„Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas“ ir kalbos normalizacija

LIETUVIŲ LEKSIKOS IR TERMINOLOGIJOS PROBLEMOS LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, XXIX (1991) STASYS KEINYS “THE DICTIONARY OF CONTEMPORARY LITHUANIAN” AND LANGUAGE STANDARDIZATION Time present, time past Perhaps are in time future, And time future contained in time past. T. S. Eliotas 1. The Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian (hereafter DŽ) is the first Lithuanian standardizing explanatory dictionary of a universal character. In its purpose and scope, this dictionary is equivalent to the corresponding widely known and very popular single-volume dictionaries of other languages. It was also compiled (both editions) with similar dictionaries of other languages in view, learning from them. This is stated succinctly in the preface to the second edition: “The latest explanatory dictionaries in Russian, Polish, German, English, etc. were also used to explain terms and certain general concepts” (DŽ, 2nd ed., p. XXII). Similarities lie not only in some definitions, but also in the structure of the dictionary. For this reason, occasional attempts to set such dictionaries as the Oxford, Larousse, and Ozhegov (widely known dictionaries of this kind in English, French, and Russian, respectively) against DŽ, praising the former and utterly condemning our own, probably arise more from a desire to sharpen the dispute than from convictions based on impartial analysis. Obviously, one cannot overlook certain differences among those dictionaries (each compared with the others). It is very important to remember that the most famous single-volume dictionaries of other languages have been published for longer and much more frequently; in other words, their compilation tradition is more extensive. Finally, far more attention is devoted to their compilation. To this day, DŽ has no lexicography department, nor is there a single person who looks after this dictionary on an ongoing basis (although 35 years have already passed since the first edition appeared). As a result, work on DŽ is undertaken sporadically alongside other (usually primary) tasks, and must be carried out very hurriedly (what else could explain the many gaps in lexicographic editing left in the second edition?). DŽ was compiled, edited, and revised by Lithuania’s most prominent lexicographers J. Balčikonis, N. Grigas, J. Kruopas, A. Lyberis, J. Paulauskas, K. Ulvydas, and others. In one way or another, most of the editors and writers of the great Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language (hereafter LKŽ) contributed to the first two editions of this dictionary. It should also be borne in mind that DŽ did not grow out of LKŽ. For in 1954, when the first edition of DŽ appeared, only two volumes of LKŽ, edited by J. Balčikonis, had been published, while in 1972 (the year the second edition of DŽ appeared) 8 volumes of LKŽ (through the letter P) had been issued, out of the 20 volumes planned. The compilers of the third edition could draw on 14 volumes of LKŽ. 92 Obviously, the published volumes of LKŽ are an extremely important resource for the compilers of new editions of DŽ, helping them refine the presentation and selection of words. However, that alone is not enough. DŽ must be more closely connected with the latest language usage, cover the core vocabulary of various fields, and take account of changes in science, technology, culture, and every other sphere of national life. For that reason, the editorial board of DŽ consulted widely with specialists from various fields. Among these consultants were physicist Academician P. Brazdžiūnas; lawyer and corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences, J. Bulavas; chemist Professor K. Daukšas; botanist and corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences, J. Dagys; geographer and corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences, V. Gudelis; historian Academician J. Jurginis; literary historian Academician K. Korsakas; military specialist Colonel Vl. Lunia; physician Professor S. Biziulevičius; engineer Professor A. Novodvorskis; astronomer Academician P. Slavėnas; mathematician Associate Professor G. Žilinskas; and others. Most of these distinguished Lithuanian specialists have made great contributions to the Lithuanian language, having done much to create and organize Lithuanian terminology and having published most of their scholarly, educational, and popular-science works in Lithuanian—something that, unfortunately, can no longer be said of the majority of scholars and other specialists of the middle and younger generations. Thus, the scholarly level of the first two editions of the dictionary, in explaining terms from various fields, matched the best level of Lithuanian scholarship. Of course, everything changes, so some of those explanations need revision. But one cannot agree with the occasional statements by one or another researcher or lecturer that DŽ is supposedly hopelessly outdated in terms of terminology. Such opinions only show that a certain segment of our intelligentsia has little idea of what one should look for in a dictionary. DŽ is not a specialized dictionary, nor a dictionary of terms. It is a broad-based philological dictionary. I have neither seen nor even heard of dictionaries of this kind intended for the broadest sections of the public, rather than specialists, that explain terms in detail and demonstrate differences among the understandings of various schools and fields of science. Incidentally, this is most often not even done in dictionaries of terms. DŽ draws on the long tradition of Lithuanian lexicography and language standardization. It reflects particularly well the standardizing work of the first half of the twentieth century—K. Būga’s and J. Jablonskis’s work, and the recommendations and corrections of Gimtoji kalba (the dictionary was compiled soon after the war). New editions, naturally, must also be aligned with the language-standardization work of recent decades—with new, comprehensive works on Lithuanian grammar (the second edition of DŽ was not even consistently aligned with volumes I and II of the academic Grammar of the Lithuanian Language), with Kalbos praktikos patarimai, published after the second edition of DŽ, with studies of the legacy of language standardization, and with other important works, including those published in Kalbos kultūra and Mūsų kalba. Even the standardizers themselves view language norms in very different ways. Some are strict, striving to codify everything as thoroughly as possible and establish firm rules; others are more moderate, leaving users greater freedom. Anyone who has spent even a little time consulting DŽ will easily have noticed that this dictionary reflects a comparatively liberal approach to norms. Incidentally, such liberalism has a tradition in our linguistics—it is characteristic of the prewar linguists mentioned above, and also, to some extent, of one of the initiators of DŽ and, undoubtedly, the most prominent Lithuanian lexicographer of this century, J. Balčikonis. Because of this liberalism, DŽ has been and sometimes still is criticized by some, especially the more radical 93 linguists and seekers of new errors. It must be said here that these criticisms, publicized, it seems, by every means possible—both in writing and orally, in higher education institutions and in various meetings with the public—have harmed our language culture. Many even Lithuanian-language teachers were not accustomed to learning continuously from this dictionary, because there were lecturers who fostered a negative attitude toward it. Thus, such teachers have been deprived of a constant and, viewed essentially, reliable adviser (although, of course, one with certain shortcomings). However one looks at it, DŽ is not an error dictionary. And there are relatively few erroneous recommendations in this dictionary. No fewer can be found in many other publications devoted to questions of language culture and standardization. It is clear that errors cannot be excused or justified in publications of this kind, especially in fundamental works. This once again compels us to raise the question of whether the practice hitherto followed in compiling this dictionary—doing it in snatches alongside other work and in great haste—must be brought to an immediate end, since this is an issue that concerns not only linguists. DŽ is needed by the entire nation; consequently, this dictionary, like LKŽ (each in its own place), is a prestigious work of Lithuanian linguistics. 2. DŽ was compiled, and should continue to be maintained, as a Lithuanian language dictionary. It contains great riches of folk language, folklore, and belles lettres (especially the classics), while also taking into account the vocabulary of science, technology, and public life. The dictionary has not avoided, and should not avoid, ethnographicisms or the specific words of all Lithuania’s regions, especially those used in our classical literature. In this respect, the reproaches of some linguists that the dictionary contains too many dialect words do not seem entirely acceptable. One must look at what these dialect words are. Most of them were used by S. Daukantas, M. Valančius, A. Baranauskas, Žemaitė, Lazdynų Pelėda, V. Kudirka, Vaižgantas, Krėvė, Vienuolis, P. Cvirka, and other Lithuanian writers. Including such words in DŽ seems not merely justified or desirable, but simply essential. After all, there is no other dictionary accessible to everyone (and intended for everyone!) in which readers of those writings could find such words. It would be naïve to advise readers in every instance to consult LKŽ, or even to send them to dictionaries of those writers’ works (which, incidentally, scarcely exist). Specialist philologists will, of course, use those dictionaries; one may wish, or perhaps even demand, that language and literature teachers consult them, but it is unreasonable to expect them to be readily accessible to every educated person, student, or pupil—to the so-called “mass” language user. In this respect, then, DŽ serves as a key to the nation’s culture. This role as a key to the nation’s culture must remain, at least for now, while there are no more varied, specialized Lithuanian-language dictionaries. DŽ also contributes in this way to the cultivation and development of language in society. This positive cultivation of language seems far more important and effective than negative language cultivation, that is, the constant correction of errors. When discussing the so-called dialect words in DŽ, one more point must be kept in mind. In addition to the part of the vocabulary shared by all Lithuanians (differences here, too, may involve morphological, stress, and other variants), users of the literary language have a certain set of words characteristic only of people originating from one or another area. That area may coincide with dialects, but is usually narrower (subdialects, local speech varieties, sub- 94 dialects, or even finer levels and, it seems, less often broader. Incidentally, words do not always fit within the boundaries of dialect divisions distinguished by phonological characteristics; their distribution often has somewhat different limits. Everyone who has naturally learned their mother tongue uses such regional words, especially those who grew up in an environment of living language (primarily dialect speech). But this does not mean that those words are not part of the literary language’s wealth. Most of the language’s vocabulary is not familiar to all language users—aside from the territorial distinctiveness mentioned above, it also differs in other respects, particularly, for example, by profession. Thus, in many cases the question is not whether the word before us belongs to the literary or non-literary language, but whether it is used more or less widely. DŽ excludes words used only narrowly. Therefore, the labels in DŽ dz. (Dzūkian), ryt. (eastern Highlander), tarm. (dialectal), vak. (western Highlander), žem. (Samogitian), as well as the label aukšt. (Highlander), added in the third edition, should not be understood literally, that is, the words marked with them should not be regarded as entirely dialectal. It seems much more accurate to regard such words as literary-language words of narrower usage (they are characteristic of a particular area where the literary language is used and of the speech of people who have emigrated from that area). This assessment of the words included in DŽ, from the standpoint of the literary language, clearly does not preclude the same words from being judged more categorically from the perspective of dialectology—that is, in terms of the territorial distribution of dialect vocabulary—although in such cases the phonetic form of those words usually differs at least somewhat. The value of DŽ as a Lithuanian language dictionary depends greatly on how well it reflects the objects and phenomena of the nation’s material and spiritual life, its customs, and the past and present life of the state and nation. The vast majority of the words included in DŽ serve precisely this purpose. This direction of the dictionary should be strengthened further. It is especially important to present more systematically the vocabulary associated with Lithuanian history (the first editions of DŽ contain many historicisms of this kind, but much is also missing). The third edition of DŽ also seeks to present more systematically the names of Lithuanian plants and animals, and words that reflect the landscape of Lithuania. The lexical strata mentioned above give DŽ a certain distinctiveness, but they do not make it a purely ethnographic or Lithuanian-studies dictionary. Many words belonging to these strata denote concepts characteristic of other nations as well, including universal human values. After all, the Lithuanian nation has participated, and continues to participate, alongside other nations in the common process of civilizational development. The dictionary therefore seeks to reflect the widest possible range of areas of human life. 3. DŽ contains abundant and wide-ranging information—essentially all the basic information—about each headword. Its standardizing role therefore encompasses all levels of language relevant to a word as an object of lexicography. DŽ provides norms for spelling, stress, inflection (morphology), meanings (semantics), usage (syntax and stylistics), and, in part, pronunciation; it also reflects norms of word formation. For the ordinary language user—whether an intellectual, a specialist in any field, a student, or a pupil—the information provided by the dictionary should be entirely sufficient. It is true that specialists sometimes wish for the vocabulary of one specialty or another to be presented more extensively in the dictionary. However, everyone understands that, without substantially expanding the 95 Given its scope, this is impossible. Specialized dictionaries can neither replace nor substitute for DŽ. DŽ is, and for the time being at least must remain, the principal and most important, though not the only, standardizing dictionary of the Lithuanian language. Those who earn their living from language have somewhat more requests concerning the informativeness of DŽ (especially its representation of word combinability). These include various editors, so-called stylistic editors, and language correctors. But this is a specific and relatively small group of dictionary users (at least for now). A general philological dictionary probably cannot satisfy all the information needs of such people. In truth, those broadest needs should be met by LKŽ and various specialized dictionaries. For example, word combinability should be presented comprehensively in a dictionary of combinability (a dictionary of verbs of this kind is currently being written). It would also be good to have dictionaries modeled on DŽ for various groups of users, such as children, school pupils, students, workers, intellectuals, civil servants, and so on. This is indeed what is done in some other countries. In Lithuania, unfortunately, such dictionaries will not be produced soon, although one or another is in preparation. Thus the universal DŽ will continue, at least for the foreseeable future, to be essentially the only Lithuanian dictionary of this kind. Even so, the preparation of standardizing dictionaries must already be expanded. A standardizing lexicography unit must finally be established at the Lithuanian Language Research Centre. After all, the public is eagerly awaiting standardizing dictionaries and glossaries of more varied purposes and scope. A multivolume standardizing explanatory dictionary of the literary language is also essential, yet apparently no one has even planned such a project. DŽ is a standardizing dictionary not for language specialists but, as noted, for broader groups of Lithuanian language users. It is also a one-volume dictionary (although that volume is large). Accordingly, selection was made throughout it—of words, meanings, and usage. Such selection, involving omissions, additions, and corrections, will undoubtedly have to be carried out continually for as long as the dictionary is published. However, the main body of words will remain in every edition of the dictionary. 4. DŽ has already played a major role in stabilizing norms. The first edition was published in 20,000 copies (as was the 1948 Lithuanian Spelling Dictionary), while the print run of the second edition was already 50,000 copies. At that time (1972), even popular novels rarely reached such a print run. In terms of circulation, DŽ is probably the most widely distributed Lithuanian dictionary, with the exception, of course, of the school spelling glossary and the Dictionary of International Words, published in 1985 in a print run of 100,000 copies (a record in the history of Lithuanian dictionaries). It is important to bear in mind that, since the publication of DŽ, all major standardizing works on the Lithuanian language have relied on this dictionary’s recommendations. Admittedly, disagreements do occur, but they are not numerous enough to cast doubt on the dictionary’s standardizing significance as a whole. For four decades now, publishers have followed DŽ’s recommendations; they are used by workers in the press, radio, and TV, and the teaching of contemporary Lithuanian literary language in all kinds of schools is based on them. Since DŽ gathers and synthesizes the experience of Lithuanian language normalization, and since this dictionary provides the foundation for other normalization work and the implementation of norms, it is entirely reasonable to call DŽ a fundamental work of Lithuanian language normalization. 96 Every dictionary records the state of normalization in the year of its publication (or, more precisely, of its preparation, since publication can sometimes take quite a long time). Norms are refined and sometimes changed. As is only to be expected, dictionaries, including DŽ, therefore become outdated. For example, after 1972, when the second edition of DŽ was published, a number of individual norms were revised in the Language Practice Recommendations, published in 1976 and 1985, and in Lithuanian Spelling and Punctuation, published in 1976. Since these works appeared soon after the second edition of DŽ, it is understandable that some of DŽ’s recommendations had to be reconsidered and revised almost immediately. This is bad, especially given that the interval between editions of DŽ is far too long—about two decades. Such abrupt conflicts between norms must be avoided if we wish to improve the culture of the native language effectively and consistently. How can this be avoided? First of all, DŽ must be published much more frequently. At worst, a new edition of the dictionary should not be more than a decade in coming, but the aim should be to publish one every five years. In the conditions of our country, a five-year interval between editions seems entirely reasonable. Second, major refinements or changes to norms should be coordinated with the preparation of a new edition of DŽ. The situation that arose during the first few years after the second edition of DŽ harmed the implementation of language norms, language development, and ultimately the authority of the very people who set language norms and the prestige of normalization. After all, the largest fundamental standardizing work had only just been published, yet it found itself in the shadows (if not worse) because some of its recommendations had been rejected or called into question in other works. To be fair, the portion rejected or questioned was quite small in comparison with the amount of information presented in DŽ. Nevertheless, this caused some inconvenience for dictionary users and may even have led some of them (especially those less knowledgeable about language) to wonder whether the dictionary could be trusted at all. This is not good. For, viewed normally, all other standardizing dictionaries and glossaries—on spelling and stress, pronunciation, errors, combinability, and so on—are merely companions to DŽ. Compared with DŽ, the role of all such dictionaries and glossaries is auxiliary. They should therefore neither conflict with nor be set against DŽ. This does not mean that norms in dictionaries, glossaries, or other works of a purely standardizing nature cannot be refined or, when necessary, changed. However, they should not be altered in educational publications, nor in translation dictionaries, encyclopedias, reference books, and the like. 5. To genuinely improve the culture of the Lithuanian language, contribute effectively to its development, and encourage public interest in the language, higher education institutions must teach and accustom all future teachers of Lithuanian and other languages to use DŽ and other standardizing language publications; this would also be useful for students of all other disciplines. All Lithuanian language teachers should encourage upper-grade pupils and students at vocational technical schools and technical colleges to use DŽ and other normalization literature intended for the public. All subject teachers and lecturers should use this dictionary to improve the language culture of both themselves and their students and pupils. In addition to DŽ, and not as its counterweight, there should also be an abundance of other kinds of dictionaries, glossaries, grammars, collections of recommendations, and popular publications. Thus, the greatest task in implementing Lithuanian language norms— 7. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 29 t. 97 The aim is to create an integrated system of normalization works intended both for the public as a whole and for its individual groups. The central work in this system must be a continuously improved and revised “Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian” that reflects the level of literary-language normalization theory and practice1. S. Keinys “DICTIONARY OF CONTEMPORARY LITHUANIAN” AND LANGUAGE NORMALIZATION Abstract The article examines the normative significance of the one-volume explanatory dictionary of contemporary Lithuanian, “Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas” (1st ed., 1954; 2nd ed., 1972), and discusses issues involved in preparing its new editions. 1 This article is based on a paper presented on October 13, 1988, at the inter-university academic conference “Improving Student Teaching Methods under the Conditions of Higher Education Reform,” held at the Šiauliai Pedagogical Institute.