Šnekamosios kalbos ir emocinės-ekspresinės leksikos apibūdinimo problemos

Violeta Černiutė

Go to original

Preparing document pages…

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI XLII (2000)

Violeta ČERNIUTĖ

Institute of the Lithuanian Language, Vilnius

PROBLEMS IN DESCRIBING COLLOQUIAL AND EMOTIONAL-EXPRESSIVE LEXIS

1. The contrast to stylistically neutral words—which convey no additional information and are used in all language styles—is formed by connotative lexis. It is divided into functional and emotional-expressive lexis, which conveys information about positive or negative emotions. Functional lexis, which has a specific sphere of use, includes words or word combinations with a colloquial or bookish tone¹.

It is important to note that the variety of labels for stylistically connotative lexis found in dictionaries is due to the fact that language does not form a very strict stylistic system; moreover, the stylistic system of Lithuanian has been little studied (Župerka 1977: 68). This problem was raised by J. Pikčilingis (1975: 10–11) and other linguists.

This article examines how colloquial and emotional-expressive lexis is presented in the “Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian” (hereafter DŽ₃), and also considers how this lexis might be presented in the forthcoming “Dictionary of Standard Lithuanian” (hereafter BŽ). The foundations and principles for compiling the latter dictionary state that it reflects the standard lexis of the standard language currently in use (Pagrindai 1998).

2. In DŽ₃, the largest group of words is marked with the label šnek. (colloquial), compared with emotional-expressive lexis. According to the computerized version of the “Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian” (hereafter DŽ (k)), 2,527² such words were found.

Since the introduction to DŽ₃ provides an uninformative definition of the abbreviation šnek.—“a colloquial-language word” (DŽ₃: XIV)—the examples given show which words are considered colloquial lexis.

Words such as gleiža³ colloq. “someone who is slimy, a messy person”; glėizoti⁴ colloq. “to be messy, to smear” and its prefix derivatives with the same meaning, apglėizoti, išglėizoti, suglėizoti and glėža, glėzoti, which have analogous meanings, are marked colloq., but terlenti

¹ The author of this article follows J. Pikčilingis’s stylistic differentiation of the vocabulary. Bookish lexis and dialectal forms are not discussed in the article.

² The number of all words marked with particular labels in the article is reported according to DŽ(k).

³ The problem of word selection is not discussed in the article, although it is relevant and needs to be addressed.

⁴ Stress variants are not provided in the article.

160

“to smear, soil, daub” and, with the same meaning, ter̃linti, terlióti, ter̃lyti, terménti and the prefixed derivatives of these words are considered stylistically neutral in DŽ₃. The words grabála colloq. ‘an awkward person’; grabãlius, -ė colloq. ‘someone who fumbles about, a clumsy person’ are marked colloq., but grabalinėti ‘to grope, to handle’ and, with an analogous meaning, grabalióti; grabinėti, grabóti and their prefixed derivatives are considered stylistically neutral in DŽ₃. Words connoted in terms of colloquial speech include kliūka colloq. 1. ‘a thin, undersized mare’; 2. ‘a half-witted person, a fool’; klūikinti colloq. ‘to walk aimlessly, to gape’; klūikis, -ė colloq. ‘a fool, a half-wit’ and, with the same meaning, klūikšas, -ė; klūikšis, -ė, as well as klūikti colloq. ‘to go crazy, to become deranged’; kvánka colloq. ‘a nitwit, a simpleton’; kvankinti colloq. ‘to act like a nitwit’ and, with an equivalent meaning, kvanklinėti; kvanklinti, whereas kváiša derog. ‘a nitwit, a simpleton’; kvaišys, -ė derog. ‘a fool, a simpleton’ are described in emotional-expressive terms. The following are treated as colloquial words: lepšėti colloq. ‘to become a weakling, to grow feeble’ and the prefixed derivative sulepšėti, used with the same meaning, as well as lepšis, -ė colloq. ‘a weak, spineless person’ and the like. In DŽ₃, the following words are marked colloq.: marmãkas colloq. 1. ‘a person who speaks rapidly and indistinctly’; 2. ‘a talkative person’; mãrmalas colloq. 1. ‘mud, mire’; 2. ‘poor food, drink’; 3. ‘someone who speaks rapidly and indistinctly’; and 4. ‘a chatterbox, a blabbermouth’; marmalienė colloq. ‘a poorly made soup’; marmalynė colloq. 1. ‘mud’; 2. ‘mire, bog’; marmályti colloq. 1. ‘to boil, bubbling’; 2. ‘to mix clumsily’; also the prefixed forms primarmályti colloq. 1. ‘to cook or make a lot’; 2. ‘to pour in a lot’; sumarmályti colloq. ‘to pour together, to mix’ and the like. Marmaliúoti, meaning ‘to sink, to founder’ (as well as in other senses), is listed without a label, whereas primarmaliúoti is marked colloq. both in the sense of sinking and in sense 2, ‘to pour in a lot’. Nugrùbnagis, -ė colloq. ‘someone with rough hands, an awkward person, sugrubnagis’; sugrùbnagis, -ė colloq. ‘someone with stiff, cramped fingers, an awkward person’ are considered connoted with respect to colloquial speech, but atgrub(a)nãgis, -ė derog. ‘someone with clumsy fingers who works poorly and slowly and often drops things, sugrubnagis’, as we can see, is marked derog.; thus, the latter word is described in emotional-expressive terms. In addition, attention should be drawn to the differences in the definitions of these words (hands, fingers, nails). Words used to refer to a scoundrel, a wicked person include nelabàsis, -óji, nevidõnas, -ė, vélnias and others, and are considered colloquial; gyvãtė is given the label contempt., while bjaurybė is considered non-connotative. Many more such examples could be provided.

Table 1 makes it possible to compare how DŽ₂, LKŽ, and SŽ characterize words that DŽ₃ marks as colloquial.

161

1 lentelė

Words regarded as colloquial in DŽ³ Stylistic characterization DŽ² LKŽ SŽ gleiža unmarked unmarked dialectal gléizoti colloq. unmarked dialectal kvánka colloq. unmarked dialectal lépšis, -ė derog. derog. unmarked mármalas 2. ‘poor food, drink’; derog. unmarked –⁵ 3. ‘someone who speaks rapidly and indistinctly’; derog. unmarked – 4. ‘a chatterbox, a blabbermouth’ unmarked unmarked dialectal sugrūbnagis, -ė unmarked unmarked derog.

Words with very different stylistic nuances are characterized by the label colloq. in DŽ³. Compare the colloquial examples given on pages 1–2 of this article with the words listed below, which are also marked colloq. in DŽ³, for example:

ádata 3. colloq. ‘injection, inoculation, shot’;

arbatėlė 2. colloq. ‘a social gathering with refreshments, a feast’;

bal̃sas 7. colloq. ‘a ballot paper, ballot’;

bėgis 4. colloq. ‘a gear in a vehicle’;

centimėtras 2. colloq. ‘a ruler or tape graduated in centimeters’;

ceñtras 5. colloq. ‘a centre-forward’;

dáktaras, -ė 2. colloq. ‘doctor’;

daktarỹstė colloq. 1. ‘the medical profession, medical treatment’; 2. ‘the status of being a doctor of sciences or a physician’;

garaĩ colloq. ‘exhaust fumes’;

greitūkas colloq. ‘an express train, bus’;

ketvirtūkas colloq. ‘a bus, trolleybus, etc. numbered four on its route’;

komandiruõtė 2. colloq. ‘a travel order’;

lašaĩ colloq. “dripping medicine”;

liáudis 3. colloq. “people”;

madà 2. colloq. “habit, inclination”;

⁵ In this and the following tables, a dash indicates that the word or the specified meaning is not given.

162

1 mètras 3. colloq. “cubic metre”;

nèrvai 2. colloq. “mental state”;

penkinė colloq. “banknote worth five monetary units”;

pirmoji colloq. “first time, first fruits”;

pòpierius 2. colloq. “official letter, document”;

pròcentai colloq. “interest”;

pùblika 2. colloq. “people, society”;

sesėlė 2. colloq. “nurse”;

táškas 8. colloq. “tube radio receiver”;

vidurinė colloq. “secondary school”;

žòlės colloq. “medicinal herbs” and so on.

The examples presented show:

a) the label colloq. in DŽ₃ marks words that also have an emotional-expressive nuance, e.g., sugrubnagis, -ė, as well as words that are neither expressive nor vivid, e.g., bėgis;

b) there are inconsistencies in the stylistic evaluation of words with analogous meanings; e.g., marmaliuoti in the sense “to sink, to plunge” is considered non-connotative, whereas primarmaliuoti in the same sense carries the label colloq.;

c) the dictionary provides an incomplete stylistic description of words: in many cases their emotional-expressive nuance is not indicated, e.g.: lepšėti, sulepšėti, lėpšis, -ė have a clearly derogatory nuance, yet in DŽ₃ they are described only in functional terms, and so on.

To avoid inconsistencies in the stylistic description of words and to keep the dictionary from being overloaded with labels, the abbreviation colloq. in BŽ could be used for words or senses that lack an emotional-expressive nuance. For example: numirėlis*, -ė colloq. “a dead person”; žòlės colloq. 1. “medicinal herbs”; 2. ▽ “drugs,” etc.

2.1. Words from children’s speech, which are sometimes also used by adults, belong to the periphery of colloquial language. For example: čiùčkis* “dog (in children’s speech)”; dėdė 2. colloq. “any older man (especially in children’s speech)”; kùžė*, kùzis* “horse (in children’s speech)”; tetà 2. colloq. “any older woman, as addressed by a child,” etc. To avoid obvious inconsistency, perhaps similar vocabulary should be included in BŽ simply with the label colloq., without checking whether the word is used in children’s speech. BŽ should not ignore the widely used farewell “atia,” which is not even included in LKŽ.

2.2. Words used in folklore belong to the periphery of colloquial language; in DŽ₃ they are marked with the abbreviations d. and flk. The use of these labels in Lithuanian dictionaries is traditional; cf. DŽ₁, DŽ₂, LKŽ.

There are 16 headwords described by the abbreviation d., e.g.: čiulbuonėlis, -ė d. “one who chirps”; čiulbutis, -ė d. “one who chirps, čiulbuonėlis”; pūronėlis, -ė d. “a person who sifts grain…”

* Here and below, an asterisk indicates that the word is not marked with the abbreviation colloq. in DŽ₃.

▽ A triangle indicates that this sense is not included in DŽ₃.

163

“... or a poppy nickname”; 2 raitėlis d. “horseman”; raitojėlis d. “a little riding boy, raitėlis”; raitūnėlis d. “raitojėlis”; raitūonėlis d. “raitūnėlis,” and so on. In addition, the label d. is used to indicate that a sentence belongs to a folk song, e.g., laivas 2. flk. “boat, galley”: Dirbinsiu ~ą, geltoną ~ą (d.); 1 nókti 3. flk. “to pursue”: ~o rūtą, ~o mietą, ~o lelėlę (d.), and so forth.

There are 26 words marked with the abbreviation flk., for example, báltas, -à 4. flk. “good, dear, precious”; 2 bègūnas, -ė 2. flk. “messenger”; eidininkas, -ė 2. flk. “fast horse, trotter”; lakūnas, -ė 2. flk. “one who races, flies, or soars”; pakloja 2. flk. “bedding, bed”; ragūotasis flk. “devil”; 1 ragūotis 3. flk. “devil”; 2 ūbas, -à flk. “distant, even”; vagavarys flk. “ploughman,” and so on. The question arises why ragūotasis, 1 ragūotis are not considered euphemisms. The folk saying goes: “Don’t call the devil ‘devil,’ but call him ‘horned one,’ ‘fiend,’ or something else” (LKŽ XI: 42). Incidentally, the words used to name the devil, piktàsis and 1 skeltanágis are already assigned to the euphemistic lexicon in DŽ₃.

Folklore, which is divided into songs, narratives, and short forms, is part of traditional folk culture. However, riddles, proverbs, and other forms of oral folk creativity have no separate abbreviations in DŽ₃. The BŽ label d. could be dispensed with, and the words or sentences of folk songs marked with the abbreviation flk.

3. Abbreviations used in DŽ₃ to mark emotional-expressive lexis are euf., fam., iron., juok., malon., menk., mžb., niek., vulg. First, we will discuss the words characterized by the last of these labels.

3.1. Five words are marked with the label vulg. These are idiòtas, -ė 2. vulg. “fool”; pãpas vulg. 1. “breast”; 2. “nipple”; 3. “pacifier”; rùpūžė 2. vulg. “rascal, nasty person”; rupùžynė 2. vulg. “nasty thing”; and rupūžiuoti vulg. 1. “to call someone a toad, to curse”; 2. “to trudge along (where one shouldn’t).”

Let us compare how these words are evaluated stylistically in other sources.

Table 2

164

Vulgar vocabulary is understood to consist of coarse, blunt words and expressions used to name sexual organs, physiological processes, and the like. In a broader sense, vulgarisms include coarser words with derogatory meanings, for example, instead of the word burnà – žąbtai, instead of tuščiai kalbėti – pliaukšti, pliurpti, taukšti, tauzyti, žaūnyti, and so on (LKE: 713). In the senses given, the words pliaukšti, pliurpti, taukšti, tauzyti are classified in DŽ₃ as colloquial words, žaūnyti is labeled disparaging, while žąbtai is marked with the abbreviation derogatory.

Words and senses labeled with the abbreviation vulg. in DŽ₃, except for the word pąpas, belong to the broader layer of vulgar vocabulary. It is unclear, however, why words used to call someone a scoundrel, such as gyvātė, šūnsnukis, are labeled derogatory in the same dictionary, whereas vėln ias is classified as a colloquial word; that is, these words are not assigned to vulgar vocabulary.

In the VDU corpus, which reflects authentic written Lithuanian, we can find many words containing the roots miž-, pap-, šik-, šūd-, and others. BŽ should decide whether to continue ignoring this lexical layer or (cf. the dictionaries of Oxford, Petit Robert, Thésaurus Larousse, and others) include it.

3.2. To indicate swearwords and words of abuse, DŽ₃ uses the following labels⁶:

1. “swearword”, e.g., perkūnas 3.;

2. “oath”, e.g., Kad tu ~stum! (swearword) (headword; hereafter hw) –išpušti 1.), O kad tu ~ėgtum! (swearword) (hw – prasmėgti), Kad tave kur ~ai! (swearword) (hw – vilkas);

3. “such an oath”, e.g., Kad tu ~tum! (such an oath) (hw – nusprógti 2.), Kad tu ~stum! (such an oath) (hw – pasiūsti 2.), Kad tave p~! (such an oath) (hw – plynė 2.);

4. “when cursing”, e.g., čemerýš 2. “imp, devil (when cursing)”;

5. “also when cursing”, e.g., žaltys 2. “a clever, sly person (also when cursing)”;

6. “cursing”, e.g., dieglýs 2. “the devil, fiend (cursing)”;

7. “mild oath”, e.g., Galas žino (a mild oath said when in doubt or unsure of something) (hw – gālas), Kad tave zuikiai subadytų! (mild oath) (hw – zuikis, -ė 1.), and others.

The examples given illustrate the variation in how this vocabulary is labeled. It is unclear what justifies treating some expressions as oaths, cf. Gālas žino (hw – gālas), and so on, while others, cf. Eik po galais! (hw – gālas), are not treated as such, and so on.

To label oaths and swearwords, BŽ should systematically add the note (swearword) after a word or a specific example of its sense.

3.3. As noted, some emotional-expressive vocabulary in DŽ₃ is labeled with the abbreviation colloq., while some is presented as stylistically neutral. Non-connotative lexi-

⁶ The labels listed do not mean that DŽ₃ does not also use other ways of presenting oaths or swearwords.

165

komi blevyzgà 1. “indecent speech, prattle”; 2. “one who talks nonsense”; blevýzgoti “to speak indecently, chatter, prattle”; čiauškala 1. “empty talk, chatter, nonsense”; 2. “one who talks a lot, chatters, chirps”; čiauškalius, -ė “one who talks a lot, a chatterbox”; čirškelė “one who chirps, quarrels”; dabišius, -ė “one who likes to adorn, deck, beautify themself, a dandy”; galvažudys, -ė “one who kills a person, a murderer”; kekšė “a promiscuous woman, a harlot”; lápė 2. “a cunning, sly person who knows how to curry favor”; múlkis, -ė “a fool, an idiot, an ignoramus”; paleist(a)burnis, -ė “one who speaks offensively, talks nonsense”; paleist(a)liežuvis, -ė “one who talks rubbish, chatters”; paleistūvis, -ė “a libertine, a debauchee,” and so on. A considerable portion of this vocabulary is also considered stylistically neutral in DŽ₂, LKŽ, and SŽ.

It should be noted that certain suffixes, endings, and prefixes can often give words a negative meaning. In DŽ₃, about 200 nouns derived with the suffix -ėlis, -ė are considered stylistically neutral. For example: apdribėlis, -ė “one who is flabby, clumsy”; apsigimėlis, -ė “one who by nature has physical or mental defects”; išdvėsėlis, -ė “a corpse, a dead body, a carcass”; išglebėlis, -ė “one who is limp, flabby,” etc. “The names of bearers of verbal qualities formed with the suffix -ėlis, -ė generally denote persons and have a pejorative meaning [...]” (DLKG: 105). A few derivatives with this suffix have no negative connotation, cf.: numirėlis, -ė “a dead person,” nusikaltėlis, -ė “one who has committed a crime,” pabėgėlis, -ė “one who has fled, left their place or country,” etc.

Most nouns formed with the suffixes -alas, -alius, -eklis, -ena, -ynė, -la, -lys, -na, -ūnas, etc., denoting actions or persons, have a pejorative meaning (DLKG: 106–111). Let us look at how derivatives with these suffixes are characterized in DŽ₃. For example: giedalas “poor singing”; tauškalas colloq. 1. “nonsense, chatter”; 2. “one who talks nonsense, a chatterbox”; karkalius, -ė “one who croaks; one who breathes with a rattling sound”; žabalius, -ė “one who has poor eyesight, a half-blind person”; murmėklis, -ė 1. “one who mumbles, speaks indistinctly and quickly”; 2. colloq. “one who expresses dissatisfaction, speaks against something”; stenėklis, -ė 1. “one who groans, moans”; 2. colloq. “one who articulates words indistinctly”; dūsena “one who suffers from shortness of breath, a breathless person”; čirškynė 2. “one who chirps, shouts, a screamer,” etc. As we can see, some of these derivatives are considered non-connotative, e.g., čirškynė 2.; dūsena, while others are characterized functionally, e.g., murmėklis, -ė 2.; tauškalas, yet no pejorative meaning is indicated.

DLKG (112–113) states that derivatives with the endings -a (-ia), etc., pejoratively denote persons and are common-gender nouns. However, DŽ₃ considers adiba 1. “one who looks sideways, from under the brow, a gloomy person”; 2. “a large, clumsy, awkward person,” and other derivatives with endings to be stylistically neutral.

Prefixes can often give a word a certain stylistic nuance, e.g., nukalbėti 1. “to say something stupidly” (it has no stylistic labels in DŽ₃), and so on.

3.4. A total of 99 words are marked with the abbreviation niek. (derogatory). For example: atėjūnas, -ė niek. “an unwelcome newcomer, an interloper” (atsibastėlis, -ė “one who has turned up” — without a label); avigalvis, -ė niek. “a forgetful person, an idiot, a half-wit”; išgama niek. “a degenerate, a defective”; išpera 2. niek. “a worthless creature”; kaitalynė 2. niek. “a changing-

166

process”); marmūžė niek. “face, mouth” (šnukis has a label menk. [pejorative] for an analogous meaning); mi̇gis 3. niek. “an unmade bed; a disordered, dirty bed”; padlaižiauti niek. “to be obsequious”; padlaižys, -ė niek. “a sycophant,” whereas palaIžūnas, -ė “a sycophant, a toady” has the label menk. (DŽ₃ does not include the word padlaižūnas, -ė). The words pakalikas, -ė niek. “a sycophant” are marked as derogatory (pataikūnas, -ė “one who flatters and tries to ingratiate themself” is considered stylistically neutral); plėrza niek. “a flabby, clumsy person,” whereas words with an analogous meaning, dribšas, -ė and drimba, are marked menk., while sudribėlis, -ė is considered non-connotative. This is clearly confusing. Is marmūžė really more negative in degree than the word šnukis? What is the basis for the different labeling of the words plėrza and sudribėlis, -ė?

Table 3 makes it possible to compare how other sources assess the vocabulary characterized as derogatory in DŽ₃.

Table 3

3.5. Words with a pejorative characterization also exhibit variation in stylistic assessment; there are 496 of them. For example: apakėlis, -ė 2. menk. “one who is inattentive” (but 1. “one who has poor eyesight” — without a label); baltarankis, -ė 2. menk. “one who does not work, avoids physical labor”; bliāuti 2. menk. “to weep loudly,” 3. menk. “to sing badly” (šliumbti “to cry aloud” is labeled colloq.); cypynė 2. menk. “one who squeaks, shrieks,” whereas cyplýs, -ė “one who keeps squeaking, crying, a screecher” is considered stylistically neutral. DŽ₃ characterizes the words dribšas, -ė menk. “one who is flabby, awkward”; drimba with the same meaning; gvēra menk. “one who is decrepit, a dolt,” but gvērauti niek. 1. “to dawdle, gape” (and other meanings); gvērinti niek. “to walk like a gvēra, to dawdle” bears the abbreviation niek., while išgverėlis, -ė 1. “one who is decrepit, worn out”; 2. “a weakling, a slob” is unmarked. The words karštakošis, -ė menk. “a hot-tempered person, a hothead”; kvaiša menk. “a dolt, a fool”; kvaišys, -ė with an analogous meaning, and others, are pejoratively characterized; however, kvaišas, -à “stupid, foolish” is listed in DŽ₃ without a label.

167

Cholèrikas, -ė 2. derog. “hothead, madcap”; flegmátikas, -ė 2. derog. “sluggish person, blockhead, fool, dullard”⁷ are marked with the abbreviation derog.; melanchòlikas, -ė 3. “a person sensitive to everything, slow and sad, dejected, sorrowful, gloomy”—without a label; while sangvínikas, -ė 2. colloq. “cheerful fellow, fine person, open-hearted person” is treated as a colloquial word.

Let us compare the stylistic characterization of pejorative vocabulary in other sources.

Table 4

The examples presented in Tables 3 and 4 show that the labeling of pejorative and contemptuous connotations is eclectic.

The question arises whether a person called pašlemėku (DŽ₃ labels it derog.) ought to take less offense than someone called gyvate (labeled contempt.)? Are the words gėrauti, marmūžė, marked with the abbreviation contempt., more contemptuous than the words gėra, snùkis, which carry the label derog., and so on?

J. Paulauskas (1974: 46–47), K. Vosyl y tė (1995: 184), and others have written about the use of the labels derog. and contempt. without clearer criteria and pointed out the difficulties of precisely assessing these connotations. Inconsistencies could be avoided by dispensing with the label contempt. and marking words and meanings with pejorative or contemptuous connotations with the more general label derog. Words with a very strong degree of contempt could be marked in BŽ with the label vulgar, e.g., šliùndra vulgar “promiscuous woman, slut” (in DŽ₃, this word is marked as having a contemptuous meaning).

3.6. The 13 instances of irony are marked with the abbreviation iron., e.g., aristokràtas, -ė 2. iron. “someone who avoids ordinary people”; devyndarbis, -ė iron. “someone who has, or does, many jobs”; galvóčius 2. iron. “ignoramus”; grietinėlė 2. iron. “the cream of society”; mokslinčius 2. iron. “someone who makes a show of being highly learned”; 2 náuda iron. “good,

⁷ Meanings should be explained using neutral words.

168

a commendable person”; incidentally, the latter is also marked in DŽ₃ with the abbreviations vak., dz. Words regarded as ironical in DŽ₃ include preikšas 2. iron. “lover” (incidentally, the sources cited in LKŽ show that the latter word is a Samogitianism); tūzas 2. iron. “an influential person who holds a good position”; vadėiva iron. “an insignificant leader,” and so on.

Table 5

Regarded as ironies in DŽ₃

Stylistic description

DŽ₂

LKŽ

ŠŽ

galvočius 2. “an ignoramus”

iron.

–

mokslinčius 2. “one who is always studying”

iron.

–

preikšas 2. “lover”

iron.

pejor.

dial., pejor.

bigwig 2. “an influential person holding a good position”

ironic.

without a label

–

female leader

ironic.

derog.

ironic.

When discussing irony, attention should be paid to the significance of context and situation. Incidentally, this applies to all emotional-expressive lexis, with the exception of euphemisms. For example, we sense an ironic note when the diminutives “dear parents,” “little children” are used in the saying Like parents, like children.

Table 6 clearly illustrates the variation in the stylistic characterization of a word across dictionaries.

Table 6

Words considered ironic by J. Pikčilingis

Their labeling

DŽ₃

DŽ₂

LKŽ

ŠŽ

to wail 2. “to cry”

derog.

makaūlė “head”

derog.

pakarāila “a big, tall, gaunt person”

colloq.

eastern dialect

unmarked

dialectal, derog.

veizolai “eyes”

low-register, derog.

dial., pejor.

pejor.

dial., pejor.

It cannot be said that the words bliūti, veizolai, etc., in the meanings indicated are not mocking, derisive, or biting, but the more pronounced pejorative degree overshadows their irony.

169

Sometimes certain suffixes can give a word an ironic nuance. J. Pikčilingis considers the suffixes -(i)ūkštis, -eiva and others to be such (Pikčilingis 1975: 301). DLKG §158; §257; §294 discuss the pejorative nuance conveyed by the aforementioned suffixes. Let us see how some derivatives formed with these suffixes are presented in DŽ₃ and other sources.

Table 7

Clearly, the labeling of this vocabulary is also inconsistent. Nevertheless, derivatives with the suffix -eiva convey a more pronounced shade of irony than of disparagement or contempt, and these derivatives should be labeled iron. in BŽ. When presenting phraseologisms, proverbs, and the like in BŽ, an optional emotional-expressive nuance should be indicated. In DŽ₃ these labels are used inconsistently. For example, the following folk sayings are marked with the abbreviation iron. in DŽ₃: She left the hens in the fox’s care (iron.) (see entry – atiduoti 2.); You’ll get oats from ~ (iron. you’ll get nothing) (see entry – žąsinas); A sparrow trampled ~’s leg (iron.) (see entry – pelėda 1.); They get along like a dog and a cat (iron.) (see entry – sutikti 6.); It fits like a fifth leg on a dog (iron. it is quite unsuitable) (see entry – tikti 1.), and so on. By the way, the label flk. is not provided. The label iron. is used for the phraseologisms To lead a goat to sell (iron. to go to confession) (see entry – ožys); What a great place! (iron. a wretch) (see entry – vietà), and so on.

170

3.7. There are only 11 words with the abbreviation joc., e.g., džirinti colloq. 2. joc. “to play badly”; gudročius, -ė joc. “clever person” (is this feminine form actually used?); išdėlis 2. joc. “the youngest child in a family, the baby of the family”; kiaūliarisčia joc. “an easy (pig’s) trot”; lašiniai 2. joc. “body fat”; pyraginė 2. joc. “windpipe”; smegeninė 2. joc. “head”; tupykla 2. joc. “toilet”; varlė 3. joc. “small child”; 2 vienstypis, -ė joc. “bachelor” and the like.

Table 8 compares how words labeled joc. are characterized in other dictionaries.

Table 8

When discussing the lexicon characterized by the label joc. (this is partly relevant also to words marked with the abbreviation iron.), the problem arises of whether to include or omit in the dictionary expressive meanings acquired temporarily—that is, whether it is worthwhile to indicate the temporary, context-dependent connotation of words. Let us illustrate the change in the expressive nuance of the word gudročius with a simple example. Jokingly, a person trying to “get out of” an awkward situation is called a gudročiumi. But consider the phrase Atsirado, matai, gudročius (“Well, look who’s here—the clever one”): it has a stronger note of irony and mockery. Incidentally, SŽ marks this word iron. (see Table 8). Compare how DŽ₃ characterizes galvočius: 1. “a thoughtful, wise person, a sage”; 2. iron. “an ignorant person.” The question arises whether BŽ should give only the listed meanings for the words galvočius “a thoughtful, wise person,” gudročius “a clever, resourceful person,” and the like, and treat them as colloquial words.

To refer to poor playing, besides the aforementioned džirinti, other verbs are also used. Some are considered neutral in the meaning mentioned in DŽ₃, e.g.: čirenti, čirpinti, čirpti, while others are considered colloquial, e.g.: kliūnkinti and so on. In the definitions of birbinti 1. “to play the birbynė, to pipe”; birbti 1. “to play the birbynė,” the word “poorly” needs to be inserted; incidentally, these are treated as non-connotative in DŽ₃.

Some idiomatic expressions in DŽ₃ are marked joc., e.g., Ne iš tos ~os (joc., said to someone who is off topic) (cf. – òpera); Ožio pienas (joc.

171

vodka) (cf. – ožys); I ~ų bažnyčią važiuoti (joc. to die) (cf. – šárka); ~ų bažnyčia (joc. cemetery) (cf. – šárka), and so on. This abbreviation could be applied to the expression Kad tave –iai subadyti! (cf. – zuikis), already mentioned as a mild curse in DŽ₃, as well as A kad tave vabalas; Lįsk vabalui į blauzdą (LKŽ XVII: 764), and the like. DŽ₃ does not include the latter expressions.

In BŽ, the label joc. could be used for words or expressions said in good-natured, pleasant jesting, with the intention of amusing the addressee.

3.8. Nine words carry the abbreviation fam. These are bamblinėti fam. “to toddle” (usually of a small child); bamblys 6. fam. “a small, fat, sometimes also mischievous child; a short, fat person”; bambùs, -ì fam. “frequently and persistently reproaching, expressing dissatisfaction”; bóba 2. colloq. fam. “wife, one’s spouse”; 2 burbùlis, -ė 2. fam. “a fat person, a round-faced person”; móčia eastern dialect fam. “mother”; sėnis, -ė 3. dialect fam. “husband, wife”; susiburkuóti fam. “to become enamored while speaking sweetly”; susičiulbėti fam. “to have a pleasant conversation and reach an agreement.”

Let us compare the stylistic characterization of these words in other dictionaries.

Table 9

172

It is evident that the lexicon regarded as familiar in DŽ₃ displays a marked difference in stylistic coloring; cf. susiburkúoti – bóba, susčiulbėti – móčia, burbùlis – sénis and so on. Incidentally, the non-prefixed forms burkúoti, čiulbėti, as well as ulbėti with an analogous meaning, are considered stylistically neutral in DŽ₃. In the indicated meanings of the words bambùs, -ì; bóba; móčia; sénis, -ė, the prevailing evaluation is disrespectful, coarse, and insulting, characteristic of disparaging vocabulary.

It is also possible to compare which words other authors consider familiar; for example, the words bóba, patì, pàts, used to refer to spouses, according to J. Pikčilingis (1975: 12–13); mamà, tévas in the same meaning, according to K. Vosylitė (1995: 185); some derivatives with the suffix -okas, and specifically the word klasiòkas, according to K. Župerka (1983: 14), and so on. In BŽ, these and other similar words for referring to spouses (except bóba) could be marked colloq., especially since colloquial vocabulary often has a familiar tone. Thus, the label fam. could be dispensed with.

3.9. The euphemistically connoted lexical layer in DŽ₃ consists of 11 words. These are the nouns nelabàsis eup. ‘devil’; pamatinė eup. ‘toad’; piktàsis eup. ‘devil, evil one’; piktóji eup. ‘snake’; 1 skeltanagis eup. ‘devil’; šnypštelė eup. ‘snake’. The label eup. is applied to the verbs 1 čiurinti colloq. 2. eup. ‘to urinate’; nusilengvinti 2. eup. ‘to relieve oneself’; nusišlapinti eup. ‘to pass urine’; and, in the same meaning, šlapintis; tuštintis eup. ‘to relieve oneself’.

Let us look at how other sources stylistically assess the words regarded as euphemisms in DŽ₃.

Table 10

In some dictionaries this vocabulary is characterized functionally, in others emotionally, while in still others it is considered stylistically neutral.

The classification of the words nusišlapinti, šlapintis, tuštintis as euphemisms in the indicated meanings is questionable.

173

The following names for the devil could be assigned to the euphemistic lexicon: kinšas, pikčius, pinčiukas (classified as colloquial words in DŽ₃), raguótasis, ragùtis (see section 2.2. of this article), and so on.

Euphemisms used to refer to death include gãlas, giltinė (classified as non-connotative in DŽ₃); paskutinióji (marked as colloquial), and so on. In BŽ, they could be marked as euphemistic.

In addition to synonyms, euphemistic lexicon also includes phraseological expressions. When one does not wish to utter the word mirti (to die), one says Akis užmerkti (to close one’s eyes—literally, one’s akis); Galvą padėti (to lay down, to put to rest—literally, one’s galvà); Vãlandos suskaitytos (one’s hours have been counted—literally, the valandà), and so on. DŽ₃ does not indicate the connotation of these euphemistic phraseological expressions.

3.10. The abbreviations malon. and mžb. are used to mark diminutive words. “A large proportion of Lithuanian diminutives express the objective size of things (usually their smallness) and have no particularly pronounced shade of expressiveness or emotionality” (DLKG: 87). Thus, the lexicon marked with the abbreviation mžb. in DŽ₃ is not discussed in this article.

Twenty-seven nouns are marked with the label of endearment. For example: bernelis malon. “young, unmarried man, young man” and a similar meaning for bernytis; mamà malon. “mother”; 2 mažùtėlis, -ė malon. “small child”; pùmpuras 3. malon. “small child”; pupùlis, -ė malon. “little one”; pupùtis, -ė malon. “little one, pupulis”; pùtė malon. “hen or another bird (usually in children’s speech)”; sėsė malon. “sister”; tėtė malon. “father”; tėtis malon. “father,” etc.

Let us compare how words characterized by the label malon. are marked in other sources.

Table 11

174

Usually, endearing words are derivatives formed with certain suffixes. In DŽ₃, non-suffixed words mamà, pùtė, tėtė, tėtis are described as having an endearing meaning, as is the non-diminutive-suffix derivative pùmpuras. In DŽ₂, LKŽ, and ŠŽ, tėtė and tėtis are considered familiar, whereas mamà, sėsė, with a similar meaning, are not assigned to the familiar lexical stratum. In BŽ, the words mentioned are marked colloquial, except for pùmpuras. Incidentally, is a small child not more often called pipiru? Yet DŽ₃ does not give this word that meaning. Words from child language, such as kùžė, kùzis (see section 2.1. of this article), etc., are not marked with the abbreviation malon. (endearing), but pùtė is already described as having an endearing meaning. The word 2 mažùtėlis, -ė is marked malon. (endearing), whereas 2 mažýlis, -ė; 2 mažýris, -ė; 2 mažìulis, -ė are considered stylistically neutral in DŽ₃, although the definitions of all of them read the same: “a small child.” If the words listed in DŽ₃ are given without labels because their stylistic characterization is shown in the definition, then the word 2 mažùtėlis, -ė should not be marked with the abbreviation malon. (endearing) either. The words mentioned that are used to name a small child convey both endearment and smallness. Incidentally, this is also true of the word sesėlė 1. colloq. endearing ‘sister’ (sesė). Many more such examples could be given.

When characterizing diminutive nouns in BŽ, the abbreviations malon. (endearing) and mėb. (affectionate) could be dispensed with and the label dem. (diminutive) used instead.

3.11. The treatment of vivid vocabulary merits discussion. In DŽ₃, it is sometimes marked with the label colloq., for example, bindzinėti colloq. “to wander around without working”; bìndzinti colloq. “to go slowly and lazily, to trudge”; 1 kìrsti 8. colloq. “to do something vigorously (walk, eat, play, dance, rain, etc.)”; máuti 4. colloq. “to run or drive fast”; šáuti 3. colloq. “to walk, run, or fly vigorously,” and so on. Sometimes vivid words are considered stylistically neutral, for example: čiùožti 2. “to walk, travel”; dùmti 6. “to walk, run, or travel fast”; rūkti 5. “to run fast,” and so on.

Let us compare how vivid vocabulary is characterized in other sources.

Table 12

Vivid words

Stylistic characterization

DŽ₃

LKŽ

ŠŽ

bindzinėti

colloq.

unmarked

colloq.

bìndzinti

colloq.

unmarked

derog.

čiùožti 2. “to go, travel”

without a label

–

dùmti 6. “to walk, run, travel quickly”

without a label

colloq.

rūkti 5. “to run quickly”

without a label

colloq.

šáuti 3. “to walk, run, fly fast”

without a label

colloq.

175

Clearly, the words listed are connotative. All words, or their meanings, that do not belong to the neutral lexical layer should be described with particular stylistic labels (Paulauskas 1974: 46). K. Vosilytė (1995: 185) has raised the issue of presenting figurative vocabulary in LKŽ. K. Pakalka (1995: 205–216) used the abbreviation vaizd. in a glossary of verbs of speaking in the Daugėliškis dialect.

The label šnek. is used to indicate functional connotation. Figurative vocabulary is a variety of emotional-expressive vocabulary (Pikčilingis 1975: 53). Consequently, figurative words should not be marked with the abbreviation šnek. in BŽ. One possible way of presenting this vocabulary would be to use the abbreviation vaizd. But is it worth introducing this label?

4. Without repeating what has been said about specific lexical layers, the following can be stated:

– the amount of emotional-expressive vocabulary in BŽ, especially derogatory vocabulary, should be reduced (both vocabulary marked with particular abbreviations and vocabulary treated as non-connotative in DŽ₃);

– the stylistic description of many words that actually have an expressive оттенок and are suitable for inclusion in BŽ should change in comparison with DŽ₃;

– the stylistic labels in the introduction to BŽ should be explained informatively, that is, defined in more than a single word; examples could also be provided: menk. – words or expressions with derogatory meanings, used to belittle or disparage a person, object, or phenomenon, e.g., gremėzdas, etc.

– the following stylistic labels could be used in BŽ:

šnek. – a word or expression of the standard colloquial language, used in everyday, informal speech when communicating freely and without reserve with an addressee. This label should describe words that have no emotional-expressive оттенок. E.g.: adata (1) 3. šnek. “injection, tuck, inside-out”; bėgis (2) 4. šnek. “the transmission of a vehicle,” etc. Children’s words, sometimes also used by adults, likewise belong to colloquial language. E.g.: atià jst. šnek. “goodbye” (when taking leave);

flk. – folklore; this label should be used for words and expressions used in oral folk literature. E.g.: 1 nókti (1) 3. flk. “to wilt”; 2 svėčias, -ià (4) flk. “stranger,” etc.

To characterize emotional-expressive vocabulary:

dem. – diminutives; this label characterizes words denoting the same thing, or a thing of the same kind, as the base words, but also conveying meanings of smallness and endearment. E.g.: mergėlė (2) 1. dem. “a young unmarried woman, a girl”; motulė (2) dem. “mother,” etc.

⁸ Definitions are taken from DŽ₃, but this does not mean that they will remain unchanged in BŽ. Incidentally, the order in which meanings are presented, and so on, may change.

176

euf. – euphemisms; milder, neutral words or expressions used instead of harsh or unpleasant ones. E.g.: nelabasis noun euf. “devil”; akis užmerkti (euf. mirti “to die”), etc.

juok. – jokingly; non-offensive words or expressions said in a friendly, humorous manner to amuse the addressee. E.g.: smegeninė (2) 2. juok. “head”; Ne iš tos operos (said jokingly to someone who is off topic), etc.

iron. – ironic words or expressions used with a meaning often opposite to the literal one, carrying a biting, mocking, or derisive connotation. E.g.: griežtinėlė (2) 2. iron. “select people”; Gausi iš žąsino avižų (iron. nieko negausi “you won’t get anything”), etc.

derog. – words or expressions with derogatory meanings, used to belittle or disparage a person, thing, or phenomenon. E.g.: gremėzdas (2) derog. 1. “a clumsy-looking object, a bulky thing, a heap,” 2. “an awkward person, a lout”; lãkti 2. derog. “to drink, to guzzle,” etc.

vulg. – vulgar, i.e. coarse or obscene, words or expressions unsuitable for use in polite company; often direct names for sexual organs, physiological processes, etc. E.g.: pãpas (2) vulg. 1. “breast”; šūdas (1) vulg. “excrement,” etc.

– To indicate swear words or curse words, it is proposed to add the label “curse” after a specific example. E.g.: Kad tu išpustum! (curse); Kad tu nusprogtum! (curse), etc.

Received 1999 05 12

ABBREVIATIONS

BŽ – Dictionary of Standard Lithuanian

DŽ(k) – computerized version of DŽ₃

VDU – Vytautas Magnus University Corpus

až – headword

d. – a word, expression, or sentence from a folk song

dem. – diminutive

dz. – Dzūkian

euf. – euphemism

fam. – familiar

flk. – folklore

iron. – ironic

jst. – interjection

juok. – jokingly, in jest

malon. – endearing

menk. – derogatory

dim. – diminutive

derog. – derogatory

fig. – figurative meaning

177

eastern Aukštaitian – colloq. – colloquial word dialectal – dialectal children’s language word figurative western Aukštaitian vulgar Samogitian

LITERATURE AND SOURCES

DLKG: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 1997.

DŽ₁: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 1954.

DŽ₂: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas, Vilnius: Mintis, 1972.

DŽ₃: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1993.

KTŽ: Gaivenis K., Keinys S. Kalbotyros terminų žodynas, Kaunas: Šviesa, 1990.

LKE: Lietuvių kalbos enciklopedija, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 1999.

LKŽ I–XIX: Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language 1–2, Vilnius: Mintis, 1968–1969; 3–6: State Publishing House for Political and Scientific Literature, 1956–1962, 7–9: Mintis, 1966–1973; 10–15: Mokslas, 1976–1991; 16–17: Publishing House of Science and Encyclopedias, 1995–1996; 18–19, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopedic Publishing, 1997–1999.

Oxford Advanced Learner’s Encyclopedic Dictionary, Oxford University Press, 1995.

Pagrindai 1998: Bendrinės lietuvių kalbos žodyno pagrindai ir principai [rankraštis].

Pakalka K. 1995: Daugėliškio tarmės kalbėjimo veiksmažodžių (Verba Dicendi) žodynėlis. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 35, 205–217.

Paulauskas J. 1974: Aktualios leksikos norminimo problemos ir žodynas. – Kalbos kultūra 27, 40–49.

Pikčilingis J. 1975: Lietuvių kalbos stilistika 2, Vilnius: Mokslas.

Robert P. Le petit Robert, Paris: Le Robert, 1990.

ŠŽ: Lyberis A. Sinonimų žodynas, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1980.

Thésaurus Larousse, 2^end edition, Larousse, Paris, 1992.

Vosylūtė K. 1995: Stilistinis žodžių apibūdinimas „Lietuvių kalbos žodyne“. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 35, 180–186.

Župerka K. 1977: Praktinė stilistika, Vilnius, Lietuvos TSR Aukštojo ir specialiojo vidurinio mokslo ministerijos Leidybínė redakcinė taryba.

Župerka K. 1983: Lietuvių kalbos stilistika, Vilnius: Mokslas.

PROBLEMS OF COLLOQUIAL AND EMOTIONAL-EXPRESSIVE LEXIS

Summary

The paper deals with the problems of stylistic description of the lexis in Dictionary of Modern Lithuanian (DML) (Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas). Suggestions are also made for presenting the lexis in the Dictionary of Standard Lithuanian (DSL) (Bendrinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas).

178

In comparison to DML, in the DSL the number of items of the emotional and expressive lexis, especially those marked with the Label menk. (Eng derogatory), should decrease, a number of words with an expressive shade should have their stylistic description changed.

Several suggestions are offered for improving stylistic labelling. Specifically, in the DSL the labels d. (daina; Eng song), fam. (familiarus – Eng familiar, informal), malon. (maloninis – Eng ameliorative), niek. (niekinamasis – Eng pejorative) should be abandoned; a new label dem. (deminutyvas – Eng diminutive) should be introduced; the label vulg. (vulgarus – Eng vulgar) should be used only for words referring to physiological processes and sex organs.

179

PROBLEMS IN DESCRIBING COLLOQUIAL AND EMOTIONAL-EXPRESSIVE LEXIS

3. Abbreviations used in DŽ₃ to mark emotional-expressive lexis are euf., fam., iron., juok., malon., menk., mžb., niek., vulg. First, we will discuss the words characterized by the last of these labels.

3.2. To indicate swearwords and words of abuse, DŽ3 uses the following labels6:

To characterize emotional-expressive vocabulary:

ABBREVIATIONS

LITERATURE AND SOURCES

PROBLEMS OF COLLOQUIAL AND EMOTIONAL-EXPRESSIVE LEXIS

Summary

Document details

3.2. To indicate swearwords and words of abuse, DŽ₃ uses the following labels⁶: