free, Middle, South Germanic, Actes of the IX. 1992 Conference of the Indo-European Society in Zurich, edited by G. E. Dunkel, G. Meyer, S. Scarlata, Chr. Seidl, Wiesbaden, 149-168. JONIKAS, P. 1972: The development of Lithuanian common written language in the second half of the 19th century, Chicago: Pedagoginis Lituanistikos institutas. KARALIŪNAS, S. 1987: Structural similarities and their origin in the Baltic languages, Vilnius: Mokslas. KAUKIENĖ, A. 1994: The History of the Lithuanian Verb 1, Klaipėda: Klaipėda University. KEINYS, S. 1980: Terminology alphabet, Vilnius: Mokslas. KEINYS, S., ed., 1993: Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian Language, third revised and supplemented edition, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. KEINYS, S., ed., 2000: Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian Language, Fourth Edition, Vilnius: Institute for Publishing of Science and Encyclopedias. KEINYS, S., ed., 2002: Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian, electronic version of the fourth edition, Vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute. KocH, CH. 1990: The morphological system of the Old Church Slavic verbs 1-11, Mūnchen. LAUREN, C., PicHT, H., eds. 1993: Selected Texts on Terminology, Vienna: TermNet. LAUREN, C., MYKING, J., PicHT, H. 1998: Terminology under the magnifying glass. From the frontier to the scientific branch, Vienna: TermNet. LESKAUSKAITE, A. 2001: Vocalism and prosody in the Southwestern Highlands: a phonological and experimental study. PhD thesis, manuscript, Vilnius: Institute of Lithuanian Language, Vytautas Magnus University. MAŽIULIENĖ, I. I. 1996: Prosodia of the Central Northern Žemaičių dialect. Instrumental and sociolinguistic research. Linguistics 45 (1), 30-115. MORKUNAS, K., par. 1999: Encyclopedia of Lithuanian Language, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopedias Publishing. Murphy. L. 2000: Phonological system of the Akmenės schnekt: vocalism and prosody. PhD dissertation, manuscript, Vilnius: Vilnius University. PAKERYS, A. 1994: Accentology 1: Noun and Adjective, Kaunas: Šviesa. ROSINAS, A. 1996: Pronouns in Lithuanian common language: function and semantics, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. SLIŽIENĖ, N., VALECKIENĖ, A. 1992: Lithuanian spelling and punctuation, Vilnius: Mokslas. SUBACIUS, G. 1998: Ideas of the Žemaičių common language. 19th century, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopedia Publishing. ŠVAMBARYTĖ, J. 2003: [Rec.:] Jolanta Gelumbeckaitė, The Syntax of Verbs and Prepositional Constructions in John Bretkūnas' Gospel of Luke. Lithuanian Linguistic Work 1. Vilnius: Lietuvos kalbos instituto leidykla, 2002, 296 p. —Archivum Lithuanicum 5, 2003, 311-314. VITKAUSKAS, V. 1976: Dictionary of North-Eastern Moors, Vilnius: Mokslas. VITKAUSKAS, V. 2003: [Rec.:] Daiva Atkočaitytė. The Southern Slavic Prose and Vocalism. Vilnius: Lietuvos kalbos instituto leidykla, 2002, 222 p. —Acta linguistica Lithuanica 48, 185-187. WUSTER, E. 1974/2001: The General Theory of Terminology —A Borderland between Linguistics, Logic, Ontology, Computer Science and the Humanities. Terminology and knowledge order. Selected Writings from the Complete Works of Eugen Wiister, ed. by H. Picht, K.-D. Schmitz, Vienna: TermNet, 131174. ZINKEVICIUS, Z. 1966: Lithuanian dialectology, Vilnius: Mintis. ZINKEVICIUS, Z. 1972: RytietiSkoji 17th century Lithuanian written language, its origin and extinction. 79-100. Baltistica 8 (1), ZuLys, V. 1969: The position of the so-called invariant pronouns in the Lithuanian grammar. Baltistica 5 (2), 167-177. Artūras Judzentis