KATARZYNA PROROK

Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin

ORCID id: orcid.org./0000-0002-7410-6970

RESEARCH AREAS: ethnolinguistics, lexicography, Polish folk culture.

DOI: doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2023.96.03

DICTIONARY OF FOLK STEREOTYPES AND SYMBOLS AS AN ETHNOLINGUISTIC DICTIONARY (BASED ON THE ENTRY PERZ)

KEYWORDS: ethnolinguistics, dictionary, cognitive definition, folk culture, stereotype, symbol.

ABSTRACT

The article presents the Dictionary of Folk Stereotypes and Symbols, published in Lublin under the editorship of Jerzy Bartmiński and Stanisława Niebrzegowska-Bartmińska Dictionary of Folk Stereotypes and Symbols. The method of definition adopted in the Dictionary is the cognitive definition developed within the Lublin ethnolinguistic tradition, which makes it possible to reconstruct, from the subject’s perspective, the image of the world preserved in folk language and culture. In the first part of the article, the author presents the main methodological assumptions of the Dictionary, while in the second she demonstrates their practical application using the as-yet-unpublished version of the entry couch grass.

ABSTRACT

The paper presents the Dictionary of Folk Stereotypes and Symbols, published in Lublin, edited by Jerzy Bartmiński and Stanisława Niebrzegowska-Bartmińska. The defining method adopted in the Dictionary is that of cognitive definition developed on the basis of Lublin ethnolinguistics. It allows for a subjective reconstruction of the image of the world preserved in folk language and culture. In the first part of the paper, the author presents the main methodological assumptions of the Dictionary, and in the second part she shows their practical implementation based on the example of the yet unpublished version of the entry elymus.

54

BENDRINĖ KALBA | 96

The aim of the article is to present—in theory and in practice—the Lublin Dictionary of folk stereotypes and symbols (SSiSL 1996–2022), whose concept was devised by Jerzy Bartmiński (1939–2022) and developed over the years together with Stanisława Niebrzegowska-Bartmińska and a team of collaborators. The term “ethnolinguistic dictionary,” used in the title, comes from J. Bartmiński. Along with the term “dictionary of the language of folklore,” it appeared in 1980 in the editorial introduction to the trial fascicle of the Dictionary of Folk Linguistic Stereotypes (SLSJ 1980), which announced the first volume of the Dictionary of Folk Stereotypes and Symbols, published more than a decade later. Thus, more than forty years ago, when ethnolinguistics was only beginning to develop in Poland, J. Bartmiński already had a vision of a new type of dictionary¹, one that would reconstruct the folk worldview:

The dictionary of the language of folklore will be an ethnolinguistic dictionary. It will present the vocabulary of folklore (“oral collective creativity”) as a component of a particular culture, with emphasis on semantics rather than linguistic forms. <....> The main aim of our dictionary will be to analyze and describe linguistic stereotypes preserved in folk culture (Bartmiński 1980: 10–11).

For years, the concept behind the trial fascicle and the main volumes of the Dictionary has been the subject of lively scholarly debate. Many reviews and analytical articles have been published, undoubtedly exerting a significant influence on the present form of the Dictionary². Numerous master’s theses and doctoral dissertations were also written, in which the method was, in a sense, tested and preliminary versions of entries prepared. Today, when the Lublin school of ethnolinguistics is increasingly discussed (cf. Zinken 2009, 2015), the trial fascicle of the Dictionary may be regarded as its “programmatic manifesto,” and the main volumes of the Dictionary as a methodological foundation for other studies in ethnolinguistics that reconstruct the worldview preserved in language. Significantly, the research tools developed in the course of preparing the Dictionary are used successfully not only in studies related to folk cul-

¹ In his review of the trial fascicle, Andrzej Marii Lewicki wrote that “the Dictionary of Folk Linguistic Stereotypes edited by J. Bartmiński is an extremely bold lexicographic experiment, perhaps even too bold for the current state of semantic research” (Lewicki 1984: 587).

² Więcej na temat Słownika, jego historii i recepcji zob.: Bartmiński 1988a, b, 1996; Bartmiński, Niebrzegowska-Bartmińska 2016; Niebrzegowska-Bartmińska 2009, 2010, 2013; Prorok 2022.

KATARZYNA PROROK. Słownik stereotypów i symboli ludowych jako słownik etnolingwistyczny (na przykładzie hasła perz)

55

ture, but also, more broadly, with national culture and in comparative studies across the cultures of different nations³. In the rest of the article, I would like briefly to present the Dictionary and its methodological assumptions, and then show how they are put into practice using the example of a preliminary, as yet unpublished version of the entry perz.

The main methodological principles were set out by J. Bartmiński in the introduction to the first volume of the Dictionary, entitled Kosmos (1996), and, with minor modifications, have been applied by the dictionary team to this day, indicating that the solutions proposed at the time have proved effective. The aim of the Dictionary remains unchanged:

The Dictionary of Folk Stereotypes and Symbols is an attempt to reconstruct the traditional worldview and view of the human being, using the methods of ethnolinguistics and folklore studies. This image—preserved in language, folklore, and rituals—is the key to understanding the culture, the attitude toward the world present within it, and its distinctive mentality (Bartmiński 1996: 9).

The Dictionary is organized thematically and is planned to comprise seven volumes, as shown in Fig. 1.

FIG. 1. Dictionary of Folk Stereotypes and Symbols – volume structure (SSiSL 1996: 2).

³ Za przykład może tu posłużyć Leksykon aksjologiczny Słowian i ich sąsiadów (2015–2019), wydawany w ramach międzynarodowego projektu (konwersatorium) badawczego EUROJOS – Językowo-kulturowy obraz świata Słowian i ich sąsiadów na tle porównawczym. Jego celem jest dokonywanie paralelnych analiz semantycznych istotnych pojęć aksjologicznych (konceptów) na materiale różnych języków słowiańskich i „sąsiadujących” z nimi innych języków europejskich.

56

BENDRINĖ KALBA | 96

The division adopted is largely related to the increasing semantic complexity of the entries and is intended to show the folk image of the world and the human being in the “biblical” order of creation (the only departure is the placement of religion not at the beginning but near the end of the sequence). Importantly, the Dictionary is intensive (not extensive) in character; accordingly, it includes only selected entries of cultural importance. To date, four fascicles of the volume Cosmos: Sky, Heavenly Bodies, Fire, Stones (1996), Earth, Water, the Underworld (1999), Meteorology (2012), and The World, Light, Metals (2012) have been published, along with seven fascicles of the volume Plants: Cereals (2017), Vegetables, Spices, Industrial Plants (2018), Flowers (2019), Herbs (2019), Fruit and Coniferous Trees (2020), Deciduous Trees (2021), and Shrubs and Dwarf Shrubs (2022). The final plant fascicle, Plant Communities, Weeds, Fungi, is being prepared for publication. In 2022, with grant support from the National Programme for the Development of the Humanities, preparations began for the volume Animals, for which five fascicles are planned, covering the fields of domestic animals, wild animals, fish, amphibians and reptiles, birds, and insects.

Unlike typical language dictionaries, the units described in the Dictionary are neither real objects nor words, but “mental objects,” “semantic correlates situated between words and objects, or, in other words, social representations of objects.” They are accessible both through data contained in language and texts, and through records of beliefs and descriptions of behaviour (Bartmiński 1996: 14). This approach allows us to describe the Lublin dictionary as an ethnolinguistic dictionary, as J. Bartmiński writes:

The ethnolinguistic character of our Dictionary consists <...> above all in treating language in the context of culture: consequently, it entails going beyond purely linguistic data (lexicon and semantics, which are, of course, the basis of the Dictionary), taking language use into account, drawing on socially established beliefs and practices that create the context of verbal utterances (one that is accompanying language, not extralinguistic), and even using (albeit only fragmentarily) information from the field of folk visual art (ornamentation and painting). In short, what is ethnolinguistic is the way of understanding the subject of an entry, the object described in our Dictionary (Bartmiński 1996: 11–12).

Analysis of such diverse data is possible thanks to the adopted method of definition—the cognitive definition—which draws on everyday thinking about the world and seeks to elicit all the positive features

KATARZYNA PROROK. Słownik stereotypów i symboli ludowych jako słownik etnolingwistyczny (na przykładzie hasła perz)

57

definiowanego przedmiotu, które są relewantne kulturowo (Bartmiński 1988a: 2009). W definicji kognitywnej analiza znaczeń jest wieloaspektowa, co objawia się m.in. tym, że zdania definicyjne ułożone są w niej zwykle w specjalne kategorie semantyczne (fasety), czyli zespoły z jakiegoś punktu widzenia jednorodne (np. nazwa, pochodzenie, kompleksy i kolekcje, opozycje, wygląd, właściwości, zastosowania). Podział na fasety pozwala wniknąć w „strukturę poznawczą haseł” i odnaleźć powiązania między różnymi tekstami. Umożliwia także łatwiejsze operowanie materiałem, jego analizę i porównanie. Co warto podkreślić, rodzaj, kolejność i wypełnienie faset nie są narzucone z góry, ale powinny każdorazowo wydobywać na jaw wewnętrzną, ukrytą w analizowanym materiale charakterystykę przedmiotu. Przed mechanicznym wydzielaniem faset przestrzegają redaktorzy Słownika:

We wish to emphasize <...> with all possible force that neither the parameterization of definitions (the identification of facets) nor their substantive content, introduced through stereotypical motifs (sentences containing judgments about the object), may be imposed mechanically from the outside, from the position of an external observer. Rather, each time they should bring to light the object’s internal (immanent) characteristics, hidden in the material under analysis, from the perspective of the bearer and participant in the culture being studied (Bartmiński, Niebrzegowska-Bartmińska 2013: 60).

Since the cognitive definition is primarily cognitive in character, it seeks to take account of all the established and culturally important features of a given (typical) object and to “tell” about it in the most accessible way⁴; it takes the form of a “narrative about the object” (Bartmiński 2014) and is usually more elaborate than typical lexicographical definitions.

By design, each entry article consists of two main parts: an explanatory part and a documentary part⁵, which are connected by numerical cross-references, so that the characterizations cited in the explication

⁴ The cognitive definition advocates moving away from scientific language and using everyday language (style), which is “the simplest, most concrete, and closest,” preserving “elementary structures of thought and perception of the world, associated with the elementary needs of human beings in elementary existential situations” (Bartmiński 2001: 115–117).

⁵ Longer entries are additionally provided with a “table of contents” (listing the facets that appear in sequence in the explication and the genres of texts that make up the documentation); a “capsule” (a summary of the entry); a general cultural introduction (showing how the subject of the entry functions in other cultures); a bibliography; and a list of cross-references to other dictionary entries cited in the entry.

58 BENDRINĖ KALBA | 96

the entries are supported by “evidence” in the form of specific contexts in the documentation. For shorter entries, the documentation is most often incorporated in its entirety into the explication. The explication—usually organized into facets—presents, in the form of defining statements, “the established characteristics that the entry’s subject acquires in folk tradition and that make it possible to reconstruct its linguistic-cultural image” (Bartmiński 1996: 13).

The documentation consists of quotations (sometimes summaries or accounts) drawn mainly from formulaic folk texts, such as proverbs, riddles, incantations, songs, legends, folktales, and tales. All texts are provided with so-called source records (abbreviations of the sources from which they come) and arranged into variants, under which “stereotypical motifs” are organized. These motifs, recorded as quotations or in the researcher’s metalanguage, are constructed so that they can be incorporated directly into the explication as defining statements. Non-formulaic texts, i.e. records of beliefs and descriptions of folk practices (everyday, ritual, magical, and healing), referred to as “linguistic-adjacent data,” are generally not included in the documentation but are incorporated directly into the explication. As for the chronological scope of the Dictionary, it covers both materials published from the nineteenth century and earlier, as well as contemporary field records collected at the Jerzy Bartmiński Ethnolinguistic Workshop since the 1960s (the Dictionary’s card file and book collection are housed there Dictionary).

To show what a dictionary entry looks like in practice, below I present a trial version of the entry perz, which will appear in the section Weeds of the final plant volume of the Dictionary, entitled Plant Communities, Weeds, Fungi, currently being prepared for publication. The entry consists solely of an explication section, into which the documentary material is incorporated directly. This structure reflects the relatively short length of the entry and the particular nature of its subject: couch grass, an unwanted and eradicated plant that is also inconspicuous in appearance⁶, rarely occurs in formulaic folklore texts. The reconstruction of its linguistic-cultural image is based mainly on names (synonymous and derived from perz), as well as on colloquial accounts and ethnographic records documenting former folk practices aimed at removing couch grass from cultivated fields or—interestingly—using it as famine food or medicine.

⁶ In contrast, for example, to the thistle, which is also an unwanted and eradicated plant but is highly distinctive because it pricks, and therefore appears very frequently in folk songs and folktales, where it is symbolically associated with pain, suffering, and the devil.

KATARZYNA PROROK. Słownik stereotypów i symboli ludowych jako słownik etnolingwistyczny (na przykładzie hasła perz)

59

In this case, there is no need to separate out the documentation, and a legend or a few proverbs in which couch grass appears can be incorporated directly into the documentation.

COUCH GRASS

[NAMES]⁷ Couch grass— in dialects also: pyrzyk Pal Roś 91, perzówa, perej Pelc SGLub 5: 350–351, pyrej Pal Zer 101, pyrnik Pal Roś 91, pyrnica Kaś Podh 9: 386—this is a pan-Slavic name, originally referring to a variety of wheat (Triticum), and transferred to couch grass (Elymus) when a new word was coined for wheat (Wan Pol 148). Until as late as the seventeenth century, couch grass was considered merely a degenerate species of wheat (Budz Słow 206). According to folk etymology, the word perz is connected with the verb za-perzyć⁸. “Pyrz, when a person gets stubborn, this weed probably does the same; it’s sort of tenacious, it digs in, and you can’t pull those roots out.” Pelc Roś 105⁹.

Several synonymous names for couch grass are recorded: psia pyrzyca Pal Zer 102, psia pasza—dogs instinctively seek out couch grass and readily eat it, as it is believed to help with digestive disorders (Wan Pol 108); korzenica MSGP 110—because couch grass “takes root very strongly and binds the soil together” Pelc SGLub 5: 223; drutowiec—“because it tangles up the soil so much that it’s hard to pull out” Pelc SGLub 5: 126; trawa ZWAK 1895: 72—“because it looks like grass” (TN Chołowice 1998), “if someone doesn’t know, they may mistake couch grass for grass” TN Puszno 1998; manna ogrodowa Pal Roś 91; osocz Sych SGKasz 3: 341; łęczebnik Sych SGKasz 2: 343; zgadiwåcz Sych SGKasz 6: 225; piątrownik, piątrowka; pachåčena; pażłač, pażåčena Sych SGKasz 4: 8, 46, 244.

[CATEGORIZATIONS] Couch grass is commonly considered a weed K 3 Kuj 83, a weed: “The worst weed is that perzówa, because it has such strong roots in the ground, and when you pull it out, it soon grows back” Pelc SGLub 5: 351.

⁷ Facet labels are placed in square brackets (in the Dictionary they are replaced by the corresponding iconic symbols).

⁸ The word zaperzyć ‘to become angry, to get mad’ is not etymologically related to the word perz ‘weed’; rather, it is connected with perzyna ‘what burns or has been destroyed by fire, ruins’ and the old word perz ‘glowing coal, hot ash, ember, ash heap, ruins’, perzyć się ‘to catch fire’, hence ‘to be proud, to get angry’; compare Proto-Slavic *pyriti się ‘to burn’, from Proto-Indo-European *pūr- ‘fire’ Bor SE 421, 729.

⁹ Italics are used for names and for quotations taken directly from folklore texts or colloquial dialect accounts.

60

BENDRINĖ KALBA | 96

Formerly perzem was also the name given to other plants troublesome in agriculture, including thistle (Bor SE 421); cf. pyrzówina ‘weeds’ Śmiel Opol 110, złość ‘weed, couch grass’ MAAE 1912: 167.

[COMPLEXES AND COLLECTIONS]

Couch grass is associated:

(a) with other undesirable “objects”: according to the proverb What a thief is in the pantry, a wolf in the cowshed, or a pig among the crops, so couch grass is in the garden (NKPP 2: 843;

(b) with potatoes, among which it grows abundantly: in the proverb Where there is couch grass, there are potatoes too (NKPP 2: 843); cf. the colloquial account: Couch grass was just as troublesome; when it grows in potatoes, that couch grass is there among the potatoes too Pelc SGLub 5: 351;

(c) with the skylark, which builds its nest in couch grass, hence the proverb: On Saint Casimir’s Day, the skylark comes (will come) out of the couch grass Rog Wag 298.

[APPEARANCE AND PROPERTIES]

Couch grass is a weed with leaves like grass; it grows upwards, just stems Pelc SGLub 5: 351. Its most characteristic parts are its roots/rhizomes: couch grass has very strong roots Mich Dem 41, there are many of those roots in it, they stretch out so long, white TN Chołowice 1985. The flowers of couch grass take the form of smooth, thin spikelets, while its leaves are quite sharp and can cause cuts; according to legend, this is why couch grass has no medicinal use: When the Mother of God, who walked first across the world, was gathering all the herbs, she told each one what it was to be used for. Then she found couch grass and wanted to pull it up. But couch grass is so sharp that the Mother of God badly cut her hands on it. So she did not take it. That is why couch grass is not a medicinal herb and cannot help with anything Jak Zwycz 110.

[DISTRIBUTION]

Couch grass is everywhere, the same thing is sown and grows Pelc SGLub 5: 351. It likes good, fertile soils, as enshrined in the proverb: Where couch grass grows, there is toil in the field NKPP 2: 843. It grows especially abundantly in cultivated fields, on neglected potato fields (Górn Malb 2: 17), hence the numerous derivatives: pyrzowina ‘a neglected field overgrown with couch grass’ Dob Niem 47, perzowisko ‘an area overgrown with couch grass’ PWSP 28: 200, perzasty, perzowaty ‘full of couch grass, abounding in couch grass’ Karl SJP 4: 121 (The field is couch-grass-grown, couch grass grows, and it is couch-grass-grown Rog Wag 298), zapyrzony ‘overgrown, infested with couch grass’ Kaś SGO 2: 688, perzyć się ‘to become weed-infested, to have an abundance of couch grass’ Karl SGP 4: 76, zapyrzić ‘to allow couch grass to overgrow [a field]’, zapyrzić sie ‘to become overgrown with couch grass’ Kaś Podh 12: 314, oszocować ‘to become overgrown with couch grass’ (Uncultivated land will soon become overgrown with couch grass) Sych SGKasz 3: 341.

KATARZYNA PROROK. Słownik stereotypów i symboli ludowych jako słownik etnolingwistyczny (na przykładzie hasła perz)

61

[METHODS OF GETTING RID OF COUCH GRASS] Couch grass is generally destroyed, because when it takes over the field, the grain won’t grow afterwards either. It is, however, a weed difficult to eradicate because of its long underground runners Pelc SGLub 5: 351; compare the proverb: A farmer rejoices in vain in his threshing floor, rejoices in vain in his granary, when his rye comes up thick with couch grass NKPP 2: 843.

In the past, couch grass was removed from fields by ploughing them as deeply as possible, because the deeper the farmer ploughs, the more couch grass is pulled up to the surface TN Chołowice 1985. Couch grass was removed from ploughed fields using a special hook (Święt Nadr 9), a harrow (Kutrz Kurp 2: 87), or a cultivator: Where there was couch grass, you had to cultivate lengthwise, and then after some time crosswise, and all that couch grass dried out on top Rog Wag 298; compare perzyna ‘couch grass roots and stems ploughed and harrowed out of the field and left by the roadside’ Karl SGP 4: 76. It was believed that buckwheat sown in spring improves the soil, that is, burns out the couch grass (ZWAK 1890: 149).

Couch grass already growing among the crops was weeded by hand, often with the help of a hoe (TN Chołowice 1985). It was recommended to carefully gather these clumps of couch grass Kąś SGO 1: 444 and burn them. This was tedious work, requiring regular, even daily repetition: In the morning, go to the hay; when the dew dries, go to the millet; and in the evening, go to the couch grass (NKPP 3: 22), and often to no avail, because The more you pluck it, the more couch grass spreads NKPP 2: 843; compare the expression: go away and pull up couch grass ‘get lost, leave me alone’ Sych SGKasz 3: 341.

[PRACTICAL USES] Although couch grass was very unwelcome in cultivated fields, it often saved people from hunger, especially during the late-winter period before the new harvest. Its long roots were washed, dried, cut into chaff and ground; the flour obtained was mixed, for example, with rye flour, made into sourdough, and then baked into bread (Kul Wiel 2: 415–416). The making of bread from couch grass alone is recorded in this account: He gathered it, rinsed it, dried it and cut it into chaff, then put it under the millstone and ground it on the quern. Whoever was healthy and had a healthy stomach managed to endure it, but whoever did not, died. For when there is famine, there is pestilence too Hajd Nie 236. Such bread made from couch grass was somewhat bitter (TN Chołowice 1985), dry, and tasted “like wood” Burch Za 46. Sometimes ground dried fruit was added to it, or even chestnuts pounded in a mortar and ground on a quern (Kuk Kasz 158); compare pachana ‘bread made from lime-tree or couch-grass flour, baked by the rural poor during the late-winter period before the new harvest’ Wiet SPog 117. Flour made from couch grass rhizomes was also added to soups and gruels (Łucz Dzik 101).

Couch grass was and remains food for livestock, especially cows: You can make hay from couch grass for the animals, and that’s what they eat TN Puszno

62 BENDRINĖ KALBA | 96

1998, couch grass is a good plant, because cows eat the hay [made from it] as if it were the best thing in the world TN Chołowice 1998. Pigs are also fed couch grass; compare the husbandry advice: On Saint Casimir’s Day (4 March), drive the pigs out to the couch grass NKPP 2: 50.

Couch grass once served as an “insulator.” For example, the roof ridge – kal enicę – was covered with couch grass Święt Nadr 35, which was meant to protect against rain and snow leaking in ZWAK 1890: 9. To keep the cold from entering the cottage, its exterior was insulated with couch grass: couch grass was laid up to the roofline behind poles driven into the ground along the walls Cisz Sławk 17; compare zágata ‘a lining along the wall against frost and wind, made of stakes and brushwood and lined with moss, couch grass, or heather’ Lud 1908: 126.

Bundles of straw or couch grass were used to wash dishes (pots) and scrub floors Kul Wiel 2: 385, 389.

[MEDICINAL USES] Although according to the legend about the Virgin Mary cited above couch grass cannot help with anything, records attest to its use as a medicinal remedy, including for diseases of the urinary system: Couch grass is again very good for cleansing the kidneys Pelc SGLub 5: 351. “For urinary retention,” a decoction of rhubarb root, leaves of bearberry [= uva-ursi], juniper, and May couch grass was drunk Wisła 1894: 355. It was also believed that a person sick with a bladder ailment will recover if they eat the tuber [= potato] through which couch grass has grown Sych SGKasz 4: 49.

Decoctions, infusions, or brews made from couch grass were drunk for fever (Wit Baj 271), cough (Łęga Świec 138), asthma (Udz Biec 371), consumption (Wisła 1901: 617), tuberculosis (Pal Zer 102), “coughing up blood” (Wisła 1894: 141), jaundice (Łęga Malb 136), and generally for “internal ailments” (Lud 1896: 160). In addition, couch grass was thought to help with stomach and liver pains (Wisła 1894: 141); its rhizomes were used to treat diabetes, hemorrhoids, and poor metabolism (Bań Zioł 88).

[SYMBOLISM] To the farmer, couch grass is the worst weed Pelc SGLub 5: 351, because it smothers crops and is very difficult to weed out; it is therefore symbolically associated with nuisance and uselessness.

CONCLUSIONS

The folk image of couch grass reconstructed here is relatively poor in symbolic content; practical characterizations predominate, which—as I mentioned above—results from the nature of the object being defined. Dictionary entries based on documen-

KATARZYNA PROROK. Słownik stereotypów i symboli ludowych jako słownik etnolingwistyczny (na przykładzie hasła perz)

63

tary material containing diverse folklore texts, which vividly preserve folk symbols and stereotypes, seem decidedly “more appealing.” Yet appeal is not the point of the Dictionary; rather, it aims to show as fully as possible how rural inhabitants perceived (and perceive) the reality around them, from their point of view. If that reality involved a struggle against a plant that destroyed crops while also serving as famine food or a medicinal remedy, the definition should reflect this. The proportions of linguistic, textual, and “paralinguistic” data vary from one entry to another, as the volumes of the Dictionary published to date have shown. All types of data are, however, “ethnolinguistically relevant” (Niebrzegowska-Bartmińska 2017) and consistently complement one another, making it possible to reconstruct the world of folk perceptions.

SOURCES

Bań Zioł – Folk herbal medicine, Cz. Bańkowski, E. Kuźniewski, Warsaw–Wrocław: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1980.

Bor SE – Etymological Dictionary of the Polish Language, W. Boryś, Kraków: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 2005.

Budz Słow – Slavic Vocabulary Relating to Living Nature, W. Budziszewska, Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1965.

Burch Za – Za ostatnim przystankiem, P. Burchard, Warszawa: Czytelnik, 1985.

Cisz Sławk – The Folk of the Sławków Area in Olkusz County, S. Ciszewski, Kraków: Drukarnia Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1887.

Dob Niem – The Dialects of Niemodlin County, Part 2: Morphology, dialect texts, W. Dobrzyński, Wrocław, 1967.

Górn Malb – The Malbork Dialect, vol. 2, fasc. 1–2, H. Górnowicz, Gdańsk: Gdańskie Towarzystwo Naukowe, 1973–1974.

Hajd Nie – Not Everything Is a Fairy Tale: Polish Folk Historical Legends, selected, introduction and commentary by J. Hajduk-Nijakowska, Warsaw: Ludowa Spółdzielnia Wydawnicza, 1983.

Jak Zwycz – Groni Notebook. Customs and Beliefs of the Population of the Żywiec Region 9–10, S. Jakubiec, 1980, 104–120.

K 3 Kuj – Complete Works 3: Kuyavia, O. Kolberg, Warsaw: Polskie Towarzystwo Ludoznawcze, 1962.

Karł SGP – Dictionary of Polish Dialects, J. Karłowicz, vols. 1–6, Kraków: Akademia Umiejętności, 1900–1911.

Karł SJP – Dictionary of the Polish Language, J. Karłowicz, A. Kryński, W. Niedźwiedzki, vols. 1–8, Warsaw: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy, 1952–1953.

64

BENDRINĖ KALBA | 96

Kaś Podh – Illustrated lexicon of the Podhale dialect and culture, J. Kaś, vols. 1–3, 2015–2016, Bukowina Tatrzańska–Nowy Sącz: Bukowina Cultural Centre “Dom Ludowy”; vol. 4, Kraków: Wydawnictwo Astraia, 2017; vols. 5–12, Nowy Sącz: Małopolska Cultural Centre “Sokół”, 2017–2019.

Kaś SGO – Dictionary of the Orawa dialect, J. Kaś, vols. 1–2, Kraków: Księgarnia Akademicka, 2011.

Kuk Kasz – Kukier Ryszard, The Bytów Kashubs. An outline of an ethnographic monograph, Gdynia: Wydawnictwo Morskie, 1968.

Kul Wiel – Folk culture of Greater Poland, vols. 1–3, ed. Józef Burszta, Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie, 1960–1967.

Kutrz Kurp – Kurpie – the Green Forest, vols. 1–3, ed. A. Kutrzeba-Pojnarowa, Wrocław: Ossoliński National Institute, 1962–1965.

Las Lub – Angels and devils. Enchanted Lublin Region, project coordinator M. Krzykała, editorial team K. Gajowiak, M. Krzykała, P. Lasota, Lublin: Publishing House of the “Grodzka Gate – NN Theatre” Centre, 2012.

Lud – Lud. Journal of the Polish Ethnological Society, 1895–.

Łęga Malb – Łęga Władysław, The Malbork Land. Folk culture, Toruń: Mianowski Fund, 1933.

Łęga Świec – Łęga Władysław, The environs of Świecie. Ethnographic materials, Gdańsk: Gdańsk Scientific Society, 1960.

Łucz Dzik – Łuczaj Łukasz, Wild edible plants used in Poland from the mid-19th century to the present day. – Etnobiologia Polska 1, 2011, 57–125.

MAAE – Anthropological, Archaeological and Ethnographic Materials published through the efforts of the Anthropological Commission of the Academy of Learning in Kraków 1–14, 1896–1919.

Mich Dem – Michalec Anna, Niebrzegowska-Bartmińska Stanisława, How a peasant borrowed money from the devil. Polish folk demonology in oral accounts, Lublin: UMCS Publishing House, 2019.

MSGP – A concise dictionary of Polish dialects, ed. Jadwiga Wronicz, compiled by the team: R. Kucharzyk, A. Niezabitowska, J. Reichan, M. Tokarz, W. Wójcicka, J. Wronicz, Kraków: Ossoliński National Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences Publishing House, 2010.

NKPP – New book of Polish proverbs and proverbial expressions, based on the work of S. Adalberg, compiled by the editorial team under the direction of J. Krzyżanowski, vols. 1–4, Warszawa: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy, 1969–1978.

Pal Roś – Paluch Adam 1988: Świat roślin w tradycyjnych praktykach leczniczych wsi polskiej, Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego.

Pal Zer – Paluch Adam 1989: Zerwij ziele z dziewięciu miedz…, Wrocław: Polskie Towarzystwo Ludoznawcze.

KATARZYNA PROKOP. Słownik stereotypów i symboli ludowych jako słownik etnolingwistyczny (na przykładzie hasła perz)

65

Pelc Roś – Pelcowa Halina 2001: Nazwy roślin w świadomości językowej ludności wiejskiej. – Język a kultura 16, 99–116.

Pelc SGLub – Pelcowa Halina 2012–2023: Słownik gwar Lubelszczyzny, t. 1–12, Lublin: Wydawnictwo UMCS.

PWSP – Practical Dictionary of Contemporary Polish, ed. H. Zgółkowa, vols. 1–50, Poznań: Wydawnictwo Kurpisz, 1994–2005.

Rog Wag – Rogowska-Cybulska Ewa, The Dialectal Image of Plants in the Light of the Naming Activity of Their Names (Using the Example of the Dialect of the Village of Wagi in Łomża County), Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego, 2005.

Sych SGKasz – Sychta Bernard, Dictionary of Kashubian Dialects against the Background of Folk Culture, vols. 1–7, Wrocław: Ossoliński National Institute. Publishing House of the Polish Academy of Sciences, 1967–1976.

Śmiel Opol – Śmielowski Stanisław, Kleklimanki. Folk Tales from Opole Silesia, Katowice: Wydawnictwo „Śląsk”, 1967.

Święt Nadr – Świętek Jan, The People of the Nadraba Region (from Gdów to Bochnia). An Ethnographic Portrait, Kraków: Akademia Umiejętności, 1893.

TN – Audio archive of recordings of dialect texts at the Jerzy Bartmiński Ethnolinguistic Workshop, UMCS (after TN, the place and date of recording are given).

Udz Biec – Udziela Seweryn, The Biecz Region. The Polish People in Gorlice and Grybów Counties, Nowy Sącz: Sądecka Oficyna Wydawnicza, 1994.

Wan Pol – Waniakowa Jadwiga. Polish Dialect Names for Wild-Growing Herbaceous Plants in a Slavic Context. General Issues, Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 2012.

Wiet SPog – Wietrzyk Aleksander, Dictionary of the Pogórze Dialect (from the Area around Gorlice), ed. by Barbara Grabka and Renata Kucharczyk, Gorlice: Muzeum „Dwory Karwacjanów i Gładyszów” w Gorlicach, 2011.

Wisła – Wisła. A Geographic and Ethnographic Monthly 1–21, 1887–1916.

Wit Baj – Witkoś Stanisław, Bajdy and Moderówka, Poznań: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Rolnicze i Leśne, 1977.

ZWAK – Collection of Communications on National Anthropology, published through the efforts of the Anthropological Commission of the Academy of Arts and Sciences 1–18, 1877–1895.

L I T E R A T U R E

B a r t m i ń s k i J e r z y 1980: Założenia teoretyczne słownika. – Słownik ludowych stereotypów językowych. Zeszyt próbny, red. J. Bartmiński, Wrocław: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, 7–36.

B a r t m i ń s k i J e r z y 1988a: Definicja kognitywna jako narzędzie opisu konotacji. – Konotacja, red. J. Bartmiński, Lublin: Wydawnictwo UMCS, 169–183.

66

BENDRINĖ KALBA | 96

Bartmiński Jerzy 1988b: Słownik ludowych stereotypów językowych. Założenia ogólne. – Etnolingwistyka 1, 11–34.

Bartmiński Jerzy 1996: O „Słowniku stereotypów i symboli ludowych”. – Słownik stereotypów i symboli ludowych 1: Kosmos, z. 1: Niebo, światła niebieskie, ogień, kamienie, red. J. Bartmiński, zastępca red. S. Niebrzegowska, Lublin: Wydawnictwo UMCS, 9–34.

Bartmiński Jerzy 2001: Styl potoczny. – Współczesny język polski, red. J. Bartmiński, Lublin: Wydawnictwo UMCS, 115–134.

Bartmiński Jerzy 2009: The ‘Cognitive Definition’ in the Description of Stereotypes. – Aspects of Cognitive Ethnolinguistics, J. Bartmiński, London: Equinox, 67–75.

Bartmiński Jerzy 2014: Narracyjny aspekt definicji kognitywnej. – Narracyjność języka i kultury, red. D. Filar, D. Piekarczyk, Lublin: Wydawnictwo UMCS, 99–115.

Bartmiński Jerzy 2016: Visatos kalbinis paveikslas lenkų liaudies kultūroje. – Liaudies kultūra 5, 56–59.

Bartmiński Jerzy, Niebrzegowska-Bartmińska Stanisława 2013: Czy grzyb jest rośliną, czyli co znajdzie się w polu Rośliny w II tomie „Słownika stereotypów i symboli ludowych”. – Sapientia Ars Vivendi. Księga Jubileuszowa ofiarowana Profesor Annie Dąbrowskiej, red. A. Burzyńska-Kamieniecka, A. Libura, Wrocław: Oficyna Wydawnicza Atut – Wrocławskie Wydawnictwo Oświatowe, 41–64.

Bartmiński Jerzy, Niebrzegowska-Bartmińska Stanisława 2016: O lubelskim „Słowniku stereotypów i symboli ludowych”. – Leksikologija i leksikografija u svetlu savremenih pristupa: zbornik naučnih radova, ured. S. Ristić, I. Lazić-Konjik, N. Ivanović, Beograd: Čugorja štampa, Institut za srpski jezik SANU, 355–376.

Lewicki Andrzej M. 1984: Zeszyt próbny „Słownika ludowych stereotypów językowych”. – Poradnik Językowy 9–10, 587–592.

Niebrzegowska-Bartmińska Stanisława 2009: Dva opyta ètnolingvističeskogo sintieza: moskovskij slovar’ slavjanskich drevnostej i ljublinskij slovar’ stereotypov. – Ètnolingvistika. Onomastika. Ètimologija. Materialy naučnoj konferencii Ekaterinburg, 8–12 sentjabrja 2009 g., Ekaterinburg: Izdatel’stvo Ural’skogo Universiteta, 192–193.

Niebrzegowska-Bartmińska Stanisława 2010: Dwa słowniki etnolingwistyczne – moskiewski i lubelski. – Etnolingwistyka a leksykografia. Tom poświęcony Profesorowi Jerzemu Bartmińskiemu, red. W. Chlebda, Opole: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Opolskiego, 21–32.

Niebrzegowska-Bartmińska Stanisława 2013: Slovar’ narodnych stereotypov i simvolov – proekt i realizacija. – Putevi i dometi dijalekatske

KATARZYNA PROROK. Słownik stereotypów i symboli ludowych

jako słownik etnolingwistyczny (na przykładzie hasła perz)

67

lexicography. Proceedings of the international scientific conference of the same name, ed. J. Marković, Niš: University of Niš, Faculty of Philosophy, 247–257.

Nieb rzegowska-Bartmińska Stanisława 2017: Jakie dane są rele-wantne etnolingwistycznie? – Etnolingwistyka 29, 11–29 [English version: What data are relevant to ethnolinguistic analyses? – Ethnolinguistic 29, 11–29].

Prorok Katarzyna 2022: Dictionary of Folk Stereotypes and Symbols: Its History and Present Day. – I Międzynarodowy Kongres Etnolingwistyczny 2: Obraz świata i człowieka w kulturze ludowej i narodowej, red. E. Białek, S. Nieb-rzegowska-Bartmińska, J. Szadura, Lublin: Wydawnictwo UMCS, 129–158.

SLSJ 1980: Słownik ludowych stereotypów językowych. Zeszyt próbny, red. J. Bart-miński, Wrocław: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego.

SSiSL 1996–2022: Słownik stereotypów i symboli ludowych. 1: Kosmos, z. 1–4, t. 2: Rośliny, z. 1–7, red. J. Bartmiński, zastępca red. S. Nieb rzegowska-Bartmińska, Lublin: Wydawnictwo UMCS.

Zinken Jörg 2009: The Ethnolinguistic School of Lublin and Anglo-American Cognitive Linguistics. – Aspects of Cognitive Ethnolinguistics, J. Bartmiński, London: Equinox, 1–5.

Zinken Jörg 2015: Lubelska szkoła etnolingwistyczna a anglo-amerykańskie językoznawstwo kognitywne. – Etnolingwistyka. Problemy Języka i Kultury 27, 273–277.

Received 2023 09 17 Accepted 2023 10 04

KATARZYNA PROROK

DICTIONARY OF FOLK STEREOTYPES AND SYMBOLS AS AN ETHNOLINGUISTIC DICTIONARY (ON THE EXAMPLE OF THE ENTRY ELYMUS)

S u m m a r y

In the paper, the author presents Dictionary of Folk Stereotypes and Symbols, the concept of which was created and developed over the years in Lublin by Jerzy Bartmiński together with Stanisława Niebrzegowska-Bartmińska and a team of co-researchers. The aim of the Dictionary is to reconstruct the traditional image of the world and man using research tools developed in ethnolinguistics and folklore studies. The first part of the article presents the main methodological assumptions of the Dictionary. Unlike typical linguistic dictionaries, the units of description are not real objects or words, but “mental objects”, “social images of

68

BENDRINĖ KALBA | 96

objects”. The reconstruction of these images is possible thanks to the adopted method of defining – cognitive definition. It refers to common thinking about the world and strives to bring out all the positive features of an object that are culturally relevant. These features are extracted by analyzing both linguistic and textual data, as well as the so-called “with-linguistic” data, i.e. records of beliefs and descriptions of folk practices. An example of the rich use of “with-linguistic” data can be found in the second part of the article, where a working, unpublished version of the entry elymus is presented. We learn from it that in Polish folk culture, on the one hand, elymus was considered a very troublesome weed because it was difficult to eradicate, but on the other hand, it had some practical applications – it was a starvation food (its roots were used to prepare flour from which bread was baked), a kind of “insulator” (it was used to cover the walls of houses to protect against frost and wind) or a medicine (it was used, among others, for respiratory problems). The proposed definition shows that ethnolinguistic analysis carried out in the Dictionary allows for a multi-sided look at the defined objects, and thus to show as fully as possible how the inhabitants of the Polish village perceived the reality surrounding them.

KEYWORDS: ethnolinguistics, dictionary, cognitive definition, folk culture, stereotype, symbol.

K A T A R Z Y N A P R O R O K Uniwersytet Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej w Lublinie Pl. M. Curie-Skłodowskiej 4a/205 20-031 Lublin [email protected]

KATARZYNA PROROK

DICTIONARY OF FOLK STEREOTYPES AND SYMBOLS

THE ETHNOLINGUISTIC DICTIONARY (BASED ON THE CONCEPT OF COUCH GRASS)

A b s t r a c t

In this article, the author presents the Dictionary of Folk Stereotypes and Symbols, whose concept was developed in Lublin over many years by Jerzy Bartmiński together with Stanisława Niebrzegowska–Bartmińska and a group of other researchers. The Dictionary aims to reconstruct the traditional image of the world and of the human being by drawing on ethnolinguistic and folklore research. The first part of the article presents the main methodological assumptions of the Dictionary. Unlike in conventional language dictionaries, the units described here are not

KATARZYNA PROROK. Słownik stereotypów i symboli ludowych jako słownik etnolingwistyczny (na przykładzie hasła perz) 69

real objects or words, but “imagined objects,” “social images of objects.” The chosen method of cognitive definition helps reconstruct these images. It reveals a shared perception of the world and aims to highlight all the features of an object that are relevant in cultural terms. These features are identified by analyzing both linguistic and textual data, as well as so-called extralinguistic data, that is, descriptions of folk beliefs and customs. An example of the extensive use of extralinguistic data can be found in the second part of the article, which presents a working, unpublished version of the headword couch grass. We learn from it that, on the one hand, couch grass was regarded in Polish folk culture as a very widespread weed because it was difficult to eradicate; on the other hand, it could also be used domestically—its roots were ground into flour for baking bread, and it was used to cover and insulate the walls of houses to protect against cold and wind. In addition, couch grass was used as a medicinal herb to treat respiratory illnesses. The cognitive definition shows that the ethnolinguistic analysis carried out in the Dictionary makes it possible to examine the objects being defined from multiple perspectives and thereby reveal as fully as possible how rural inhabitants of Poland perceived the reality around them.

KEYWORDS: ethnolinguistics, dictionary, cognitive definition, folk culture, stereotype, symbol.

KATARZYNA PROROK

Uniwersytet Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej w Lublinie Pl. M. Curie-Skłodowskiej 4a/205 20-031 Lublin

[email protected]

70

BENDRINĖ KALBA | 96