Žodžių atrankos problema „Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodyne“

LIETUVIŲ KALBOS SPECIALIOJI LEKSIKA LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, XXII (1983) A. LYBERIS THE WORD SELECTION PROBLEM IN THE DICTIONARY OF CONTEMPORARY LITHUANIAN In the preface to his 1901 “Lithuanian Grammar,” J. Jablonskis complained that “the Lithuanian written language has not yet been developed,” and that it still contained many “fluctuations.” About 80 years have passed since that grammar appeared; during that time, the Lithuanian literary language has grown considerably, its lexicon has been enriched, and its grammatical, spelling, stress, pronunciation, stylistic, and other rules have become more firmly established, but “fluctuations” still occur in various areas of language. The task of the “Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian”1 (hereafter DŽ) is to help overcome these “fluctuations” and to carry out the important work of language standardization, above all in the field of vocabulary. DŽ does not aim to cover the entire wealth of Lithuanian words, all the words of Lithuanian folk speech or of texts written at any time. Its aim is primarily to present the words of contemporary literary Lithuanian, indicate their principal forms, spelling, and stress, explain their meanings, and illustrate them with brief, representative examples. In compiling DŽ, one of the most important questions is determining the dictionary’s composition, its word list. Difficulties in selecting words arise from the very diversity of the language’s lexical makeup. Words differ greatly in their structure, formation, semantic and syntactic relations, combinability, and chronological, social, and logical characteristics. The question of word selection becomes even more complicated when one considers the literary language, which encompasses both written and spoken language. Moreover, the dictionary must recognize not only the active vocabulary characteristic of the entire speech community, but also the passive vocabulary, which must likewise be included to some extent in a normative dictionary. One of the most difficult problems in compiling DŽ is the inclusion in the dictionary of lexical items that are neither “general” nor “standard.” Dialectal vocabulary poses the greatest difficulty, continually flowing into the literary language and diversifying it with new nominative, stylistic, and other elements. In general, dialects have been and remain the best source for enriching the Lithuanian literary language. Today, it would not occur to many people that such ordinary words as kaina, prekė, rūšis, derva, sija, skarda, and others were once by no means words of the literary language. As they enter the literary language, dialectal and spoken words demonstrate the continuous growth of its resources, as well as a process of lexical renewal and democratization. The continual interaction between the literary language and dialects poses a difficult problem of selecting dialect words for lexicographers and compels them to seek reliable criteria for word selection. The most important criterion for selecting words for DŽ ¹ Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas. – V., 1972. 147 is their establishment in usage and the breadth of their use in the literary language. If a dialect word or expression is used only in the works of one or two writers, it is usually not included in the dictionary. For example, the words krioklinis “a screamer” and išgyvenčius “a pauper” are used only in the writings of I. Simonaitė and are rightly omitted from DŽ. But the word lėnkė “hollow, valley” is used not only by I. Simonaitė, but also in works by Lazdynų Pelėda, Žemaitė, Valančius, Vaižgantas, and other writers, and is rightly included in DŽ. Many dialect words have long been used in works of fiction as a stylistic device to create local color or portray the real life of rural people. Some serve an ethnographic function; others relate to local people’s everyday life and customs; and some have even acquired terminological meanings, for example: darytinis “a Dzūkian dish made from curd,” luõkas “a hammer used to stun fish under the ice,” góža “a line of breaking sea waves,” saldà “a riverside area subject to flooding.” The Dzūkian word nudienis is now often used in the press as a substitute for the synonym “today’s.” Social factors also contribute substantially to the spread of dialect words into the literary language. The users of the literary language now comprise the whole nation—people not only from cities but especially from villages, all those who know their own dialects well. It cannot be said that dialect words are presented in DŽ perfectly, or that nothing could be changed. The dictionary includes more than 2,000 dialect words marked žem. (Samogitian), ryt. (eastern Highlander), vak. (western Highlander), dz. (Dzūkian), or simply tarm. (dialectal). It seems this number could be much smaller. Many dialect words included in DŽ could remain solely in the multivolume “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language,” since they have not become widely established in the literary language. Here is a small selection of such examples: 1) Samogitian: aigara “a chaff, a straw; a little crumb,” aimata “mischief; jokes; a prankster,” čėižti “to strike, beat,” čiōpa “someone who fondles or fiddles with things; a slowpoke,” dýkas “mischievous, dissolute,” drākoti “to trample, ravage,” drezėti “to begrudge, regret,” dugnólis “the large intestine,” gāgrė “a sloven, a slob,” gybena “someone wasting away, a dying person,” glimius “slimy,” gramantas “a clod, a lump,” gūdnōtrėlė “nettle,” gvizdė “a frivolous woman, a flirt,” įstingu “at once, right from the start,” ývas “an owl,” kerėžytis “to quarrel, fight,” klānkis “a bell,” klekmenė “confusion; turmoil; worry,” kliōka “a simpleton; a chatterbox,” kliōpti “to gulp or drink greedily,” kliurmai “dregs, sediment,” kreīštis “to resist, oppose; to encroach,” krūpė “a toad,” kumpōsas “a tree or person grown crooked; a crooked person,” nākabis “the devil,” otrūs “sensitive, tender; zealous,” páitvėtis “to suffer, struggle,” pýlė “a duck,” putelis “a guelder rose,” rībulti “to roll, wind,” skaudūs “stingy,” snōpis “a sleepyhead,” spāgas “a drop,” strūbas “short, stubby,” šatrūs “lively, nimble,” štikti “to manage, succeed,” vambolė “a dark-haired person,” vaīstas “summer crops,” žagata “a magpie,” žėbelės “nonsense,” žvygsóti “to shine”; 2) eastern Highlander: aīgyti “to prick, sprout,” akėivos “spells, an optical illusion,” akīvas “keen-eyed,” atšīžus “disgusting,” bilčius “scolding, punishment,” čėčiūoti “to chop, peck; to lash,” dangōjus “clothes, covering,” drīžti “to carry or drag with difficulty,” duōgas “intelligence, understanding,” gaīmaras “a slowpoke; a lazy person,” gyvakaras “someone weak, barely alive,” griaunà “a crust of bread, a heel,” īsas “short,” išōdas “a son-in-law living in his wife’s household,” jóvaidas “a rascal, a rowdy,” kepėšyti “to talk back, argue,” krovōti “to move things around, arrange,” liktis “a flaw, a shortcoming,” maīdara “a frivolous person,” mazgōlis “a rag,” mėkena “a clumsy person, a simpleton,” mugōti “to splash through mud,” pāivyti 148 “to beat, thrash,” párpelai “dumplings,” pėikštus “sensitive, tender,” pratėgė “empty space,” pūiris “rotten wood,” pūžas “a small, stout person,” sėbinti “to save,” sinkus “small,” slistis “optical illusion,” spandà “prop,” svóti “to force, offer,” šláimas “thaw,” šlainùs “gentle, not steep,” švídras “whirlpool, whirlwind,” táinoti “to tangle, entangle,” úonioti “to sniff”; 3) Western Aukštaitian: ãmas “promise, voice,” buīrgė “quagmire; slush,” čiūnčyti “to delay, dawdle,” čirti “to languish, fail to grow, diminish,” dùlbšti “to work slowly, fiddle about,” gneizà “sloppiness,” grūinas “bare, plain,” kiūtena “slovenly, careless person,” kriaūkalas “clod,” legóti “to swallow or eat greedily,” maištrium “in a mixed, jumbled manner”; 4) Dzūkian: aivà “enough,” dylàtė “delay,” dvėliuoti “to breathe with difficulty,” grauzdūs “angry, rough,” gūžoti “to dress warmly and heavily, wrap up,” kivinklas “obstacle; misfortune,” kupūrna “tussock, sod,” kvókšti “to speak in a hoarse voice; wheeze,” liūlyš “beetle, cockchafer,” and so on. We would search in vain for these words in the writings of a few authors. They never became widely established in the literary language. The dictionary compilers’ efforts to spread these words in the literary language were unsuccessful. The main reason was their rarity and the presence in the language of more familiar substitutes. Colloquial words are close to dialect words (šnek.). It is regrettable that they are not discussed more fully in the introduction to DŽ. Briefly, they may be described as words marked by freedom and informality of expression, sometimes even by roughness or mockery. They often carry a derogatory or contemptuous connotation; they express something vividly and hyperbolically, e.g.: bóba, pati “wife,” sėnis, pats “man,” kimšti, kiŕšti, kūopti “to eat greedily, eat a lot,” kūrti, máuti, šveisti “to run fast,” and so on. Colloquial words are often dialect words that have crossed a territorial threshold, and it can be quite difficult, or simply impossible, to distinguish them precisely.² DŽ includes over 2,000 of them, but a large proportion are pure dialect words, e.g.: ardà “discord, disagreement,” arénti “to growl, bark,” bàbaliuoti “to talk nonsense, babble,” bãkoti “to stuff, push in,” baldà “banging and clattering; trouble, worry,” bigė “a blunt knife; a short tail,” biznas “tailless; short, stubby,” blazgátyti “to slap, swear; chase; make a racket,” čiunkúoti “to knead, crush; slosh; rock,” dýkbandė “young, unused livestock,” diñderis “lazybones, vagabond,” driumbėti “to run noisily; rumble,” gangarioti “to wander about,” gógla, gōželis “fool,” gīra “a large, stooping person,” jūšinti “to move, stir,” kėkšis “a hooked pole, hook,” kemėža “a weakling; runt,” kėrežioti “to walk awkwardly, stride; pile up, heap,” kevėkšlinti “to walk slowly,” kibýklas “a broken, dilapidated object, a piece of junk,” kibinklas “obstacle; discord,” kiketa “laughter; someone who laughs,” kiusnóti “to trot on horseback,” klibinda “a rickety object; a lame person,” klūbundúoti “to walk with difficulty, stumbling,” kniúša “a half-wit, dullard,” kniūrā “a gloomy person; crybaby,” kvánka “a dolt, simpleton,” letėžis “a poor cake; weakling,” maulioti “to trudge through mud,” mugulys “a restless person,” mūkulas “a lump,” pliovà “a chatterbox,” repėža “a small, clumsy person,” švająs “talkative,” švóti “to chatter,” talavykas “chatterbox, babbler,” tirvinti “to carry or drag with difficulty,” vãdala “vagabond,” zykti “to whine,” žlūgas “something waterlogged; mudhole,” and so on. In future editions of DŽ, these could be omitted altogether, or at least their stylistic labels could be changed. 2 Pikčilingis J. Stilistika. — V., 1975, t. 2, p. 97. 149 DŽ contains about 250 words marked psn. These are obsolete words or forms, so-called archaisms, e.g.: brotis “brother,” gyvatà “life,” kali- nỹs “prison,” kodrin “why” (the corresponding todrin “therefore” is not included!), namópi “toward home,” savėspi “toward oneself, into oneself,” and so on. These words occur occasionally in works of fiction as a stylistic device for creating historical color or conveying the spirit of antiquity. Some archaisms listed in DŽ are words that have long since fallen out of use, e.g.: bãžmas “multitude, abundance,” nãrsas “anger, fury,” pãdūkis “hope, confidence,” prekijas “merchant,” rãštininkas “writer,” sãvastis “property,” tvarinỹs “creation,” vaizbà “trade,” vėtušas “old,” viešė “courtyard, homestead,” and so on. A normative dictionary would probably have to omit them, since they are no longer in use. In characterizing obsolete words, DŽ contains certain inaccuracies. The same label psn. is sometimes applied not only to obsolete words—archaisms—but also to words denoting phenomena of a bygone life and people’s old way of life, e.g.: põnas, ponià, panelė, kū́mas, prašymas, priegláuda, prieváizdas, prakilnýbė, kvortà, márgas “0.5 ha,” valãkas, pagõlyvė “personal tax,” egzekucija, licitãcija, liokãjus, and so on. These words are not obsolete, and we have no substitutes for them; it is only the concepts and phenomena they denote that have become obsolete. It would therefore be more accurate to use two labels for this purpose: arch. (archaism)—an obsolete word, form, or expression; and psn.—an obsolete, disused object, phenomenon, or concept. DŽ includes a minimal number of obsolete borrowings that are alien to the literary language (pečius, kakalys, kaštas, prosas, and so on). Borrowings that occur in folklore and works of fiction for particular stylistic purposes can be highly informative for readers. Acad. L. Shcherba believes that “negative language material, carefully selected and presented in a normative dictionary with certain labels, can be very useful, especially in combating free but unacceptable word combinations.”⁳ A special publication⁴ has been issued for this purpose in Lithuanian, so there is no need to expand the number of borrowings in DŽ. During the period of the Soviet system, Lithuanian terminology grew enormously. In this age of the scientific and technological revolution, a vast number of specialized designations—terms denoting various concepts in science, art, technology, production, culture, and social life—entered the Lithuanian language. We now have more than 30 dictionaries of various kinds of terminology. There are already tens of thousands of terms, and that number continues to grow. Their inclusion in general dictionaries poses one of the most difficult problems. In lexicographic work, a variety of tendencies are evident here: some lexicographers propose including all terms in general dictionaries, while others propose excluding them altogether, since no dictionary can encompass them all⁵. Against these extreme tendencies, the task now being set is to find criteria for developing a flexible methodology for presenting terms in general dictionaries. It is proposed that general dictionaries include only those terms which, while specialized, are also li- 3 Щерба Л. В. Опыты общей теории лексикографии. Языковая система и речевая деятельность. — Л., 1974, с. 288. 4 Kalbos praktikos patarimai. — V., 1976. 5 Князькова Г. П. К проблеме отбора слов в словарях. — В кн.: Современность и словари. Л., 1978, с. 20. 150 literary language property. It is considered how widely a given term has taken root in the language. If it is used not only in specialist literature but also in journalism, the press, and works of fiction, that is grounds for including it in general dictionaries. Preference should be given to terms used in several branches of science, e.g.: elementas, etapas, reakcija, sfera, ieškinys, įtampa, and so on. Particular attention should be paid to secondary-school textbooks, since the terms used in them are the most general and most necessary. Their nonterminological features must also be taken into account—their vividness, emotional coloring, and capacity to form comparisons and fixed word combinations. Other criteria, such as the criteria of a term’s currency and its social significance, may also be used to overcome the difficulties of term selection. In contemporary life, terms from sports, astronautics, electronics, nuclear physics, cybernetics, and other fields have become highly current. It has been observed that terms denoting generic rather than specific concepts enter common usage more quickly. Therefore, names of machines, devices, and apparatuses are more often included in dictionaries as names of parts of those machines, devices, and apparatuses. DŽ includes terms to highly varying degrees—several hundred are given from some specialized fields, while from others there are scarcely one or two. The list below shows the quantitative distribution of terms in DŽ. botany — 718 (words) geometry — 28 technology — 230 economics — 24 medicine — 149 philosophy — 23 chemistry — 103 architecture — 14 history — 97 ethnography — 13 grammar — 90 astronomy — 10 military terms — 83 veterinary medicine — 8 mathematics — 82 agriculture — 8 physics — 80 pharmacy — 7 linguistics — 74 finance — 6 sports — 73 agronomy — 3 anatomy — 72 physiology — 3 literature — 62 folklore — 3 music — 61 commerce — 3 ecclesiastical — 60 mythology — 3 cookery — 48 textiles — 3 specialist — 40 photography — 2 biology — 36 aviation — 2 law — 34 mineralogy — 1 geography — 32 psychology — 1 politics — 29 construction — 1 DŽ contains about 2,500 terms marked with these labels. About 400 more terms should be added to this number; they have no labels, but their place is taken by corresponding definitions. Thus, DŽ contains about 2,900 terms, or 5% of the total number of words. This is not a large number compared with dictionaries of other languages (for example, according to L. Stupinas’s calculation, about 23% are included in the English Webster’s dictionary⁶). 6 Ступин Л. П. Некоторые замечания в связи с работой над новым академическим словарем. — Вест. ЛГУ. 1975, т. 8, вып. 2, с. 150. 151 As we can see from the list, DŽ lacks terms from electronics, hydrology, meteorology, typography, navigation, and other fields. From construction, agronomy, agriculture, and other areas, only one or a few are included. The question arises whether labels are needed for fields from which only a few terms are given. Although pedagogy appears in the list of abbreviations, the Dictionary contains not a single word marked with that abbreviation. On the other hand, the list of abbreviations does not include mišk. (forestry) or log. (logic) labels, but they occur from time to time in the dictionary text (see: proskiebis, silogizmas). As in every major work, inconsistencies and omissions occur in DŽ. For example, the names of young animals and birds are amply represented: kačiukas “a young cat,” šuniukas “a young dog,” tigriukas, pelėdžiukas, pempiukas, and so on; but kiškiukas is missing (although zuikiukas is included), as is peliukas (although žiurkiukas is included), along with kregždižiukas, and so on. As we saw from the list, plant names are the most numerous among the terms, but some apple-variety names well known to gardeners are missing: kriaušinis, molinis, pepinas, vėlsis, and so on. Some names of ornamental plants and flowers well known to florists are missing: aronija, hortenzija, gerberą, puošmedis, šiendreikė, and so on. The Dictionary should also be supplemented with other terms now widely used: aerozolis chem., aktualija, aukštalipys, -ė, greitkelis, informatika, kampuotis tech., krimplinas tekst., skriejikas tech., and even with certain words now used in everyday speech: atostogpinigi ai, aulinukai “short-top boots,” degalinė “gas station,” išradyba, merlė, pakuotė, pėdukė “a short foot sock,” pynutė “a braided bun,” poilsiavietė, šliaužtinukai “baby trousers,” taksininkas, -ė, vardatėviai, žūklavietė, and so on. The issue of selecting phonetic and morphological word variants becomes a live one. The DŽ includes over a thousand of them, most with the normative cross-reference see (=see), and others without that cross-reference. A considerable number of these variants are words that have long since fallen out of use in the literary language, e.g.: ankštybas – early, bailė – fear, dalgė – scythe, driežlas – lizard, dūksauti – sigh, dulsis – muffled, dumburys – bottom, kalčia – guilt, kerėbla – clumsy person, klienas – slender, skomà, skōmas – taste, ruišas – lame, skraitas – swift, spiètilus – swarm, and so on. It is doubtful whether they should be included in future editions of the DŽ. The selection of verbal nouns, the so-called “nomina actionis” and “nomina agentis,” presents considerable difficulties for the compilers of DŽ. If they have no distinctive meaning, they are included under the verbs from which they are derived; if they have a distinctive or terminological meaning, they are listed separately as headwords. In their letters to the editorial board of DŽ, some readers have complained that these nouns are represented very unevenly in the dictionary—some verbs have them listed, while others do not. This inconsistency, they claim, persists throughout the dictionary. They propose that “nomina actionis” and “nomina agentis” be listed under all verbs without exception. What can be said in response? Verbal nouns are so common that they can be formed from almost every verb and included in a dictionary. Some older lexicographers did this (Fr. Kuršaitis, G. Neselma nas). The opposite approach is also possible. Since their formation is very simple, and their meanings 152 Since they are self-evident, there is no point in including them in the dictionary at all. It seems that neither opinion is acceptable. Mechanically forming them and adding them under every verb leads to the creation of words that do not exist and are unnecessary. On the other hand, rejecting them goes against language practice—for most of them are widely known and used words. Thus, the best course is to follow the general principles of word selection: include in the DŽ only those words that are known and used in the language and that can, when necessary, be supported by living examples. Lithuanian has many adjectives with the suffixes -inis, -ė, -iškas, -a. They can be formed from almost any noun, especially one with a concrete meaning. Adjectives with the suffix -inis, -ė are also formed from adjectives themselves (saldus – saldinis), numerals (pirmas – pirminis), participles (dirbtas – dirbtinis), and even adverbs and prepositions (iš anksto – išankstinis, aplink – aplinkinis). Their treatment in the DŽ is most often cross-referential: an arrow indicates the base word from which they are derived. To save space, adjectives with the suffixes -inis, -ė, -iškas, -a, if they have no distinctive meaning, could be presented just like “nomina actionis” and “nomina agentis,” i.e., in the same entry as the words from which they are derived. This would provide another way to make room for more necessary words. Future editions of the DŽ should include fewer compounds whose formation is self-evident, for example: baltakaklis, -ė “having a white neck,” juodasparnis, -ė “having black wings,” penkiol ikametis, -ė “fifteen years old,” and so on. It is not only impossible but also unnecessary to include all words formed in a similar way in the DŽ, since their meaning is clear to readers from their component parts. The DŽ practice is to give only the first component of such words, followed by a hyphen, and explain what the compounds formed with it mean, for example daugia- “in compounds, indicates a large number or abundance.” Under the headword daugia-, only words with distinctive or terminological meanings are then listed, for example: daugiakampis, daugiak ovė, daugiast āklinin-kis, and so on, while all the others are omitted. This method of treating such words should be used more extensively in future editions of the DŽ. In this way, space could be saved for more necessary words. The DŽ lists and explains prefixes separately. Knowing the meanings of a prefix makes it easy to understand what a word containing that prefix means. Suffixes perform functions in language no less important than those of prefixes. Some of them are highly productive in contemporary Lithuanian. Many new words are now formed with the noun suffixes -inin-kas, -umas, -yba, -ybė, -ykla, -iklis, -uvas, among others. The adjective suffixes -inis, -iškas, -ingas, -uotas, -otas, -ėtas are highly productive. Thus, there is a need to present suffixes in the DŽ in the same way as prefixes. But Lithuanian has a great many suffixes. The academic Lithuanian Grammar (Part I) lists more than 600 noun suffixes alone. It is impossible to list and explain all the suffixes in a compact dictionary. Nevertheless, it would be very useful to explain in the dictionary the most productive and most frequently used suffixes. The DŽ could include about 30 noun suffixes, about 20 adjective suffixes, and about 10 verb suffixes. 153 All this shows that future editions of the DŽ must be continually improved, both in their selection of words and in the presentation of variants and other respects. Considerable work was done to improve the DŽ by comparing the second edition with the first (1954). Further work on improving the DŽ must continue simply because language is constantly changing and developing, and new words and expressions are continually appearing in it. Preparations for this work must begin in advance, both by collecting relevant material for the dictionary and by discussing various lexicographic issues. As more precise methods gain ground in linguistics, much attention is being devoted to frequency dictionaries, whose value for word selection is unquestionable. Yet so far no one is compiling comprehensive Lithuanian frequency dictionaries. As the history of lexicography shows, one of the most important conditions for creating good explanatory dictionaries of a national language is continuity in lexicographic traditions, with due regard for trends in the development of the language, especially for the resolution of the latest grammatical, stylistic, lexicographic, and lexicological problems. THE PROBLEM OF WORD SELECTION IN THE “DICTIONARY OF THE CONTEMPORARY LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE” Abstract When compiling the Dictionary of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language, one of the most important problems is the inclusion in its vocabulary of lexical strata that are not “universal.” Dialectal vocabulary presents particular difficulties, as it continually enters the literary language. The Dictionary appears to contain too many dialect words. Some words marked šnek. (colloquial) may be classified as dialectisms. The Dictionary does not always clearly distinguish obsolete words (archaisms) from words denoting obsolete concepts or phenomena. Compared with other lexical strata, the Dictionary should be supplemented with current scientific terms and specialized words from such fields as agriculture, construction, space exploration, cybernetics, and others. Phonetic and morphological variants of words are represented too abundantly in the Dictionary, since some are used very rarely in the contemporary literary language. It would be useful to give certain more frequently used suffixes of Lithuanian words their own dictionary entries, as has been done with verbal prefixes. Since the living language is constantly developing and changing, the dictionary’s vocabulary should be reviewed repeatedly and supplemented with new words and expressions. The most important conditions for creating a good Dictionary are taking account of past experience and drawing on the latest achievements in lexicography, grammar, stylistics, and other areas of linguistics.