Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas leksikos sistemiškumo požiūriu

LITHUANIAN KALBOTYROS QUESTIONS XXXVII (1997) LEXICOGRAFIES IR Aloyzas GUDAVIČIUS THE DICTIONARY OF THE CONTEMPORARY LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE SYSTEMICITY OF THE LEXIC No one argues that the lexic is a system like other parts of the language, although the nature of the lexical system is not understood equally by all. However, it is possible to say that the lexical system is the most complex of all the linguistic domains in terms of the number of elements and the variety of relationships between them. This is why it was so difficult for the Structuralists to deal with the lexicon. The lexical system is difficult to fit into any scheme. The specificity of the lexical system is determined by its main features: a) abundance and instability of elements, since new elements (lexeme, sememos) are constantly appearing, while the existing ones are changing noticeably, b) variety of relations between elements (relations according to content, according to form, content and form), c) breakdown of the system into larger and smaller subsystems, d) blurred boundaries between elements and subsystems, their partial overlap and intertwining. It is impossible to describe and represent a lexical system or even a part of it in detail and adequately. The mosaic principle recognized by J. Tryr is not appropriate here. A more acceptable image is a multitude of smaller and larger volumes, touching each other and even more frequently blending into each other in multidimensional space. This cannot be presented in a two-dimensional plane—a piece of paper. The most detailed and accurate descriptions of the lexical system of a language are the explanatory dictionaries. However, in essence, they are only a registration of the elements of the system, but not a description of the system (structure) itself. Especially this is true of alphabetical dictionaries. The famous Russian lexicographer V. Dali, who chose the nest-like principle of presentation of words for his dictionary, wrote eloquently about this type of dictionaries: “The closest, related words (...) are scattered far into countries and suffer there alone, but any living connection of language is torn and lost (...), there is no strength to read such a dictionary, at the tenth word the mind falls back and begins to spin the head, because our mind everywhere seeks some meaningful connection and consistency” (Dal' 1989 p. XXVI). The systemic (ideographic) dictionaries reflect the systemicity of the lexicon in part, whereas in alphabetical dictionaries only one other sign of systemicity can be found. First, a certain explanation of systemic relationships is the interpretation of word meanings by 33 synonyms and antonyms — showing the coincidence or proximity of different semines. Secondly, the interpretation by reference to other elements shows the closest relationships of the lexems (the same meaning of another word or adjective relationship is indicated). Thirdly, descriptive interpretation of meaning also shows the systematic connections between the meaning of the explanatory word and the meanings of the words used in the interpretation (e.g., strive — “to try to touch, to take something that is further” the connection between the meanings ‘strive’ and ‘to try’, “to touch, to take’, ‘further’ is clearly visible). The explanatory alphabetical dictionary cannot reflect the systematic nature of the lexicon in more detail because of the principle of the alphabetical presentation of words (sometimes very distant semantic words appear next to each other, real semantic connections are broken (Piesarskas 1987: 121), and its purpose is another — to provide information about individual elements of the lexical system. However, when compiling such a dictionary, describing the semantic structure of a single word, it is necessary to have in mind the whole system or part of it. This is also emphasized by the lexicographers themselves. J. Paulauskas writes that editing the dictionary not according to the alphabet, but according to the general characteristics of words (groups of words) “should help to eliminate various errors, inequalities, cases of unequal treatment, which cannot be avoided by preparing the dictionary alphabetically” (Paulauskas 1985: 6; cf. Švedova 1981: 171; Babickienė 1985: 231). However, the size of the vocabulary of a language and the density of semantic groups are objective reasons why the editing (and writing) of the dictionary according to word groups is often violated. This leads to the following shortcomings of the dictionary: 1) similar, uniform lexical units (words and semes) are not described in the same way, 2) synonyms are interpreted incorrectly, therefore the differences in the meanings of near semes are levelled, 3) words are interpreted that are not explained in the dictionary. Without having the aim of discussing the “Dictionary of Modern Lithuanian Language” in more detail, here we will give just one more example, showing what inconsistencies and inconsistencies arise when insufficient consideration is given to the systematic relationships of words and semiotics and the whole structure of the lexical system. Perhaps the most common deficiency of the semantic part of explanatory dictionaries is the uneven description of the same facts. The words baritone, bass, alto, contralto, treble, soprano, tenor, whose basic meaning is ‘a certain male, female or child voice’, can also refer to a singer or singer with such voices. This regular metonymy relationship is not equally marked DZ. For the words soprano, contralto, bass, tenor the second meaning “a singer with such a voice” is marked, for the words baritone and treble this meaning is given as a shade of the first meaning (after the semicolon- ), and for the word a/fas it is not even marked as a shade of the meaning. Ž is also inconsistent in this case, but the inconsistency is different: the independent meaning ‘singer’ is marked with the words alto, contralto, the shade of the meaning ‘a certain voice’ — with the word treble, and the words baritone, bass, soprano, tenor have no meaning at all. In the minds of the speakers, the names of domestic animals are very closely related: horse, sheep, cow, cat, pig, goat, dog, 34 rabbit. Jų for the interpretation of the basic meanings of DZ, uses three semy groups: the broader class reference (‘domestic animal’), the distinctive features (‘stump’, ‘horny, ruminant’) and the purpose of breeding (‘held for meat and wool’), but there is no consistency. Target semantics not marked for the words kate and rabbit (could be “for home comfort, mouse-catching” and “for fur and meat”), semantics ‘home’ not marked for goat, semantics of distinguishing characteristics not marked for sheep (“medium size”), sheep (‘overgrown with bristles’), cat (‘small’, ‘Sweet-hairedTM’), dog (‘barking, biting’), rabbit (‘Sweet-haired’); unnecessarily, it seems, marked the belonging to the zoological classification sema to the cat (predatory tribe') and rabbit ("hares family') and the terminological reference zool. only to the names cat, goat, suns and rabbit. DŽ, the interpretations are more uniform, but poorer: only the purpose of breeding is indicated sema, pet | and again inconsistently, to the meaning of cow is added “horny stump”, and to the interpretations of cat and rabbit — the mark zool. DŽ, the first meaning of the word subgroup is defined as follows: “a unit of animal or plant systematics, smaller than a group, while the word group does not have such a terminologized meaning. DZ, this inconsistency is no longer there. Almost identical semantic structure and value (valeur) semes hot-blooded, cold-blooded “acute, sudden” and “slow, calm” plus ‘about a person’ are interpreted quite differently in both dictionaries; The first is given as a noun and interpreted as a synonym of “heat”*, and the second — as an adjective and as a derivative of the basic meaning “changing body temperature according to ambient temperature” (with note prk.). But it would probably be difficult to argue that both words are perceived in the speakers’ consciousness as an expressive characteristic of the human temperament, and its basis is the metaphorical use of the first roots hot and cold, between the first and second meanings of the word Sha/fakraujis it is difficult to discern a semantic dependency relationship, it is simply considered a parallel nominative. Assignation of the meaning of a word to a lexicographer is probably often the most difficult task, because in principle it is possible to assign either more more specialized meanings to a word, or fewer but more general, more abstract ones (such examples are not difficult to find when comparing DZ and LKZ). However, it is not possible to justify the disparity in the affiliation of meanings between the base word and the prepositional derivatives, which usually have a simpler semantic structure. DZ, distinguishes two meanings of the word keipti: ‘to weaken’ and “to cool down”, and in the derivative nukeipti the first meaning is actually divided into three: ‘to weaken, to fade’, ‘to decline, to shrink’ and ‘to weaken’; uneven and stylistic description —keipti only the second meaning has the mark snek., and nukeipti —the whole word. DG, often inconsistent presentation of professional vocabulary and stylistic characteristics of words. For example, the words virusas, lazdeley is marked biol., prie uzkratas—med. and to the microbe, bacillus, bacteria, even gonococci there are no testimonies; DZ, without certificate leave only microbe and gonococcal, and bacillus and bacteria have certificates biol. 35 The culinary lexicon sleeps “in a certain way fixed and wrapped in a stomach film pork fat; taukinė’, kraujienė “blood soup”, nugarinė “animal back meat” DZ, has the certificate kul, while the exactly analogous meaning and usage sphere lexicons taukinė, Žarnokai, šoninė, kumpis do not have this certificate. DZ, certificate kul. leaves only to bloody, and to Zarnoky adds ethnogr. In the previously mentioned group of names of human voices, all the lexems have the note muz., except altasir tenoras. The inconsistent treatment of the professional (terminological) lexicon is illustrated by the following example: DZ, not excluding pelédagalviy, white-headed bream family, although the names of the families are used in the explanation of individual representatives (ribbon-headed —3. “such bream of the owl-headed family”; lemon—zool “white-headed bream of the family”), and in the article sprindis a separate meaning of “Seimas” is given 3.dgs.zool “such bream family”. A very common phenomenon is the uneven stylistic treatment of prepositional derivatives compared to the stylistic notation of the base word, although the preposition usually does not change the stylistic value of the word (semena). For example, DZ is given in the case of sememu traiskyti, pritraiskyti "milzti, primelzti, mažai gaunant pieno', but it is not in the case of the analogous semema patraiškėti, DŽ is written in the case of both prepositions, but not in the case of fraiskyti. The words apdriskėlis, nudriskėlis DŽ, have no mark menk., and sudriskėlis — have. DŽ, all words are pronounced menk. DZ, no certificates menk. to the word izdvasa "poor, decayed animal or man', whereas quite analogous from the point of view of emotional evaluation of the words spirit and noodvasa semantics —have; the same as DZ; Zodziy žliaubti, žliaugtireikšmės “greedily eat, swallow’ DZ, has no mark in Snek., and prepositions sužliaubti, sužliaugti —have, DZ, consistently 2 mark in Snek. and to nepriesdeletyjy. Comparing DZ and DZ, it is clear that DZ, stylistic characteristics and emotional evaluation notes write more consistent, plz. also: DZ, at kzaulinti there is a mark snek., at iskiaulinti —no; to fauzyti, tauksti is Mnenk, Oo to pritauzyti, pritaukšti —is not; to plurpti is Šnek., and to papliurpti—- menk. ; DZ, all these words are given the certificate šnek. DZ, note less. is written to /iežuvauti, and paliežuvauti and priliežuvauti is given without this certificate, while DŽ, without the certificate is left only pril/režuvauti, DŽ, the certificate šnek. is written to the word pirmokas, and to antrokas, treciokas and further it is not, is written to penketukininkas, but not written to dvejetukininkas, trejetukininkas, ketvertukininkas. DŽ, all the above words are considered stylistically neutral. Inconsistent marking and figurative nature; Sometimes the same semantic dependence semes one has a mark prk., the other — snek., for example: DŽ, the meaning of the word dergtir in the words ‘bjauroti, plūsti, šmeižti' is marked as transitive, and the analogous meaning of the word isdergti — no (DŽ, both cases are marked prk.); completely analogous are the words afsautiir atkirsti meaning “to answer strictly', but DZ, pazyma prk. is only at the first (DZ, —at both); the meaning of the word rėžti “openly, straightforwardly to say” in DZ is given as a figurative, and the analogy of the vedic inšrėžti —with the adjective šnek. (DŽ, in both cases —snek.); the meaning of the word ryti “greedy eating, eating, drinking” DZ; is provided with the certificate prk., and the analogous priryti meaning —with the certificate menk. (DZ, —in both cases slightly). Due to insufficient 36 attention to systematicity, the same grammatical signs of the word are presented unevenly. Both DZ and DZ, the words pirmaklasis, pirmakursis (DZ, also penktaklasis) are given as nouns, and antrakursis, antraklasis, trečiaklasis, etc. —as adjectives, the words third-grader, fourth-grader, fifth-grader are not present in both dictionaries. Other examples from DZ; dykakalbis is a noun and fusciakalbis is an adjective; Sweet-blooded is an adjective, and warm-blooded is a noun; Coarse wool is a noun, and soft wool, long wool, fine wool, short wool, warm wool, black wool are adjectives; unienergis, athinaergis — nouns, and ketvergis—- septenergis and nivenergis — adjectives; In DZ, the names of animals by age are given as well, and all other words are consistently treated as adjectives. Without having in mind the entire semantic group, it is easy to miss out on unjustifiable omissions. For example, DZ, there are all the names of students by class, but omitted eleventh and twelfth grade, there are fourteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth, nineteenth, but somehow not fifteenth, eighteenth. A very often mentioned shortcoming of explanatory dictionaries is the erroneous interpretation of the meaning, i.e. the meaning of a word is explained by a synonym, and the latter’s meaning is explained by reference to the first word. In this case it is not clear what the two words mean, nor whether and how their meanings differ (Lyberis 1962: 201). Often, words with very close or identical r-meaning are interpreted by each other. Such examples are not difficult to find in DZ, and DZ; shear—1. "send" instead of send-1. ‘moving’; zimbti —1. ‘zvimbti, bimbti’; bimbti —1. “zirzti, zvimbti”, zvimbti —1. ‘pimbti’, ‘zirzti’—1. “birbti, bimbti (about insects)- ”, birbti—2. ‘zirzti, bimbti’. Somewhat helpful are the occurring corrections of the meaning of one or another word, as in the given example —"(about insects)- ", cf. also (in both Zodyns): cirksti—1. “Cirpti, svirpti”, svirptr—- “Cirsti (about a whistle)- ”, cirpti—1. “chirkšti, svirpti (apie svirplj, paukstel- ;j)”. However, logically such corrections are not justified, because it turns out that, say, in the given example cirsti is the same as SVIrpti, and whirpti — not the same as cirksti. An even more obvious contradiction can be seen in the following example: skepeta —“scarf”, and skarele —“small scarf for aspring the head” (DZ,). Obviously, when interpreting words by synonyms, the principle of systematicity is most taken into account. But the problem is that most often the differences between words of similar meaning are not highlighted, only their commonality is recorded (German 1970: 293). In both editions burbti is interpreted as a synonym of burgzti, the latter —as synonyms of Drrgzti, ūžti, digztr, birgzti —as synonyms of bimbti, zirzti, and dūgzti and ūžti also have a descriptive explanation of the meaning: the first —“to make a weak, thin sound, to whistle, to whistle, to GZti”, the second —“to make a low, full sound, to be loud”. From such a circle of interpretation somewhat clear only the distinction between thumble 37 ir but it is not clear how the meanings of all the other words differ. Iš given synonymous interpretation would come out that they ir seem not to differ, iš but in reality it is not (plg. the forest growls, * but the forest burps, burps, burps). A common drawback of explanatory dictionaries is that they explain meanings in terms that are not explained in the dictionary itself. Such “explanation” is especially bad when the unexplained word alone reveals the meaning. For example, DZ, bū ist. “mu (about cattle baubima)- ”, and mi —is not, vampteleti 1. 'suvampsėti", 0 Suvampséti —there is no, vedekliauti Zzem.”vaznycioti, transporting wood“, and vazaycioti —there is no; Prisirpti —“to exhale”, but isirpti —is not, capsenti —“to slowly exhale”, but capseti —is not; vyplab.”- who often whines, a whiner”, but there is neither whining nor iswype11s. DZ, such inconsistencies are less, in the cases mentioned here we find Zodzių ma, suvampsėti, capsėti, špčioti interpretations. The problem of this explanatory dictionary is also when the meaning is revealed in a descriptive way, but next to it (or in the explanation itself) is given a word omitted in the dictionary, for example (words excluded in the explanations, which themselves do not have DZ): pluumpinti 2. “clumsily go, plump”; širšėti dz. “bimbiliuoti (about bees, SirSes)”; mother 2. ‘bees laying eggs; bitinelis”, dvasna 3. b. menk. “a domesticated animal or human being; i i perdveselis”, kitten 1. 'kitten, kitten'; pendants dgs.2. ‘piglet nipples; sarguciai- ”; svrsti ryt. ‘Zibti, Svisti’; g/uodenas zool. “a non-poisonous snake-like reptile; iron snake, copper;” “to whisper, to whisper shortly”; to interject'shortly to interject, to interject'. DŽ, such inconsistencies occur less often, but they do exist (just like with DZ, the words kukaulėti, svisti, pluumpinti are explained- ). The examples presented here (we have more of them) were not specifically chosen for the criticism of the DG, but were observed in the interpretation of other questions of lexical semantics. Therefore, it is possible to assume that there are more similar inconsistencies in DG. We do not think that the issues raised are a major shortcoming of the explanatory dictionary, because strict adherence to the principle of scientificity does not guarantee that the dictionary definitions will be clear and useful to the reader (Pravdin 1983: 3). Often the logically impeccable definitions of meaning given by lexicologists would not fit in an explanatory dictionary for the general public, cf. such a possible definition of the meaning of the word respect in the context “X respects Y”: “X, in communicating with Y, feels what we usually feel in communicating with what, in our opinion, is as it should be”. This is exactly how the Polish word szanowac is defined by the renowned linguist A. Vieżbicka (Wierzbicka 1971: 72). On the other hand, it is easy to understand how difficult it is for a dictionary compiler to constantly have before his eyes all the semantic groups that comprise the word whose meaning or meanings the lexicographer is explaining. Nevertheless, this goal is achievable. The use of synonyms, without indicating the differences in meaning between them, and the use of words that are not themselves explained in the dictionary, all detract from the value of this type of dictionary and undermine the practical purposes of its use. 38 LITTERATUR Babickienė Z. 1985: Presentation of regular derivative meanings in Lithuanian and Russian explanatory dictionaries. —Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 24, 223—235. Dal V. 1989: lame B. HarryTHoe cJioBo. —70/KOBBIH C/IOBADpB XHBOTMO BEIHKOPYCCKOIO H3bIKA 1. DŽ, —Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian Language, Vilnius: Mintis, 1972. DZ, —Dictionary of Modern Lithuanian Language, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1993. Lyberis A. 1962: Synonymic interpretation of words in the Lithuanian language dictionary. — Questions of Lithuanian Linguistics 5. Némec I. 1970: Systėmovė- 's concept of vocabulary in her lexicographic description. —Slavica slovaca 5(3). Paulauskas J. 1985: Dictionary editing by word groups. —The Culture of Language, 49. Piesarskas B. 1987: Systematic relationships of words in a teaching bilingual dictionary. — Linguistics 27(3). Pravdin M. N. 1983: IIpasgua M.H. CjroBapHoe TOJIKOBAHHE, HayJ3HOCTb H 3IPaBBIH CMBICJI. - Bombock! S3bIKO3HAHHUA 6. Svedova N. J. 1981: IlIsenosa H. IO. OMHOTOMHEI TOJIKOBEIŪĖ CJIOBADb: CIIeLHOKHKA JKaHpa H HEKOTODEIe IIpOOJIEMEI nanbHeNel paboTel. —PVCCKHĖ A3bIK: IIpOO/IEMEI XYZOXECTBEHHOH pedH. YOUTH OR YOUTHIpagua. BHHOIparoBckue YTEHHS 9, 10, Mocksa. Wierzbicka A. 1971: He loves, likes, respects. Semantic Meditations, Warsaw. THE DICTIONARY OF CONTEMPORARY LITHUANIAN FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF LEXICAL SYSTEMATICS Summary The alphabetical dictionary can reflect the system of lexical relations to a certain degree only. However, when editing such a dictionary one must have a clear image of the structure and relations of semantic groups. The paper reviews inaccuracies or diversities which originated because of the lack of attention to the systemic organization of the vocabulary. These include a different description of analogous lexemes, synonymic explanation which makes the meanings of close sememes almost identical, and their description by words that are not explained in the dictionary. 39