К проблеме относительного значения латышского прилагательного с суффиксом «-isk-»

MOKSLO KALBOS KULTŪROS IR TERMINOLOGIJOS PROBLEMOS LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, XXIV(1985) Sarmīte Lagzdiņa ON THE PROBLEM OF THE RELATIVE MEANING OF THE LATVIAN ADJECTIVE WITH THE SUFFIX -ISK- Adjectives formed from noun stems with the suffix -isk- (corresponding to Russian -ск- and German -isch) have long constituted the most productive type of adjective in Latvian. Their activity has increased particularly in recent times, and, at the same time, the still-unresolved problem of the meaning of adjectives with the suffix -isk- has again become topical. This problem has long attracted the attention of Latvian linguists (whether from a historical perspective or in terms of semantic differentiation between adjectives with the suffix -isk- and those with the suffix -īg- or the noun genitive) 1. However, the question of whether these adjectives are qualitative or relational is not usually singled out, although it is precisely the relational function of the adjective that is problematic. By virtue of its general meaning—the meaning of a relation—the adjective with the suffix -isk- combines both qualitative and relational aspects. However, in the course of the development of Latvian, the few relational adjectives with this suffix that once existed in the language disappeared, and their function was taken over by the noun genitive2. As a result, at the present stage of the language’s development, native Latvian adjectives in -isk- (i.e., those formed from the stem of a Latvian-origin noun) always have a more or less clearly expressed qualitative meaning. This can be clearly demonstrated by comparing analogous adjectives ¹See, for example: Blinkena A. Pārmaiņas ekvifunkcionālo atributīvo determinantu lietojumā latviešu valodā.— Baltistica, II priedas. V., 1977, 20.—25. lpp.; Endzelīns J. Dažādas valodas kļūdas.— Rīgā, 1928, 9.—10. lpp.; Endzelīņš J. Jaunu vārdu radītājiem.— Darbu izlase. Rīgā, 1980, t. 3, 2. d., 398 lpp.; Endzelīns J., Mīlenbahs K. Latviešu gramatika.— Rīgā, 1907, 35.—36. lpp.; Ķikauka P. Piezīmes par dažiem latviešu valodas labojumiem.— Rīgā, 1937, 82.—86. lpp.; Mīlenbahs K. Daži jautājumi par latviešu valodu. 2. burtn.— Rīgā, 1893, 21.—39.; 43.—46.; 62.—67. lpp.; Mūsdienu latviešu literārās valodas gramatika.— Rīgā, 1959, 1. d., 252.—268. lpp.; Saule-Sleine M. Par sufiksa -isk- formu un tā leksiski gramatiskām funkcijām (it sevišķi baltu un slāvu valodās).— Veltījums akadēmiķim Jānim Endzelīnam 1873—1973.— Rīgā, 1972, 225.—252. lpp.; Valodas un rakstības jautājumi.— Rīgā, 1940, 9.—10. lpp. ² См.: Endzelīns J. Latvieši un viņu valoda.— Darbu izlase. Rīgā, 1979, t. 3, 1. d., 509. lpp. 100 in Latvian and Russian, for example: the adjective dzīvniecisks, derived from the noun dzīvnieks “animal,” has the qualitative meaning “like an animal, characteristic of an animal,” but not the purely relational meaning “pertaining to an animal”; the adjective kundzisks, derived from kungs “lord,” has the qualitative meaning “like a lord, characteristic of a lord, haughty, arrogant,” but it has no purely relational meaning “pertaining to a lord, belonging to a lord.” Relational meanings that exist in Russian are expressed in Latvian using the noun genitive; for example, Russian животный мир corresponds to Latvian dzīvnieku valsts or dzīvnieku pasaule, and Russian барский дом corresponds to Latvian kungu māja. It follows from the foregoing that in the word-formation system of modern Latvian, the adjective with the suffix -isk- is qualitative and does not allow for a purely relational meaning; the relational aspect is retained in it only as a background meaning of relation. Nevertheless, modern Latvian has a group of adjectives with the suffix -isk- that are used as relational adjectives and, from the perspective of the language system, duplicate the function of the genitive of the motivating noun. These are loanwords of a terminological character, such as ģeometrisks “geometric” or klimatisks “climatic,” and so on. Most of them have been borrowed from other languages as ready-made lexical items or lexical-semantic variants, or even as components of particular phrases (e.g., briziskā cirkulācija “breeze circulation”). Although, with the growing flow of information and the rise in general education, many words in this group have become part of the common vocabulary of Latvian, they nevertheless all originated in the sphere of terminology or have a terminological character. Such relational adjectives with the suffix -isk- form a fairly extensive group in modern Latvian, one that is continually enlarged by new words under the influence of languages in contact, even though the derivational model for relational adjectives in -isk- has essentially remained foreign to the word-formation system of Latvian. Only in isolated cases are new adjectives with a relational meaning formed in the terminological sphere on the basis of Latvian-origin nouns, for example: laicisks from laiks “time” (laiciskā kvantēšana “time quantization”); vilnisks from vilnis “wave” (vilniskāis ciklons “wave cyclone”). Terminological systems, as is well known, are to a considerable extent self-contained and have their own specific laws (e.g., the requirement that a term be unambiguous even outside its context, the requirement of paradigmatic systematicity within the terminology of a particular field and language, the req- 101 (observance of agreement with the terminological systems of the languages in contact). In general usage, only isolated lexico-semantic variants of adjectives derived from nouns of Latvian origin occur with a relational meaning; moreover, they are created not by derivation according to a Latvian-language pattern, but by semantic calquing. Although some of them, which appeared in an earlier period in the development of the Latvian language, such as saimnieciskis “economic” or vēsturisks “historical,” have firmly established themselves in the language, adjectives of Latvian origin used relationally are generally perceived as “non-Latvian” and prompt doubts about the legitimacy of their existence, e.g.: dze jisks “poetic” from dzeja “poems, poetry,” alongside the qualitative meaning “poetical”; skatuvisks “stage” from skatuve “stage,” alongside the qualitative meaning “stage-like.” Thus, relational adjectives with the suffix -isk- in Latvian form a somewhat closed subsystem (from a semantic point of view, one of “foreign-language origin”), which has not yet been fully assimilated into general usage, since there is a contradiction between the relational meaning of these adjectives in the lexical system and the qualitative meaning of the pattern in the derivational system of Latvian. As already noted, the problem under consideration is not new: throughout the development of the Latvian literary language, the legitimacy of various relational adjectives in -isk-, alongside a noun in the genitive serving the same function, has been called into question3. However, in the course of language development, most relational adjectives in -isk- of foreign origin have become firmly rooted in Latvian and acquired specific semantic nuances in comparison with the genitive of the noun4, so that replacing them with the genitive of the motivating noun in many phrases already seems unthinkable, e.g.: etnogrāfiskais muzejs “ethnographic museum,” geogrāfiskais platums “geographical latitude,” etc. Does this indicate changes in the grammatical system of Latvian, a revival of a once-lost pattern for deriving relational adjectives? It seems not. As follows from what has been said about the obligatory qualitative character of adjectives in -isk- in the Latvian derivational system, a relational adjective in Latvian, in comparison, for example, with a corresponding Russian adjective, must acquire an additional, 3 См., напр.: Е n d z e l ī n s J. Dažādas valodas kļūdas.— Rīgā, 1928, 9.—10. lpp.; M i l e n b a h s K. Daži jautājumi par latviešu valodu. 2. burtn.— Rīgā, 1893, 21.—39.; 43.—46.; 62.—67. lpp. 4 См., напр.: Mūsdienu latviešu literārās valodas gramatika, 1. d., 254. lpp. 102 a more or less pronounced, but obligatory qualitative nuance, imposed on it by the meaning of the Latvian derivational pattern. On the other hand, it may be assumed that this unavoidable qualitative nuance is also the main condition that ensures the potential possibility of incorporating relational adjectives in -isk- into Latvian; it serves, as it were, as a link between the lexical meaning of the given adjective and the derivational meaning of the pattern. On this basis, a theoretical clarification can be made: Latvian has no adjectives in -isk- with a purely relational meaning, as are so widely found in Russian; what is called a relational adjective in -isk- in Latvian is an adjective with a predominant relational meaning. Since there is no sharp boundary between qualitative and relational meanings, in the absence of other specific factors this semantic shift is usually difficult to detect and in itself does not hinder an adequate perception of the relational aspect of an adjective’s meaning or an adequate correspondence between the specific meanings of Latvian adjectives and their Russian equivalents. Consequently, there are no grounds for categorically denying the legitimacy of relational adjectives in -isk- in Latvian. However, there are a number of factors that limit the possibility of freely forming and using such adjectives and are directly or indirectly explained by the theoretical considerations set out above (as follows from the practical recommendations in the works of Latvian linguists cited above, some of these factors have already been recognized to some extent, although they have not been formulated theoretically). These factors combine different aspects: derivational and lexical, linguistic and textual, semantic and frequency-related. We shall attempt briefly to summarize the main principles, adherence to which may promote more appropriate formation and use of relational adjectives in -isk- in non-terminological phrases. 1. As a rule, relational adjectives or lexico-semantic variants with a relational meaning should not be formed from nouns of Latvian origin, even if there is no conflict between the required relational meaning and the existing or potential qualitative meaning of the adjective, e.g.: ainavisks “landscape” from ainava “landscape” (ņemti vērā ainavisko kontekstu “take the landscape context into account”); telpisks “spatial” from telpa “space” (ietilpt neliela telpiskā vienībā “fit into a small spatial unit”); valstisks from valsts “state” (valstiska mēroga uzdevumi “tasks on a state scale”). The absence of a relational meaning in Latvian derivational 103 the model hinders the perception of such adjectives as normative; instead, the genitive is recommended: ņemt vērā ainavas kontekstu, ietilpt nelielā telpas vienībā, valsts mēroga uzdevumi. 2. In Latvian, adjectives in -isk- cannot express concrete, purely substantive relations of possession, of an object and its material, of an object and its content, or of an action or its result and its subject or object, because the obligatory quality-bearing nature of Latvian adjectives inevitably detaches them from purely substantive reference: their meaning is always more or less abstracted from the object denoted by the motivating noun. The inappropriateness of an attributive relation expressed by an adjective usually becomes apparent within the phrase itself, e.g.: aktieriskais ansamblis “actors’ ensemble,” i.e. “the actors”; komunistiskā celtniecība “the construction of communism”; metāliska pile “a metallic drop,” i.e. “a drop of metal”; correctly: aktieru ansamblis, komunisma celtniecība, metāla pile, with the noun in the genitive. Sometimes, however, the error becomes apparent only in a wider context—the phrase itself is possible, but its meaning does not correspond to the meaning of the sentence in question, e.g.: lugas režisoriskais traktējums “the director’s interpretation of the play” in a text referring to an interpretation of the play by a particular director (cf. the qualitative meaning “an interpretation that subordinates all elements of the production to the director’s single vision”). 3. The use of lexico-semantic variants with a relational meaning is not recommended if the adjective already has a stable qualitative meaning with a strongly evaluative character—this evaluative force prevents neutral perception of the adjective’s relational aspect, even when the context removes conceptual ambiguity, e.g.: loģiskie darbi “works on logic” (cf. the qualitative meaning of the adjective loģisks “logical”); plakātiskā māksla “poster art” (cf. the qualitative meaning of the adjective plakātisks “superficial, lacking in ideas”). Better: darbi loģikā, plakāta māksla or simply plakāts. The contradiction between the two meanings is especially noticeable in adjectives of Latvian origin, e.g.: dzejiskās formas meistars “a master of poetic form” (cf. the qualitative meaning of the adjective dzejisks “poetic”). 4. Nevertheless, it must be acknowledged that in most cases Latvian relational adjectives, taken individually, do not give rise to specific objections. Their use in a particular phrase and sentence is also generally acceptable, since many relations in objective reality can be represented in language as attributive relations. Another phenomenon is cause for concern—the rapid increase in the frequency of these adjectives in speech, especially 104 in newspaper texts and popular-science literature on social sciences and the humanities. From a theoretical perspective, relational adjectives functioning alongside other linguistic means would seem to enrich the language, expand its expressive possibilities, and promote conceptual precision in texts. In practice, however, there is often an uncritical attitude toward relational adjectives in -isk-. These adjectives are, as it were, “borrowed” by general usage from the sphere of terminology, where they usually function as parts of specific terminological phrases. A terminological phrase has a strictly defined referent in extralinguistic reality, and the adjective in it serves mainly as a means of identification, classification, and delimitation of the scope of the concept denoted by the noun it modifies, rather than as a means of characterization, as it does in a free phrase; the terminological phrase is perceived as a whole, as an indivisible lexical unit in which the semantic function of the individual component (the adjective) is weakened. When they enter general usage, relational adjectives often begin to be perceived as independent lexical units, able to combine freely with any suitable (or seemingly suitable) noun and to express any attributive relation. However, free phrases are not fixed in language users’ minds as having a constant connection with a particular referent in objective reality, and semantically the attributive relation expressed by a relational adjective is highly generalized and unspecific. As a result, when relational adjectives enter general usage, instead of precision they often produce the very opposite—conceptual vagueness and verbiage, e.g. pseudo-terminological phrases without a specific meaning: alkoholisks bojājums “alcoholic damage,” demogrāfiskā rīcība “demographic behavior”; “empty” modifiers duplicating information that follows unambiguously from the context: autores poētiskais stils “the author’s poetic style” in a review of a poetry collection, augsti sportiskie rezultāti “high sporting results” in a report on sporting competitions; a more “expressive,” but also less specific phrase in place of a one-word designation: ekstrēmīstiskie elementi “extremist elements” instead of ekstrēmisti “extremists,” tautas poētiskā daiļrade “folk poetic creativity” instead of tautasdziesmas “folk songs”; and ambiguous modifiers whose qualitative or relational meaning is not clarified by the context: akvarelisks gleznojums “painting resembling a watercolor”? “watercolor”? and so on. 105 Another undesirable consequence of the excessive enthusiasm for relational adjectives in -isk- is the replacement of all other synonymous means of expression with formulaic phrases—means that convey relations in objective reality more specifically or are more closely rooted in speech tradition, e.g.: cilvēka dvēseliska norūdīšana “the spiritual hardening of a person” instead of cilvēka dvēseles norūdīšana “the hardening of a person’s soul”; telefoniskas sarunas “telephone conversations” instead of telefona sarunas or sarunas pa telefonu “conversations by telephone”; skatuviska diskusija “stage discussion” instead of diskusija uz skatuves “discussion on stage.” The option of expressing the same relation with a noun in the genitive is ignored particularly often, even when the genitive phrase has already become traditional, e.g.: faktiskais materiāls “factual material” instead of faktu materiāls or fakti “facts”; lauksaimnieciskas problēmas “agricultural problems” instead of lauksaimniecības problemas; režisoriskais ķēriens “directorial flair” instead of režisora ķēriens; tautiskā deja “folk dance” instead of tautas deja, and so on. This impoverishes speech, diminishes the diversity of expressive means, and indicates an undesirable shift away from native Latvian constructions toward a uniform, moreover borrowed, type of expression. From the standpoint of Latvian language culture, the use of non-terminological phrases with a relational adjective in -isk- should be limited to cases in which a complex concept cannot be expressed briefly and clearly in another way