„Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas“ ir kalbos normalizacija

LITHUANIAN LEXICON IR TERMINOLOGY PROBLEMS LITHUANIAN KALBOTYROS QUESTIONS, XXIX (1991) STASYS KEINYS “THE DICTIONARY OF THE MODERN LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE” IR LANGUAGES NORMALIZATION Time present, time past Probably is for the future, like this one that lies in the past. T. S. Eliotas 1. "Dictionary of Modern Lithuanian Language" (hereinafter referred to as DZ) is the first Lithuanian normative explanatory dictionary of the Lithuanian language of a universal nature. In its intended scope, this ir dictionary is equivalent to the corresponding widely known and very popular single-volume ir dictionaries of other languages. Ir prepared (both jo editions) were taking similar dictionaries į of other languages, learning them. iš This is briefly written in the introduction of the second edition: „The latest ir Russian, Polish, German, English, etc. ir ir Explanatory dictionaries of languages” (DŽ leid., II XXII). p. There are some ne similarities in the interpretation of meanings, ir but not in the structure of the dictionary. Because of the to sometimes heard attempts to contrast some oxfords, liarusus ozhegovs ir (widely known dictionaries of this kind of English, French Russian languages) ir su D.J., those who are just drinking, o ours is probably more a desire to sharpen the iš argument, o ne iš impartial analysis based belief. Clear thing, can't miss certain ir dictionaries tų (each of iš them, compared to each other) differences. It is very important not to forget that those most famous monotonic dictionaries of other languages are published ir from earlier, ir much more frequently, i.e., nė jų tradition of preparair tion. jų Finally, the focus on preparation is much greater. DŽ so far does not have its own lexicography department, there is not even one person who takes care of nė this dictionary constantly since it has been a year since the first edition appeared). (o 35 For the to preparatiDŽ on sitting in front of others (usually main) jobs, work has to be done in a hurry (what else could explain the fact that the second edition left a lot of lexicographical gaps!). DŽ prepared, edited and ir corrected by the most famous Lithuanian dictionaries J. Balčikonis, N. Grigas, Kruopas, J. Lyberis, A. Paulauskas, J. Ulvydas, K. etc. ir In one ar way or another, the first two editions of this dictionary are contributed by most of the great “Dictionary of Lithuanian Language” (hereinafter referred to as Editors' Notes. ir Be of this, it must be borne in mind that DŽ arose ne iš LKŽ. In fact, 1954 when the first edition came DŽ out, the LKZ had only issued du J. Balčikonis edited volumes, o 1972 m. (in the DŽ year of the second edition) — 8 LKŽ volumes (to letter P) iš estimated 20 volumes. The editors of the third edition could rely on 14 LKŽ Toms. 92 The clear thing is that The volumes published by LKŽ are a very important support for the DŽ editors of new editions, helping to refine the presentation of words, selection. But it is not to enough. DŽ must be closely related to the latest su language use, cover the core of the vocabulary of various fields, take into account changes in į science, technology, culture ir and all other areas of the nation's life. For to DŽ the editorial board consulted extensively with su specialists in various fields. Among the tų consultants physicist akad. P. Brazdžiūnas, lawyer member correspondent MA J. Bulavas, chemist prof. K. Daukšas, botanist MA member correspondent J. Dagys, geographer MA member correspondent V. Gudelis, historian akad. J. Jurginis, literary historian akad. K. Korsak, military specialist colonel VI. Lunia, a doctor, prof. S. Biziulevičius, engineer prof. A. "Astronomer Akad. P. Slavėnas, mathematician doc. G. Zilinskas et al. ir Most of these celebrities Many Lithuanian specialists have great merits for the Lithuanian language, because they have done a lot by creating Lithuanian terminology, publishing their scientific and educational science ir popularization works mainly in Lithuanian, which, unfortunately, can no longer be said about the ir majority of other specialists of the middle younger generation of scientists. bė ir ir Thus, the academic level of the first two mų editions of the dictionary corresponded to the best Lithuanian scholarly lo standards when interpreting terms from various fields. Of course, everything changes, so some interpretattų ions need to be adjusted. But one cannot agree with the statements that are su sometimes heard from the lecturer of another researcher that he is ar hopelessly outdated in terms of terminology. DŽ Such opinions only show that a certain part of our enlightenment does not really understand which dictionary to look for. ko DŽ — ne special, ne dictionary of terms. It is a broad-profile philological dictionary. I have not seen or even heard that ir there are dictionaries of this kind for the broadest strata of society, for specialists, in o ne which the terms are explained in detail, showing even the differences in understanding of different scientific directions, schools. This, by the way, is usually not done even in the dictionaries of terms. DŽ is based on long experience of Lithuanian language lexicography ir standardization. I'm quite well reflected me especially XX a. first-party normative activities — K. Corrections to Booga, Jablonski, "Mother's J. Language" ir (dictionary prepared soon po after the war). New editions, clearly, must be aligned with the language standardization work of recent ir su decades — su new comprehensive works on Lithuanian grammar (the DŽ second edition was not more consistensu tly harmonized even by academic "Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos" I ir II t.), already published in po the second DŽ edition „Language practice advice“, studies of the legacy of language normalization, other more important works, among jų ir published "Language culture" and In the publications of “Mūsų kalbos”. Į even the norm-setters themselves look at language norms far from equally. Some are strict, trying to codify everything as much as possible, establishing strict rules, others are more moderate, leaving more freedom to the consumer. Everyone, at least a little more D.J. will have noticed that this dictionary reflects a relatively liberal view of norms. į By the way, such liberalism in our linguistics has a tradition it is — characteristic of the mentioned pre-war linguists, as well as part of one iš ir iš DŽ initiator and, without doubt, be the most famous Lithuanian lexicographer of this century J. Balchik. The liberalism to has been and is sometimes DZ criticized by some, ir especially more radical linguists and new error seekers. It must be said here that 93 these blasphemies, proclaimed in all possible ways, in writing, orally, in higher schools, and otherwise in various meetings with the public, have damaged the culture of our language. Many teachers of Lithuanian language were not used to studying from this dictionary, because there were teachers who had a negative attitude towards it. Such teachers are thus deprived of a permanent and generally trustworthy (though certainly imperfect) counselor. After all, as you might think, DŽ is not a dictionary of errors. There are also relatively few incorrect sentences in this dictionary. They can also be found in many other publications devoted to language culture and standardization. Obviously, errors cannot be excused or justified in publications of this kind, especially in fundamental works. This again raises the question that the current practice of preparing this dictionary (alongside other works and in extreme haste) must be stopped immediately, because this is not only a question of interest to linguists. DŽ is necessary for the whole nation, so this dictionary, like the LKŽ (each in its own place), is a prestigious work of Lithuanian linguistics. | 2. DŽ is prepared and must continue to be maintained as a dictionary of Lithuanian language. It has accumulated a great wealth of folk language, folklore, fictional literature (especially classics), but it has not ignored the vocabulary of science, technology and social life. The dictionary does not avoid and should not avoid ethnonyms, words specific to all Lithuanian regions, especially those used in our classical literature. In this regard, the criticisms of some linguists that there are too many dialects in the dictionary are not entirely acceptable. You have to see what dialects they are. Most of these words are used by S. Daukanto, M. Valančiaus, A. Baranauskas, Žemaitė, Lazdynų Pelėda, V. Kudirka, Vaižgantas, Krėvė, Vienuolis, P. Cvirka and other Lithuanian writers. The addition of such words to the DG seems not only justified or desirable, but simply necessary. After all, there is no other dictionary available to everyone (and for everyone!), in which the reader of those writings would find such words. It would be naive to always advise readers to use the LKŽ or even to refer to the dictionaries of the writings of those writers (which, by the way, are almost non-existent). These dictionaries will, of course, be used by specialist philologists, and it is possible to wish, and perhaps even demand, that they be used by language and literature teachers, but it is not worth expecting that they will be easily accessible to every educated person, student or pupil, the so-called “mass” user of the language. Thus, in this respect, the DG plays a key role in the culture of the nation. This key role in the culture of the nation must remain, at least for now, until there are more diverse, specialized dictionaries of the Lithuanian language. By the way, DŽ also contributes to the education and development of the language of society. Such positive language education is much more important and effective than negative language education, i.e. constant correction of mistakes. There is one more thing to bear in mind when it comes to the so-called DZ councils. In addition to the common part of the vocabulary for all Lithuanians (morphological, pronunciation and other variants may also vary), users of literary language have a certain part of words that are characteristic only of people from one or another area. This range may coincide with dialects, but usually it is narrower (dialects, schn:ktes, posn:ktes or even smaller level) and, apparently, less often broader. By the way, often the words do not extend within the boundaries of dialectal divisions distinguished by the characteristics of the sound, their spreading boundaries are somewhat different. Such regional words are used by every person who has learned the 94 native language naturally, especially those who have grown up in a living (primarily dialectal) language environment. But this does not mean that these words are not a wealth of literary language. Most of the vocabulary is not familiar to all users of the language — in addition to the territorial specificity, it differs in other respects, especially in professional terms. In many cases, the question here is not whether we are dealing with a word of literary or non-literary language, but with a word that is used more broadly or narrowly. DZ is distinguished from narrowly used words. So, DG confirms dz. (dzūkų), ryt. (Eastern Highlands), tarm. (tarminis), vac. (western highlanders), zem. (Žemaičių), as well as in the third edition attached certificate high. (Aukštaitijos), should not be understood literally, i.e. the words marked with them should be considered complete dialects. It seems much more likely to consider such words as narrowly used words of the literary language (they are characteristic of the language of a certain literary area of use and the language of the expatriates from that area). Such an evaluation of the words composed of DZ, from the standpoints of literary language, is an obvious thing, but it does not exclude that, for example, from the point of view of dialectology, i.e. with regard to the territorial distribution of the dialect lexicon, the same Words can, of course, be evaluated more categorically (only in this case, the sound expression of those Words usually differs at least slightly). The value of the DŽ as a dictionary of Lithuanian language depends largely on the extent to which it reflects the objects and phenomena of the material and spiritual life of the nation, its customs, the past and present life of the state and the nation. Most of the words in the DG serve this purpose. This direction of vocabulary needs to be strengthened further. It is particularly important to present the vocabulary related to Lithuanian history in a more systematic way (there are a lot of such historicisms in the first editions of DŽ, but much is also missing). The third edition of the DŽ also attempts to present more systematically Lithuanian names of plants, animals and words reflecting Lithuanian landscape. The aforementioned lexical deposits constitute to some extent the distinctiveness of DŽ, but do not make this dictionary purely ethnographic or Lithuanianistic. Many of the words found in these deposits denote concepts common to other peoples, as well as common values of humanity. After all, the Lithuanian nation together with other nations participated and participates in the common development of civilization. Therefore, the dictionary tried to reflect the most diverse areas of human life. 3.DZ is a rich, diverse, basically all the basic information about each heading word. Thus, the normative role of the dictionary also encompasses all the parts of the language to which the word as an object of lexicography is related. The DG gives rules for spelling, pronunciation, conjugation (morphology), meaning (semantic), usage (syntax and stylistics), part and pronunciation, and also reflects rules for word formation. The information provided by the dictionary should be completely sufficient for the ordinary language user — whether an intellectual, a specialist in any field, or a student or pupil. It is true that specialists sometimes wish to have a more extensive presentation of the vocabulary of one or another specialty in the dictionary. But everyone understands that without substantially expanding the volume of vocabulary, it is impossible to do. Special dictionaries cannot be replaced or changed. 95 to DZ DZ is must ir remain, at least for now, the main, most important, but only normative dictionary of ne the Lithuanian language. A little more requests for informativeness DŽ (especially for the reflection of connectedness) have those people iš who eat the bread of language. These are various editors, so-called stylists, language correctors. But it's a specific comparair tively rare (at least in the meantime) a group of dictionary users. The general philological dictionary probably cannot satisfy the information needs of all such people at all. Those broad needs of iš justice should be met LKŽ and various special dictionaries. For example, the conjugation of words should be detailed in the conjugation dictionary (this verb dictionary is currently being written). Be therefore, it would be good to have dictionaries of DŽ character for different groups of users, such as children, pupils, students, workers, intellectuals, civil servants, etc. ir Some other countries are doing ir this. Unfortunately, such dictionaries will not soon increase in Lithuania, although one another is being prepared. ir Thus, the universal dictionary DŽ ir will be the only Lithuanian dictionary of its kind, at least in the iš near future. However, the production of normative dictionaries needs to be expanded already now. The Lithuanian Language Research Centre should finally establish a unit of normative lexicography. After all, society is ne only waiting for more varied purposes and volumes of normative dictionaries. A normative explanatory dictionary of ir literary language would be ir necessary, but no one seems to be planning such a work yet. o nė DŽ is a normative dictionary for language ne specialists, as said, for wider o, strata of Lithuanian language users. Be to, that one-totem (although the volume is ir large) dictionary. So the selection in it is done of everything — ir words, ir meaningir s, usage. Such a selection, with some ką eliminations, some additions, some correctioką ns, doubts, be will have to be done all the time until the dictionary is published. However, the main part of the words will remain in all editions of the dictionary. 4. DŽ has already played a significant rate-stabilising role. The first edition was released in thousands of copies 20 (as ir 1948 m. The second edition had a circulation of thousands o of copies. 50 At that time (c. (1972 even popular novels rarely reached such a circulation. It is perhaps the most DŽ widely distributed Lithuanian dictionary, except, of course, the school spelling dictionary “International Words Dictionary” published in ir 1985 m. 100 thousands of copies (a record in the history of Lithuanian dictionaries). It is important to keep in mind that po DŽ since its publication, all important normative works of the Lithuanian language are based on this dictionary. It is true that there are disagreemenjų ts, but not so ra many as to call into question the normative significance of the Dictionary. DZ works have been used in publishing houses for four decades, it is used by the press, radio ir TV employees, these works are the basis for teaching contemporary Lithuanian literary language in various schools. Since this dictionary forms the DŽ basis for other ir standardization activities and for the implementation of norms, it can quite ir reasonably be said that it is a fundamental work of Lithuanian language normalization. DŽ 96 Each dictionary records the state of normalisation in the year of publication (or ir rather, of preparation, since publication sometimes takes a long time). The norms are adjusted, sometimes ir changed. Therefore, a clear subject, dictionaries also ir DJ, old man. For example, po 1972 m., when the second edition was issued, some more individual DŽ norms were adjusted and 1976 1985 m. in the “Language Practice Tips” ir 1976 m. 100 mg "Lithuanian language spelling in ir divorce". Since those publications appeared immediately after the po second edition, DŽ of course, some of the revisions of the correction was needed DŽ only ir ne iš card. This is bad, especially considering that the gap between the releases is too large for about DŽ decades. — du Such abrupt norm contradictions must be avoided if the culture of the mother tongue is to be ir effectively improved in unison. How to to avoid? In particular, it must be DŽ allowed much more often. In the worst case scenario, a new edition of the dictionary should not exceed a decade, but it should be published every five years. In our country conditions, the interval of five years between the dictionary editions seems quite good. Secondly, major adjustments and ar changes to the standards should be made in conjunctDŽ ion with the drafting of a new permit. The situation as it developed in the first few years po DŽ the second edition, the introduction of language norms, language education, ir finally the authority of the language normists themselves, the prestige of standardization only damaged. After all, only the largest ką published normative work of a fundamental nature was in the shadow (if worse) ne because some of the works were rejected to be questioned jo in other works. It is true that the ar rejected part was relatively small in terms of the amount of information provided, but ta it undoubtedly ar caused some inconvenience to the users of the dictionary, su DŽ be 0 jų Part 1 (especially less prominent in terms of language) could have ir caused thoughts, ar in general, this dictionary can be trusted. That's not right. After all, normally, all other normative dictionaries are dictionaries of spelling, — pronunciair tion, errors, conjugation, etc. ir — are only satelliteDŽ s. The role of dictionariar es in all such dictionaries is auxiliary, compared su DJ. So they should not confront, be opposed su DJ. This does not mean that in dictionaries of a purely normative nature, dictionaries in other ar publications cannot be adjusted or, if necessary, the norms can be changed. DŽ However, they should not be alternated in educational publications, as well as in translated dictionaries, various encyclopedias, handbooks, etc. ir 5. In order to truly improve Lithuanian language culture, effectively contribute to its development, to promote public interest in its own language, it is necessary to teach all future Lithuanian language teachers in higher schools to use other normative language ir publications, which would be DŽ ir useful to students of all other specialties. ir ir All Lithuanian language teachers should teach the pupils of vocational DŽ ir technical schools and technical colleges to use other standardization literature intended for the general ir public. This dictionary should be used by all lecturers of all subjects to raise ir the language culture of ir their own students and pupils. Be to, card su DG, o ne as a counterpart to it, there should be plenty of various other dictionaries, dictionary, grammar, tips ir collections popular publications. Thus, the greatest task of implementing Lithuanian language norms is 7. Lithuanian linguistics will create a 29 t. 97 harmonious — system of standardization works for both the whole society and its individual groups. The central work of that system must be constantly improved, organized, corresponding to the level of practice of literary language normalization theory ir Dictionary of Modern English. C. KEŪ HMC ‘CJIOBAPb COBPEMEHHOTO JIM TOBCKOTO S3bIKA’ MH HOPMAJIMB3AI HA SI3bIKA Pes3irome crarbe B paccMaTPUBAETCS ANNOTATIONS 3HaueHHe EYHOTOMHOIO TOJIKOBOTO YHHBeEpCaJIbHOro CJIOBapDfi COBPEMEHHOTO JIMTOBCKOTO s35IKa "Dictionary of Modern Lithuanian Language" (1-e n3a. — 1954 r., 2-e — 1972 r.), ocBeim[fatOTCA BONpOCEI MOATOTOBKH €ro HOBBIX n3jiaHnū, 1 Article written by post, read 1988 m. of October 13 d. inter-school scientific conference “Improvement of student teaching methodology under the conditions of higher education restructuring”, held in Šiauliai Pedagogical Institute.