Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas leksikos sistemiškumo požiūriu

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI XXXVII (1997) LEKSIKOGRAFIJOS IR LEKSIKOLOGIJOS PROBLEMOS Aloyzas GUDAVIČIUS THE DICTIONARY OF CONTEMPORARY LITHUANIAN FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF LEXICAL SYSTEMICITY No one disputes that the lexicon is a system, just like the other levels of language, although the nature of the lexical system itself is not understood in the same way by everyone. However, it can be argued that, in terms of the number of elements and the variety and abundance of relations among them, the lexical system is the most complex construct of all the language levels. This is why structuralists found the lexicon so difficult to deal with. The lexical system is hard to fit into any kind of scheme. Its specific character is determined by the following main features: a) the abundance and instability of its elements, since new elements (lexemes, sememes) are constantly emerging, while existing ones change noticeably, b) the variety of relations among elements (relations based on content, form, or both content and form), c) the division of the system into larger and smaller subsystems, d) indistinct boundaries between elements and subsystems, and their partial overlap and interweaving. It is in fact impossible to describe and represent a lexical system, or even part of one, fully and adequately. J. Tyro’s accepted mosaic principle is wholly unsuitable here. A more rudimentary image would be numerous smaller and larger volumes touching one another and, even more often, permeating one another in multidimensional space. This cannot be rendered on a two-dimensional plane—a sheet of paper. The most comprehensive and precise descriptions of the lexical system of a language are explanatory dictionaries. In essence, however, they merely register the elements of the system rather than describe the system itself (its structure). This is particularly true of alphabetical dictionaries. The famous Russian lexicographer V. Dal wrote vividly about this type of dictionary; he himself chose a nested arrangement of words for his dictionary: “The words most closely related, of the same family (...) are scattered far and wide and suffer there in solitude; every living connection in the language is torn apart and lost (...); one has no strength to read such a dictionary; by the tenth word, the mind grows dull and the head begins to spin, because our mind everywhere seeks some meaningful connection and consistency” (Dal’ 1989 p. XXVI). Systematic (ideographic) dictionaries reflect the systematic nature of the lexicon to some extent, whereas alphabetical dictionaries contain only a few signs of systematicity. First, an explanation of word meanings by means of synonyms and antonyms constitutes a certain explication of systematic relations—it shows the identity or proximity of different sememes. Second, explanations through references to other elements show the most closely- 33 the most important relations between lexemes (the same meaning as another word or a derivational relationship is indicated). Third, an explanatory definition of meaning also reveals systemic relations between the meaning of the word being defined and the meanings of words used in the definition (e.g., siekti – ‘to try to touch, take something located farther away’: the relationship between the meanings ‘to reach’ and ‘to try’, ‘to touch, take’, and ‘farther away’ is clearly visible). An explanatory alphabetical dictionary cannot reflect the systemic nature of the lexicon in greater detail because of the alphabetical principle for presenting words (words that are often very distant semantically appear next to one another, disrupting actual semantic relations (Piesarskas 1987: 121)); its purpose, too, is different—to provide information about individual elements of the lexical system. However, when compiling such a dictionary and describing the semantic structure of an individual word, the whole system or a part of it must be kept in mind. Lexicographers themselves emphasize this. J. Paulauskas writes that editing a dictionary not alphabetically, but according to shared features of words (in groups of words), “should help eliminate various errors, inconsistencies, and cases of uneven treatment that cannot be avoided when preparing a dictionary alphabetically” (Paulauskas 1985: 6; see also Švedova 1981: 171; Babickienė 1985: 231). However, the size of the language’s lexicon and the abundance of semantic groups and subgroups are objective reasons why dictionary editing (and, it should be, writing) according to groups of words is often disregarded. This results in the following shortcomings in the dictionary: 1) analogous, uniform lexical units (words and sememes) are described unevenly, 2) meanings are inadequately explained by means of synonyms, thereby leveling the differences between the meanings of closely related sememes, 3) explanations use words that are themselves not defined in the dictionary. Without intending to discuss the “Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian,” we will give here just a few examples showing the kinds of inconsistencies and lack of uniformity that arise when insufficient account is taken of systemic relations between words and sememes and of the structure of the lexical system as a whole. Perhaps the most frequent shortcoming in the semantic section of explanatory dictionaries is the uneven description of uniform facts. The words baritonas, bosas, altas, kontral- tas, diskantas, sopranas, tenoras, whose primary meaning is ‘a particular male, female, or child’s voice’, can also denote a male or female singer with such a voice. This regular metonymic relation is marked inconsistently in DŽ2. For the words sopranas, kontr altas, bosas, tenoras, a second meaning is indicated: ‘a singer with such a voice’; for baritonas and diskantas, this meaning is given as a nuance of the first meaning (after a semicolon), while for altas it is not even indicated as a nuance. DŽ3 is also inconsistent in this respect, but in a different way: the independent meaning ‘female singer’ is indicated for altas, kontr altas; a nuance of the meaning ‘a particular voice’ is indicated for diskantas; and no meaning at all is indicated for baritonas, bosas, sopranas, tenoras. In speakers’ minds, the names of closely related domestic animals are very similar: ar- 34 calf, sheep, cow, cat, pig, goat, dog, rabbit. To explain their core meanings, DŽ2 uses three groups of semes: an indication of a broader class (‘domestic animal’), distinguishing features (‘large’, ‘horned, ruminant’), and purpose of breeding (‘kept for meat and wool’), but there is no consistency. The seme of purpose is not indicated in the meanings of the words cat and rabbit (it could be ‘for domestic comfort, to catch mice’ and ‘for its fur and meat’), the seme ‘domestic’ is not indicated in the meaning of goat, and there are no semes for distinguishing features for sheep (‘medium-sized’), pig (‘covered in bristles’), cat (‘small’, ‘soft-furred’), dog (‘barking, biting’), rabbit (‘soft-furred’); apparently, the seme indicating membership in a zoological classification is marked unnecessarily for cat (‘order of carnivores’) and rabbit (‘family of hares’), and the terminological label zool. appears only with the names cat, goat, dog and rabbit. The explanations in DŽ3 are more uniform, but poorer: only the seme of purpose of breeding is indicated, and again inconsistently; ‘large, horned’ is added to the meaning of cow, while the explanations of cat and rabbit carry the label zool. The first meaning of the word subgroup is defined in DŽ2 as follows: ‘a unit of animal or plant systematics, smaller than a group’; meanwhile, no such terminologized meaning is distinguished for the word group. DŽ3 does not have this inconsistency. The sememes hot-blooded, cold-blooded, with almost analogous semantic structures and values (valeur)—‘fiery, quick-tempered’ and ‘slow, calm’, plus ‘about a person’—are explained quite differently in both dictionaries. The first is presented as a noun and explained by the synonym ‘hothead’, while the second is given as an adjective and as a derived meaning of the core sense ‘changing body temperature according to the ambient temperature’ (with the label prk.). Yet it would probably be difficult to deny that speakers perceive both words as expressive characterizations of human temperament, based on the figurative use of the first roots hot and cold; it is difficult to discern a relation of semantic dependence between the first and second meanings of the word cold-blooded, so this should simply be regarded as parallel naming. Distinguishing word meanings is probably often the lexicographer’s most difficult task, since in principle a word may be assigned either more, more specialized meanings or fewer, broader, more abstract ones (examples of this are easy to find by comparing DŽ and LKŽ). However, the inconsistency in the division of meanings between a base word and its prefixed derivatives, which usually have a simpler semantic structure, cannot be justified. DŽ2 distinguishes two meanings of the word keipti: ‘to wilt, faint’ and ‘to die, perish’, whereas in the derivative nukeipti the first meaning is in effect divided into three: ‘to weaken, waste away’, ‘to droop, become limp’, and ‘to faint’; the stylistic description also differs: only the second meaning of keipti bears the label šnek., whereas nukeipti carries it as a whole word. In DŽ2, professional vocabulary and stylistic characteristics of words are often presented inconsistently. For example, the words virus, bacillus are labeled biol., infection is labeled med., while microbe, bacillus, bacterium, even gonococcus have no labels; in DŽ3 only microbe and gonococcus are left unlabeled, while bacillus and bacterium bear the label biol. 35 The culinary lexemes įsnauja ‘pork fat prepared in a certain way and wrapped in the abdominal membrane; lard’, kraujienė ‘blood soup’, and nugarinė ‘meat from an animal’s back’ carry the label kul. in DŽ₂, whereas the lexemes taukinė, žarnokai, šoninė, kumpis, whose meanings and usage domains are entirely analogous, do not have this label. DŽ₃ retains the label kul. only for kraujienė, and adds etnogr. to žarnokai. In the previously mentioned group of names for human voice types, all lexemes carry the label muz., except alto and tenor. Here both DŽ₂ and DŽ₃ are equally inconsistent. The following example illustrates the inconsistent treatment of professional (terminological) vocabulary: DŽ₂ does not distinguish the moth families peledagalviai, baltukai, although family names are used in explaining individual representatives (‘kaspinuotis – 3. “a moth of the peledagalviai family”; citrinukas – zool.“a moth of the baltukai family”), while the entry sprindis gives a separate ‘family’ sense, 3.dgs.zool. ‘such a moth family’. A very common phenomenon is the inconsistent stylistic treatment of prefixed derivatives in comparison with the stylistic marking of the base word, although a prefix usually does not alter the stylistic value of a word (sememe). For example, in DŽ₂ the label šnek. is given to the sememes traiškyti, pritraiškyti ‘to milk, to obtain milk, producing little milk’, but not to the analogous sememe of patraiškyti; in DŽ₃, šnek. is written for both prefixed forms, but not for traiškyti. The words apdriskėlis, nudriskėlis are not labeled menk. in DŽ₂, whereas sudriskėlis is. In DŽ₃, all these words appear without the label menk.. DŽ₂ does not label išdvasa ‘a wretched, emaciated animal or person’ with menk., whereas the entirely analogous sememes, in terms of emotional evaluation, of dvasna and nuodvasa are labeled; the same applies to DŽ₃. In DŽ₂, the meanings ‘to eat greedily, to gulp down’ of the words žliaubti, žliaugti are not labeled šnek., while the prefixed forms sužliaubti, sužliaugti are; DŽ₃ consistently marks the unprefixed forms too with šnek.. Comparing DŽ₂ and DŽ₃ shows that DŽ₃ marks stylistic characteristics and emotional evaluation more consistently; compare also: in DŽ₂, kiaulinti is labeled šnek., but iškiaulinti is not; tauzyti, taukšti are labeled menk., but pritauzyti, pritaukšti are not; pliurpti is labeled šnek., while papliurpti is labeled menk.; in DŽ₃ all these words are labeled šnek.. In DŽ₂, the label menk. is given to liežuvauti, while paliežuvauti and priliežuvauti are given without this label; in contrast, DŽ₃ leaves only priliežuvauti unlabeled. In DŽ₂, the label šnek. is given to the word pirmokas, but not to antrokas, trečiokas or those that follow; it is given to penketukininkas, but not to dvejetukininkas, trejetukininkas, ketvertukininkas. In DŽ₃, all the words mentioned are considered stylistically neutral. The figurative nature of meanings is also marked inconsistently; sometimes, among sememes with identical semantic relations, one bears the label prk. and another šnek.. For example, in DŽ₂ the meaning ‘to revile, abuse, slander’ of the word dergti is marked as figurative, whereas the analogous meaning of išdergti is not (DŽ₃ marks both cases prk.); the meanings ‘to answer sharply’ of the words atšauti and atkirsti are entirely analogous, but in DŽ₂ the label prk. appears only with the first (in DŽ₃, with both); the word 36 The meaning of rėžti ‘to speak openly, directly’ is presented in DŽ₂ as figurative, whereas the analogous meaning of the derivative išrežti is marked šnek. (in DŽ₃, both cases are marked šnek.); the meaning of the word ryti ‘to eat, feed, or drink greedily’ is marked prk. in DŽ₂, whereas the analogous meaning of praryti is marked menk. (in DŽ₃, both cases are marked menk.). Because insufficient attention is paid to systematicity, the same grammatical features of words are presented inconsistently. In both DŽ₂ and DŽ₃, the words pirmaklasis, pirmakursis (DŽ₂ also includes penktaklasis) are presented as nouns, while antrakursis, antraklasis, trečiaklasis, and so on, are presented as adjectives; the words trečiakursis, ketvirtakursis, penktakursis are entirely absent from both dictionaries. Other examples from DŽ₂: dykakalbis is a noun, whereas tuščiakalbis is an adjective; šaltakraujis is an adjective, whereas šiltakraujis is a noun; šiurkščiavilnis is a noun, whereas švelniavilnis, ilgavilnis, plonavilnis, trumpavilnis, šiltavilnis, juodavilnis are adjectives; vienergis, aštuonergis are nouns, whereas ketvergis – septynergis and devynergis are adjectives; in DŽ₃, animal names categorized by age are presented in the same way, while all the other words are consistently treated as adjectives. Without considering the semantic group as a whole, it is easy to overlook omissions that have no justification. For example, DŽ₂ includes all the terms for pupils classified by grade, but omits vienuoliktokas and dvyliktokas; it includes keturiolikinis, šešiolikinis, septyniolikinis, devyniolikinis, but for some reason does not include penkiolikinis, aštuoniolikinis. A very frequently mentioned shortcoming of explanatory dictionaries is defective definition, that is, the meaning of a word is explained by a synonym, whose meaning is in turn explained by referring back to the first word. In this case, it becomes clear neither what either word means nor whether their meanings differ, or how (Lyberis 1962: 201). Words with very similar or identical meanings are often defined in terms of one another. Examples of this are easy to find in DŽ₂ and DŽ₃: pjūdyti – 1. “siundyti”, whereas siundyti – 1. “pjūdyti”; zimbti – 1. “zvimbti, bimbti”; bimbti – 1. “zirzti, zvimbti”, zvimbti – 1. “bimbti”, zirzti – 1. “birbti, bimbti (about insects)”, birbti – 2. “zirzti, bimbti”. Occasional clarifications of meaning attached to one word or another help somewhat, as in the example given—“(about insects)”; compare also (in both dictionaries): čirkšti – 1. “čirpti, svirpti”, svirpti – “čirkšti (about a cricket)”, čirpti – 1. “čirkšti, svirpti (about a cricket, a little bird)”. However, such clarifications are not logically justified, since they imply that, for instance, in the example given čirkšti is the same as and svirpti, whereas svirpti is not the same as čirkšti. An even more obvious contradiction appears in this example: skepeta – “skarelė”, whereas skarelė – “a small headscarf for tying around the head” (DŽ₂). Clearly, when words are defined by synonyms, the principle of systematicity is taken into account above all. The problem, however, is that distinctions between words of similar meaning are usually not brought out; only what they have in common is recorded (Němec 1970: 293). In both editions, bur(b)ti is defined by the synonym burgzti, which is in turn defined by the synonyms bigzti, ūžti, dūgzti, birgzti, themselves defined by the synonyms bimbti, zirzti, while dūgzti and ūžti also have descriptive definitions: the former, “to produce a faint, thin sound, buzz, hum, drone”; the latter, “to emit a low, sustained sound, to resound.” From this circular set of definitions, only the difference between dūgzti is somewhat clear 37 and užžti, but it is unclear how the meanings of all the other words differ. The synonym-based definitions suggest that they do not differ, but in fact they do (cf. miškas ūžia, but * miškas burbia, burzgia, birzgia). A common shortcoming of explanatory dictionaries is that meanings are defined using words that are themselves not defined in the dictionary. Such “definition” is especially poor when the undefined word is the only one that reveals the meaning. For example, DŽ₂: bū išt. “mū (of cattle lowing)”, whereas mū is absent; vamptelėti 1. “suvamspėti”, whereas suvamspėti is absent; vedekliauti dialectal, “to drive a horse team while hauling timber”, whereas važnyčioti is absent; prisirpti – “to ripen fully”, whereas išsirpti is absent; capsenti – “to drip slowly”, whereas capsėti is absent; vypa colloquial, “someone who often vypčioja, a blabbermouth”, but neither vypčioti nor išvypelis is included. DŽ₃ has fewer such inconsistencies; for the cases mentioned here, it includes definitions of mū, suvamspėti, capsėti, vypčioti. Another problem with this explanatory dictionary arises when the meaning is revealed descriptively, but a word omitted from the dictionary is given alongside it (or even within the definition), for example (words highlighted in the definitions are not themselves found in DŽ₂): pliumpinti 2. “to walk clumsily, plumpinti”; širšėti dialectal, “to hum, to bimbiliuoti (of bees, hornets)”; motina 2. “a bee that lays eggs; bitinėlis”; dvasna 3. colloquial, derogatory, “a dried-up animal or person; a carcass, perdvėsėlis”; kačiukas 1. “a young cat, katukas”; pakarūklai plural, 2. “the teats on a piglet’s throat; sargučiai”; svisti eastern dialect, “to shine, to dawn”; gluodenas zoology, “a nonvenomous snake-like reptile; a glass lizard, varinukė”; sukiaukšėti “to kiaukšėti briefly, to give a short kiaukštelėti”; sukirksėti “to kirksėti briefly, to give a short kirkštelėti”. Such inconsistencies are less frequent in DŽ₃, but they do occur (as in DŽ₂, the words sukiaukšėti, svisti, pliumpinti are also defined). The examples given here (and there are more) were not collected specifically to criticize DŽ, but were noticed while investigating other questions in lexical semantics. Thus, one may assume that DŽ contains further inconsistencies of the same kind. We do not consider the issues raised to be a major shortcoming of the explanatory dictionary, since strict adherence to the principle of scientific rigor does not guarantee that dictionary definitions will be clear and useful to the reader (Pravdin 1983: 3). Definitions of meaning that are often proposed by lexicologists and are logically impeccable would be entirely unsuitable for an explanatory dictionary intended for the general public; compare the following possible characterization of the meaning of gerbti in the context “X gerbia Y”: “In interacting with Y, X feels what we normally feel when interacting with someone who, in our opinion, is as they ought to be.” This is precisely how the eminent linguist A. Wierzbicka defines the meaning of the Polish word szanować (Wierzbicka 1971: 72). On the other hand, it is easy to understand how complex a task it is for a dictionary compiler to keep in view all the semantic groups to which a word belongs while defining its meaning or meanings. Nevertheless, this is a goal worth pursuing. Defining words by synonyms without specifying differences in meaning between them, and using words in definitions that are themselves not defined in the dictionary—these practices diminish the value of this type of dictionary and undermine its practical usefulness. 38 LITERATŪRA Babickienė Z. 1985: Reguliariųjų išvestinių reikšmių pateikimas aiškinamuosiuose lietuvių ir rusų kalbų žodynuose. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 24, 223–235. D a l’ V. 1989: Даль Б. Напутное слово. – Толковый словарь живого великорусского языка 1. DŽ2 – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas, Vilnius: Mintis, 1972. DŽ3 – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1993. Lyberis A. 1962: Sinoniminis žodžių reikšmės aiškinimas “Lietuvių kalbos žodyne”. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 5. N ė m e c I. 1970: Systémové pojetí slovní zásoby v jejím lexikografickem popise. – Slavica slovaca 5(3). P a u l a u s k a s J. 1985: Žodyno redagavimas žodžių grupėmis. – Kalbos kultūra, 49. P i e s a r s k a s B. 1987: Sisteminiai žodžių ryšiai mokomajame dvikalbiame žodyne. – Kalbotyra 27(3). P r a v d i n M.N. 1983: Правдин М.Н. Словарное толкование, научность и здравый смысл. – Вопросы языкознания 6. Š v e d o v a N. J. 1981: Шведова Н. Ю. Однотомный толковый словарь: специфика жанра и некоторые проблемы дальнейшей работы. – Русский язык: проблемы художественной речи. Лексикология и лексикография. Виноградовские чтения 9, 10, Москва. W i e r z b i c k a A. 1971: Kocha, lubi, szanuje. Medytacje semantyczne, Warszawa. 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