Reguliariųjų išvestinių reikšmių pateikimas aiškinamuosiuose lietuvių ir rusų kalbų žodynuose

MOKSLO KALBOS KULTŪROS IR TERMINOLOGIJOS PROBLEMOS LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, XXIV (1985) ZOFIJA BABICKIENĖ PRESENTATION OF REGULAR DERIVED MEANINGS IN EXPLANATORY DICTIONARIES OF THE LITHUANIAN AND RUSSIAN LANGUAGES 1. Introductory remarks Research traditions in semantic processes gave rise to problems concerning regular polysemy. General patterns in the formation of derived meanings are one of the most important issues in the analysis of polysemous words. To date, polysemous words characterized by regular derived meanings have received little attention in lexical theory and practice. In lexicographic practice, there are no criteria or principles for selecting these meanings for inclusion in explanatory dictionaries. Consequently, one of the most difficult problems in lexicography is constructing the semantic structure of a polysemous word and identifying its meanings and shades of meaning. This article examines the presentation of regular derived meanings of polysemous nouns in explanatory dictionaries of Lithuanian and Russian. A total of 2,437 polysemous nouns were selected from five explanatory dictionaries of Lithuanian (LKŽ — 528, DŽ — 330)1 and Russian (DAŽ — 577, MAŽ — 524, RKŽ — 478); they were classified into lexical-semantic groups, which were in turn grouped into larger classification units—types 2. The research data are presented in a table at the end of the article. The upper part of each cell indicates, as a percentage, the size of the lexical-semantic word group under study, while the lower part shows the number of words (in%) whose entries record regular derived meanings, their shades of meaning, and usages. The research demonstrates the productivity of regular polysemy types in explanatory dictionaries of Lithuanian and Russian. By comparing the figures in the upper and lower parts of the cells, we can identify the following patterns: a) regular derived meanings are characteristic of all polysemous words in a lexical-semantic group (the figures in the upper and lower parts of the cell coincide); b) derived meanings are not marked for all the words examined in the explanatory dictionaries of both languages (the percentages in the lower part of the cell are smaller than those in the upper part); 1See the list of abbreviations at the end of the article. 2The semantic structure of a polysemous word is so complex that it was not possible to group all lexical-semantic word groups into types. 223 c) explanatory dictionaries of Lithuanian and Russian do not mark regular derived meanings at all in the entries for nouns belonging to a particular lexical-semantic word group (the lower part of the cell is zero). In many cases, a lower figure for a lexical-semantic word group indicates inconsistent recording of regular derived meanings in these explanatory dictionaries. What determines how derived meanings of polysemous words are presented in lexicographic practice? 2. Factors determining the marking of regular derived meanings in explanatory dictionaries of various types The presentation of semantically homogeneous polysemous words in explanatory dictionaries of various types depends on linguistic (the productivity of lexical-semantic word groups, the currency of words and their meanings, frequency of use, etc.) and extralinguistic (dictionary type) factors. The presentation of regular derived meanings in explanatory dictionaries is determined by the productivity of lexical-semantic word groups. The research results show that the largest types [“whole”—“part of that whole,” “object of an action (material from which something is made)”—“result of that action,” “capacity, volume”—“its contents”] are presented more fully in large- and medium-sized explanatory dictionaries and much less frequently in small dictionaries. By contrast, the less productive lexical-semantic groups (“measure of loose materials”—“container for measuring materials,” “means or material of depiction”—“work of art”) and their regular derived meanings are proportionally scarce in explanatory dictionaries of all types. Regular derived meanings of some words are used in non-standard language (for example, in the lexical-semantic group “bird”—“the meat of that bird as a food product”—“a dish made from it”: hen, goose), whereas suffixal derivatives are widespread in standard language (chicken meat, goose meat). As a result, the statistical findings for some slots proved insignificant. Medium- and small-sized explanatory dictionaries are generally compiled according to general principles for selecting words. For example, DZ does not record the following nouns: bimbiras, čibuliokas, laišis, panelė, patisonas, pepinas, while RKZ excludes such rarely used words as ³ некан, тернослив, патиссон, мангостан, тамаринд. Frequency of use is not always the most important criterion when selecting words for MAŽ and RKZ, since these dictionaries also contain fairly rarely used words, e.g.: тмин, чечевица, маслина, каштан, кабачок, абрикос, etc. In such cases, the currency and relevance of words and their meanings should be taken into account. Meanings and shades of meaning that are no longer current in present-day usage are omitted from small dictionaries. For example, the sense of the word bėralas ‘bread made from unwinnowed rye’ is not recorded in DZ. Indeed, with changes in lifestyle and living conditions, such bread is no longer baked. With the disappearance of the referent itself, there is no longer 3 Частотный словарь русского языка.— М., 1977. 224 any need to record its linguistic expression. A word’s currency and frequency of use do not always determine the importance of a regular derived meaning. In Russian, the word медведь (frequency of use is fairly high—40) has the meaning ‘bearskin’ in its MAŽ entry, presented not only as having lost its currency but also as a stylistically connoted member. (Bearskins are, in fact, used fairly rarely in Russian daily life, which is why the meaning conveyed by this word is not widespread but is stylistically connoted.) Meanings and shades of meaning that are no longer current are marked in Lithuanian and Russian explanatory dictionaries with the labels psn., устар. For example, in the MAŽ entries for мускус and пенка, ‘products made from these materials’ is given with the label устар. It is assumed that these labels were added because the words are rarely used. There are instances in which the label psn. may be used somewhat imprecisely; for example, in LKŽ the word grafas is given with the label psn., whereas DŽ quite reasonably no longer uses this label, since the word grafas does not seem to be obsolete in Lithuanian but belongs to the category of historicisms. The lower result for the lexical-semantic word group “territory”—“people living or present in it” (0.9%, 0.7%) is considerably lower than the upper one (2.4%, 2.9%), because the words examined had lost their relevance in present-day language (e.g., seniūnija). The lexical-semantic word group “institution”—“its building, premises”—“people working in it” has a three-part structure. However, not all the words examined have three components. (Apparently, this is also why the lower calculated result is considerably below the upper one.) Regular derived meanings of some words are widely used in standard language. For example, in the entry for the noun salė, the meaning is presented as a shade of meaning: ‘the audience gathered in such a room, spectators, listeners.’ Such expressions are in fact quite numerous in fiction, for example, The hall kept rustling, but no longer so loudly P 1976 12. The defining feature of a hall as a room is that it is filled with people, usually performing certain functions; therefore, when preparing a new edition of DŽ, it is advisable to include this regular derived meaning in the small dictionary as well. The lexical-semantic word group “building, premises”—“people present in them” is particularly extensive. People prefer the shortest possible expression, which is widespread in colloquial speech, e.g.: After a while the whole ward claimed that my tears had been streaming at the time. Surprise gives way to comments. The ward comes to life.— Take him away,— the doctor told the orderly. The ward was silent. It is truly very difficult to comprehend dying Mač LN 113; It is undoubtedly necessary to differentiate the audience and know its needs and level of education LM 1979 4; What opportunities does an artist have to get to know the audience while preparing to go on tour? LM 1979 4; We learn the audience’s opinion at conferences of spectators and listeners LM 1978 32. In lexicographic practice, the stylistic characterization of the whole word and its meanings is particularly important. Based on the claim that there are three layers in the formation of figurative meanings of a polysemous word (upper, middle, and 15 Užsak. Nr. 1007 225 lower 4, regular polysemy indicates the development of a word’s semantic structure toward the lower layer; consequently, most regular derived meanings and their shades of meaning are stylistically neutral. Derived meanings formed by metonymy generally merely reflect reality and are figurative only in origin. Moreover, meanings of polysemous words formed metonymically denote phenomena of reality that are not characteristically subject to the speaker’s subjective evaluation; consequently, meanings formed in this way are usually stylistically neutral. Despite the general tendency toward stylistic neutrality, regular derived meanings of Lithuanian and Russian nouns in some lexical-semantic groups display a certain stylistic connotation, determined by the characteristics of their primary nominative meanings. It is particularly important to lexicographers that the stylistic labeling of words in explanatory dictionaries correspond to the actual situation throughout the language system 5. Derived meanings of Russian nouns forming the lexical-semantic group “musical instrument”—“person who plays that instrument” are stylistically connoted (for example, флейта, скрипка, фагот, кларнет). Derived meanings arise particularly productively in colloquial professional speech. The lower statistical result for the lexical-semantic word group “animal”—“the animal’s fur” in LKŽ and DŽ is considerably below the upper one. One reason may be the widespread use in standard language of derivatives with the suffix -ena to denote the fur of wild animals (br iedena, kiaurena, lapena, vilkena). Regular derived meanings are characteristic of the words audinė, nutrija, which have no suffixed derivatives. In non-standard language, Lithuanian nouns are also used to mean an animal’s fur: lapė, šuo, etc. It is very important to take stylistic connotation into account when selecting words and their meanings for explanatory dictionaries. The noun kinka in the lexical-semantic group “part of the human body”—“garment covering it” is generally used only in colloquial speech; therefore, DŽ records only its more widespread meaning, ‘leg; shin; thigh; knee joint.’ This partly explains why the lower statistical result for this group in DŽ (3.2%) is slightly lower than in LKŽ (3.8%). The presentation of regular derived meanings depends on the type of explanatory dictionary. In lexicographic practice, there are three types of explanatory dictionaries: 4 The upper layer of figurative meanings encompasses the strata of individual poetic language. This layer is taken into account when compiling a dictionary of a writer’s language, in which imagery is one of the most important features. In the lower layer of the development of figurative meanings, this feature has generally disappeared, and the meanings that arise in this way are objects of both general literary dictionaries and dictionaries of standard language. — Л е н д ь е л Л. «Переносное значение или «образное употребление слова»? — В кн.: Лексикография и лексикология. М., 1972, с. 58—59. 5 Some Russian linguists devote particular attention to problems of this kind. Efforts are being made to achieve stylistic unification not only within a single explanatory dictionary but also across explanatory dictionaries of different types. See: С к л я р е в с к а я Г. Н. Заметки о лексикографической стилистике.—В кн.: Современность и словари. Л., 1978, с. 101—111. 226 the large (LKŽ, DAŽ), medium (MAŽ), and small (DŽ, RKŽ) types, which differ not only in scope but also in purpose; these determine not only the selection of dictionary material and the structure of word entries, but also the entire characterization of their meanings⁶. Because of its broad scope, the large-type explanatory dictionary can encompass the entire lexico-semantic system of a language and present regular derived meanings as fully as possible. LKŽ (a thesaurus) has far greater capacity than DŽ to describe words characterized by regular polysemy, particularly since the lexicon it presents is treated from the perspectives of origin, usage, norm, and other aspects. LKŽ differs from other large-type explanatory dictionaries (e.g., Polish and Russian ones) in that its principal source is the dialects of Lithuanian—the living language of the people. The description of the abundant and varied dialect material comprising linguistic facts is of great value in revealing the development of the formation of the literary-language norm. In the words of linguist L. Kovtun, “analysis of a word’s meaning in colloquial speech reveals precisely those sources and causes of fluctuation, obsolescence, and renewal of the language norm that could not be identified even through a scrupulous study of the relations between words that form that meaning in literary-language texts alone”⁷. The dialect lexicon of LKŽ is especially important not only for examining the development of the language norm, but also for the semantic analysis of the structure of polysemous words. Indeed, dictionaries such as LKŽ can show what great potential for the development of a word’s semantic structure lies beyond the bounds of the literary-language norm. This is also confirmed by the abundance in LKŽ of regular derived meanings for nouns belonging to certain lexico-semantic groups. The principles for selecting words and their meanings on which DŽ is compiled limit the possibilities for presenting derived noun meanings in greater abundance. One of DŽ’s principal tasks is to standardize the lexicon. Consequently, some regular derived meanings, their nuances, and usages, for example: linas “linen cloth,” medus “an intoxicating drink made from honey; mead,” pusnaktis “a meal, food eaten at that time of day”; rūgtis “the stem or grain of that weed,” are not recorded in DŽ. Most of the words examined in LKŽ that have regular derived meanings (e.g., brandė, griežtinė, kibišas, kotiniai, ropučiai, etc.) are not included in DŽ at all. The regular meanings of polysemous Russian nouns are presented most extensively in DAŽ and MAŽ. The statistical results below for lexico-semantic groups also show this. For example, most words in the lexico-semantic group “plant”—“fruit of that plant”: морель, мирика, пинанга, цитрон, мангостан, etc., are not recorded at all in the small-type dictionary. 6 A. P. Evgenyeva. Definitions in Explanatory Dictionaries.— In: The Problem of Word Interpretation in Philological Dictionaries (Proceedings of the Meeting, October 31–November 3, 1961). Riga, 1963, p. 8. 7 L. S. Kovtun. Specific Features of the Characterization of Word Meaning in Different Types of Dictionaries.— In: Abstracts of Papers Presented at the Meeting Dedicated to the Results of Work on the “Dictionary of the Modern Russian Literary Language” (1948–1956) and Prospects for Work on Dictionaries of the Modern Russian Literary Language. Leningrad, 1966, p. 12. 227 Both linguistic and extralinguistic factors determining how regular derived meanings of nouns are marked in explanatory dictionaries of Lithuanian and Russian are fairly closely interconnected, and it is often difficult to determine which is most important when examining lexico-semantic groups of words. 3. Principles for Describing Polysemous Words In compiling an explanatory dictionary of any language, two opposing tendencies can be observed: one is the search for uniform ways to describe semantically homogeneous polysemous words that constitute a typology of regular polysemy 8; the other is the effort to find individual, distinctive criteria for describing polysemous words that would correspond as precisely as possible to the specific features not only of the word, but also of the type of explanatory dictionary. When presenting the regular meanings of polysemous words, explanatory dictionaries of all types are generally organized around a particular semantic model. This tendency is especially evident in large- and medium-type explanatory dictionaries, though it is not maintained uniformly in every dictionary. We have seen that sometimes a dictionary records only one part of a lexico-semantic group. For example, in the entries for фундук and гвоздика, which belong to the lexico-semantic group “plant”—“fruit of that plant,” MAŽ and RKŽ record only the meaning “fruit of that plant.” In the RKŽ entry for кокос, only “fruit of that plant” is given, whereas for other examples in this group (шелковица, можжевельник), only “plant” is given. In language, names of particular art forms most often arise from individual works of art (or vice versa) as their social significance and value increase. In this way, the lexico-semantic group “art form”⇔“an individual work or the collective body of works of that art form” takes shape in language. When constructing an entry for a polysemous word in explanatory dictionaries, it is very important to encompass “the principal concepts of real-world objects or phenomena denoted by that word” 9. The examples show that the words plakatas, vitražas, mozaika, keramika are also used to denote genres of fine art and painting: Thus a new genre of fine art was born—the art poster (LM 1979 48); Monumental painting forms—stained glass, mosaic, and mural painting—were hardly developed at all (LDI 125); Ceramics, like other branches of folk art, has characteristic ethnographic features (LDI 92). Both meanings are also characteristic of other words in this lexico-semantic group, e.g., grafika, peizažas, skulptūra, tapyba, etc. Lexicographers pay particular attention to these- 8 Z. I. Babitskene. Types of Regular Polysemy in Nouns in Russian and Lithuanian.— In: Diachrony and Typology of Languages: Linguistic Studies. Moscow, 1980, pp. 22–33. 9 F. P. Sorokoletov. Semantic Characterization of Terms in Explanatory Dictionaries.— Lexicographical Collection, 1962, issue 5, p. 126. 228 should be distinguished for such recently emerged meanings and adapted to the presentation of other words of this type in Lithuanian and Russian dictionaries.10 The formation and labeling of regular derived meanings in explanatory dictionaries within the entries of polysemous words is partly determined by the social function and importance of an object or material. The loanword reja, belonging to the lexical-semantic group “volume, capacity”—“amount of material that fits in it,” is usually used to denote a room where grain was dried. The object designated by this word has a narrow, specialized function. Therefore, in addition to its primary meaning, the word reja is also used to denote “the amount of grain that fits in such a threshing barn”: We threshed three barns’ worth Vkš. In fact, objects of one kind found in a particular room may acquire the room’s name, but when various objects are kept in it, they generally cannot be called by the name of that room (cf. cellar, meanings 1 and 2 in LKŽ). Although the lower statistical result for the lexical-semantic group “volume, capacity”—“amount of material that fits in it” is half the upper one, “amount of material that fits in various containers,” it is documented quite extensively in LKŽ, for example, tub, bucket, kettle, ladle, flask, and so on. Some words denoting the same object, but displaying different grammatical and morphological features in dialects, such as krepšys, krepšė, krežis, krežulys, pintė, pintinė, etc., do not have the meaning “quantity that fits in them” in their dictionary entries. The composition of an entry for a polysemous word, and the labeling of derived meanings and their nuances, depend in part on the illustrative material available. Many words that are semantically related, such as the aforementioned nouns denoting capacity, of which there are very many in everyday vocabulary, could be used to denote the quantity that fits in such containers, but have not been included in the dictionary because of a lack of illustrative material. The social importance of an object becomes especially apparent when examining the Russian lexical-semantic group of nouns “fish”—“a dish made from it; canned food.” In the semantic entries for the words шпрот, краб, сардина, килька, DAŽ gives their second meaning as “canned versions of these fish,” whereas no lexicographic resource records the meaning “canned food” for the names of other common fish, треска, тунец, ставрида, скумбрия, and so on. The differing treatment in dictionaries apparently depends on objective reality itself. After all, шпрот, шпроты are best known as a canned product, whereas треска, ставрида and other fish are generally sold as food in a variety of forms. Some fish (лосось, семга, etc.) are quite rare, even endangered, and for that reason MAŽ also does not record “canned versions of these fish.” The labeling of regular derived meanings of polysemous words in explanatory dictionaries also depends on the origin and social character of the words being described. In studying Lithuanian vocabulary, it was observed that regul- 10 Сергеев В. Н. Семантически близкие термины изобразительного искусства в современных толковых словарях русского языка.—В кн.: Современная русская лексикография.—Л., 1975, с. 137—144. 229 ar meanings are particularly characteristic of words widely used in Lithuanian dialects (cf. the semantic entry for balžienas in LKŽ and the words nailonas, katčiukas, which are terminological in nature and have been used in Lithuanian for a relatively short time). The breadth of the semantic range of polysemous words and the importance of the realities they denote raise new questions for lexicographic practice. Indeed, it is much easier to describe words with a narrower semantic range in a normative dictionary. In the semantic entry for klasė, DŽ does not record “group of pupils” alongside “room where a group of pupils studies,” because this polysemous word has a rather complex semantic structure. Words of this type that denote a particular room and its contents, such as namas, salė, salonas, etc., have a much simpler, narrower semantic range. This raises the question of the breadth of a word’s range, the importance of the realities it denotes, and the limits of a dictionary. A contradiction emerges between the complexity of semantic structure and the actual capacity of a dictionary to describe it adequately. It is probably impossible to present the regular meanings of polysemous nouns uniformly, not only in explanatory dictionaries of all three types, but also within each type individually. The reason lies in the regularity of semantic phenomena themselves. Semantics comprises both generalities and individual features, and an explanatory dictionary must take all of this into account. N. Kotelova, a researcher of the lexical and syntactic combinability of words and editor of dictionaries of Russian neologisms, states: “if words have similar semantic derivation, similar denotata, the same grammatical meaning, and belong to one semantic group, these features should form the basis for a unified lexicographic description; however, individual semantic differences between words must not be ignored. Different descriptions of similar words should not always be regarded as lexicographic inconsistency” 11. After all, in lexicographic work, creative selection is especially important, not only of individual words but also of their meanings. For example, any name of a science may acquire the meaning “a textbook setting out the fundamentals of a science.” The only exceptions may be sciences that denote broad, abstract concepts (for example, matematika, which encompasses several fields of science). In such cases, the cultural and historical aspect should also be considered (the level of scientific development, the general education system, courses of study, and textbooks). Perhaps the compilers of LKŽ and DAŽ, dictionaries that cover the vocabulary of both non-literary and literary language most extensively, are not entirely right to exclude the meaning “textbook” from the entries for biologija, psichologija, физиология, психиатрия, хирургия and so on. The presentation of regular derived meanings in Lithuanian and Russian explanatory dictionaries has a number of common features. These are reflected in the factors that determine how such meanings are labeled in different types of explanatory dictionaries, as well as in the principles used to describe polysemous words. Moreover, most types of regular polysemy and lexical-semantic groups are characteristic of both languages. 11 Котелова Н. З. Значение слова и его сочетаемость.—Л., 1975, с. 156. 230 In studying polysemous Lithuanian and Russian nouns, distinctive features of the lexical-semantic systems of both languages were observed. The lexical-semantic group “animal”—“the fur of that animal” is more characteristic of Russian nouns, whereas “volume, capacity”—“its contents” and “time of day”—“a meal eaten at that time” are characteristic of Lithuanian. The realization of regular derivative meanings in the two languages differs not only in the productivity or non-productivity of particular lexical-semantic groups of words, but also in the means used to express derivative meanings (“animal fur” is conveyed in Lithuanian by derivatives with the suffix -ena, and in Russian by words with regular derivative meanings; to denote “a food product—soup,” Lithuanian quite often uses suffixal derivatives, e.g., potato soup, cabbage soup, beet soup; within the lexical-semantic group “art form, genre”—“a separate work of that art form or genre, or the totality of such works,” the genre meaning is expressed in Lithuanian by singular nouns, while the work meaning is conveyed by nouns in both numbers; in Russian, both “genre” and “the totality of works” are expressed by singular nouns, etc.). The lexical-semantic groups under study were formed not purely from a contrastive perspective, but also on the basis of logical and linguistic criteria; therefore, it cannot be claimed that the dictionaries of one language or the other present regular derivative meanings more accurately and consistently. The regular derivative meanings of some lexical-semantic groups are presented more fully in Russian dictionaries, while those of others are presented more fully in Lithuanian lexicographic practice. 4. Conclusions 1. The marking of regular derivative meanings of polysemous nouns when arranging words into dictionary entries depends on the type of explanatory dictionary. Such meanings and their nuances are presented most fully in LKŽ, DAŽ, and MAŽ. 2. The inconsistent recording in lexicographic practice of synonymous meanings and nuances within the same lexical-semantic group depends on: a) the productivity of the lexical-semantic group of words; b) the degree of relevance of a word and its meanings, the extent and frequency of its use, as well as stylistic connotation; c) the principles used to describe a polysemous word, which are oriented not only toward certain semantic models but also toward the unique characterization of the word’s meaning; č) the social purpose, value, and practical importance of the objects or phenomena denoted by the word; d) the lack of illustrative material in the dictionary’s citation file to confirm the presence of the regular derivative meaning in the language, etc. 3. More accurate and consistent marking of regular derivative meanings of polysemous nouns in explanatory dictionaries might be facilitated by editing the dictionary (when possible) not alphabetically, but systematically, i.e., in thematic groups. 231 Presentation of Regular Derivative Meanings in Explanatory Dictionaries of Lithuanian and Russian Types Lexical-semantic groups Dictionaries LKŽ DZ DAŽ MAŽ RKŽ “Totality”—“a part of that totality” “plant”—“the fruit of that plant” (peach, tomato, caraway, кокос, черника) 12,1 12,1 11,2 11,2 14,9 14,9 14,3 13,7 13,9 12,4 “plant”—“the flower, leaves, branches of that plant” (lauras, липкас, кибис, сирень, эдельвейс) 10,1 9,2 10,2 8,8 6,2 5,5 6,5 6,3 5,8 5,4 “animal”—“the animal’s fur” (baronas, лисица, соболь, собака) 0,9 0,5 1,2 0,7 3,4 3,4 3,8 3,6 4,3 3,2 “art form”—“a separate work or the whole body of works of that art form” (romanas, grafika, музыка, керамика) 3,3 3,3 4,4 4,4 2,7 1,7 3,1 1,5 3,4 1,3 “science”—“a discipline within that science”—“a textbook presenting the fundamentals of that science” (gramatika, химия, психология) 3,5 0,2 4,6 0,2 2,2 2,2 2,5 0 2,8 0,2 “nation, nationality”—“a representative of that nationality” (финн, француз) — — — — 2,1 2,1 — — 1,3 1,3 “dance”—“the music for that dance” (klumpakojis, suktinis, valsas, танго, кадриль) 1,5 0,4 1,7 1,7 5,2 5,2 4,8 4 2,8 1,9 “name,” title, academic degree”—“a person bearing that name…” (profesorius, pulkininkas, лорд, генерал) 3,5 2,6 4,1 4,1 4,8 4,8 5 5 5,1 4,5 “voice”—“a singer with such a voice” (tenoras, бас, контральто, сопрано) 0,9 0,9 1,2 1,0 1 1 1 1 1,1 1,1 “Object of an action (material from which something is made)”—“the result of that action” “material (fabrics, alloys, etc.)”—“an item made from it (clothing, dishes)” (гор- ланас, аксомас, золото, серебро, фланель) 8,2 5,9 9,3 7,3 9,1 9,1 9,5 8,6 10,3 9,2 “tree”—“the timber of that tree” (raudonmedis, eglis, явор, орех) 4,6 1,5 5,9 0,5 2,1 1,4 2,3 0,2 2,6 0,4 “plant or fruit of that plant”—“a processed product made from it, a food product” (garstyčia, ramunėlė, mėta, шалфей, соя) 4,8 4,8 — — 6 6 5,7 5 5,4 4,9 “fish”—“a dish made from it; canned goods” (tunas, menkė, лосось, форель) 2,9 0 2,0 0,2 4,8 1,4 4,6 0,4 5,1 0,2 232 Lentelės tęsinys Types Lexical-semantic groups Dictionaries LKŽ DŽ DAŽ MAŽ RKŽ “bird”—“the meat of that bird as a food product”—“a dish made from it” (курица, индейка, гусь) — — — — 2,9 1,2 3,2 0,6 1,7 0 “plant or the fruit of that plant”—“material”—“a product made from it” (linas, medvilnė, džutas, kanapys) 1,3 1,3 1,5 1,5 1,4 1,4 1,5 1,3 1,1 1,1 “volume, capacity”—“its contents” (puodas, ėdžios, kup-rinė) 1,5 0,5 0,7 0,5 — — — — — — “volume, capacity”—“the amount of material it can hold” (muštuvė, bertuvė, rėtis, kopūstinė, ящик) 14,6 7,7 11,7 5,1 9,9 5,7 10,9 0,4 11,6 0 “institution”—“its building, premises”—“people working there” (paštas, policija, redakcija, канцелярия, монастырь) 9,0 5,9 11,5 6,3 9,9 8,9 10,7 5,9 11,8 3,4 “room”—“the furniture in that room” (кабинет, спаль-ная, гостиная) — — — — 0,5 0,3 0,6 0,4 0,6 0,6 “territory”—“people living or present in it” (kiemas, kaimas, квартал, село) 2,4 0,9 2,9 0,7 1,2 1,2 1,3 1,0 1,5 0,4 “unit of length”—“measuring instrument” (metras, centimetras, метр, сантиметр) 0,4 0,4 0,5 0,5 0,9 0,9 1 1 1,1 0,4 “measure of bulk materials”—“a vessel for measuring such materials” (горчица, пюра, четверть, штоф) 1,8 1,8 1,2 0,5 1 1 1,1 1 1,3 0,9 “musical instrument”—“person who plays that instrument” (скрипка, фа-гор, кларнет) — — — — 3,1 1 3,2 0 3 0 “musical composition”—“people who perform that composition” (секстет, сентет, трио) — — — — 1,2 1,2 1,3 1,3 1,3 0,9 “musical instrument”—“its sounds, music” (гар-мошка, дудка) — — — — 2,1 — 2,1 0,2 2,4 0,2 “means or material of representation”—“work of art” (акварель, гуашь, пастель) 0,5 0,5 0,2 0,2 0,7 0,7 — — — — 233 Continuation of the table Types | Lexical-semantic groups | Dictionaries | LKŽ | DZ | DAŽ | MAŽ | RKŽ „animal body part“—„meat of that part“ (liežuvis, papilvė, penenka) | 1.8 / 1.3 | 2.4 / 1.2 | 0.7 / 0.5 | — / — | 1.1 / 0.2 „human body part“—„garment covering it“ (pirštas, petys, nugara) | 4.4 / 3.8 | 4.4 / 3.2 | — / — | — / — | — / — „body organ“—„its illness“ (inkstai, plaučiai) | 1.8 / 0.2 | 2.4 / 0.2 | — / — | — / — | — / — „time of day“—„eaten, or to be eaten, at that time“ (pavakarė, pavakariai, pusvakarís) | 4.2 / 3.7 | 4.6 / 1.0 | — / — | — / — | — / — ABBREVIATIONS DAŽ— Dictionary of the Modern Russian Literary Language.— M.—L., 1948—1965, vols. 1—17 (Large Academic Dictionary). DŽ — Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian /2nd ed., supplemented.— V., 1972. LDI — XX a. lietuvių dailės istorija.— V., 1982, t. 1. LKŽ — Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language.— V., 1956—1981, vols. 1—12 (and its abridged editions). LM — Literature and Art. Mač LN — Mačiukevičius J. Laikrodžiai nesustoja.— V., 1968. MAŽ — Dictionary of the Russian Language.— M., 1957—1961, vols. 1—4 (Small Academic Dictionary). P — Victory. RKŽ — Ozhegov S. I. Dictionary of the Russian Language. 12th ed.— M., 1978. REGULAR DERIVED MEANINGS IN EXPLANATORY DICTIONARIES OF THE LITHUANIAN AND RUSSIAN LANGUAGES A b s t r a c t This article addresses several problems in representing regular derived meanings of polysemous nouns in explanatory dictionaries of Lithuanian and Russian. The research material (2,437 citation cards) was analyzed quantitatively, and the results are presented in a table. Based on the analysis of the material and on statistical data, it was established that the lexicographic description of words with regular polysemy depends directly on the type of explanatory dictionary. Regular derived meanings are most fully represented in the academic Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, the 17-volume Dictionary of Modern Russian Literary Language, and the 4-volume Dictionary of the Russian Language. Analysis of the material from a logical and linguistic (rather than purely comparative) perspective does not allow us to claim that dictionaries of Lithuanian or Russian reflect regular derived meanings of polysemous nouns more consistently. Depending on certain formal (grammatical, 234 morphological, etc.) features of the nouns under study, secondary, structurally uniform meanings in some lexico-semantic categories are represented more fully in Russian explanatory dictionaries, and in others in Lithuanian lexicographic practice. It was found that the lexicographic description of secondary, structurally uniform meanings in Lithuanian and Russian explanatory dictionaries is determined by a number of factors: a) the varying degree of currency of a given word or its individual meanings, frequency of use, and the semantic markedness of certain meanings in the semantic structure of a polysemous word; b) the productivity of the lexico-semantic category; c) principles for distinguishing meanings and shades of meaning in lexicographic practice, which are guided not only by semantic models but also by the degree to which a given word or meaning is conventional and frequently used; d) the degree of importance, at a given historical moment, of particular household items, natural resources, objects of human practical activity, and so on to the linguistic community. It would probably be more appropriate to edit a dictionary systematically, by thematic groups rather than alphabetically, in order to reflect more adequately the semantic structure of nouns with regular derived meanings in Lithuanian and Russian explanatory dictionaries.