Go to originalLocalized version was produced by AI. It may contain inaccuracies.
Preparing document pages…
Page 1
LINA RUTKIENĖ
Institute of the Lithuanian Language
TENDENCIES IN THE FORMATION OF COMPOUNDS IN CONSTRUCTION TERMINOLOGY, 1918–1940
KEYWORDS: word-formation type; compound; phonetic variant; generic term; morphological variant; language of construction science.
INTRODUCTION
One particularly pronounced tendency in language development in recent years has been the active formation of language varieties associated with certain areas of human professional activity. The most important lexical layer of these varieties consists of terms that distinguish one language variety from another. Compounding is gaining an increasingly important position in term formation. Although this method of term formation depends on the specific features of each language, scholars in different countries often point to the same advantages of word compounding and compounds across different languages. It is argued that compounding makes it possible to coin new terms that conform to the principle of linguistic economy (Gaivenis 2014: 539; Kaulakienė 2014: 225). Viktorija Nadmidon believes that compounds are highly suitable for naming new concepts more precisely, expressing more features, and giving a word greater semantic weight (Надмидон 2014: 69). In addition to the advantages listed above, Peter Polenz emphasizes that compounds become established more easily in the human mind because their semantic motivation is clear (Polenz 1980: 178). In Oleg Meshkov’s view, many new compounds can be formed by analogy, replacing one of the compound’s constituents; for example, according to the scholar, the English compound starquake was formed by analogy with the word earthquake, while comedywright was formed by analogy with the word playwright (Мешков 1986: 23–24).
Compounds are studied from various perspectives1; one of these is the study of formal structure, namely, the identification of the word-formation type2 represented by a compound. The scholars Young Ok Jong and Chae
1 Instrumental methods have recently become popular abroad for investigating, for example, how compounds are registered by the human eye, what impulses they trigger in the human brain, and so on (Inhoff et al. 2008; MacGregor, Shtyrov 2013).
2 Following terminologist Kazimieras Gaivenis’s examples of word-formation types, this article classifies word-formation types according to the part of speech to which the base constituent belongs. K. Gaivenis notes that the following word-formation types are most characteristic of compound terms: noun + noun, noun + verb, adjective + noun. The types adjective + adjective, noun + adjective, verb + adjective, among others, are entirely uncharacteristic (Gaivenis 2002: 55).
BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)
www.bendrinekalba.lt
ISSN 2351-7204
Page 2
LINA RUTKIENĖ. 1918–1940 m. statybos terminijos dūrinių darybos polinkiai | 2
doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.03
According to Kwan Jung, understanding the formal structure of a compound helps one learn and understand other languages (Jong, Jung 2015: 79). Patrick Ziering and Lonneke Plas, among other advantages, also point out its importance for machine translation (Ziering, Plas 2014: 1047). Derivational types need to be studied in order to maintain appropriate proportions among term-formation patterns, so that some types do not overshadow others. The analysis of the formal structure of compounds raises a number of problematic questions. One of these concerns the concepts of productivity and activity of a derivational type. In Tatjana Ivanova’s view, these concepts are often confused or treated as identical. Discussing the features of a compound-formation model3, the scholar identifies the differences between these concepts. According to her, a derivational model is characterized by three features:
1) productivity. This is a quantitative characteristic of the model;
2) activity. This feature is understood as the addition of new members to a derivational model;
3) usage. This is the use of the model’s members in texts, their realization in an act of language use (Иванова 2001).
However, even after understanding the differences between the concepts of productivity and activity, it remains unclear whether, for example, a single neologism is enough to confirm activity (Pike 1954: 87). Zellig Harris considers the question of productivity altogether insoluble, since language is evolving (Harris 1951: 265). These doubts, however, should not lead to abandoning research into the productivity of derivational types, which is considered one of their most important features.
This article examines native Lithuanian and hybrid terms formed by compounding and used in the scholarly language of one specific field—construction. The growing popularity of compounding encourages a look at the traditions of this method of term formation; evaluating them also makes it possible to identify new compounding trends and define directions for the derivational development of terminology. The period selected for studying the use of compounds in construction terminology in scholarly language—the subject of this article—is 1919–1940, chosen both because of a significant historical event in Lithuania—the centenary of the restoration of the state—and because of the importance of this period for the development of standard Lithuanian, including its terminology. As the economy developed rapidly at that time, many new realities emerged, requiring the creation of numerous new terms (construction compounds were no exception), and terminology as a field of study also developed. Aldonas Pupkis regards 1918–1940 as the most notable period of the advancement of the standard language (Pupkis 2005: 44). Using descriptive, structural analysis, and logical classification methods, this article aims to show how construction terminology compounds were formed during the period under study and which derivational types were most productive. To determine whether the productivity and activity of derivational types in construction terminology compounds from 1918–1940 persisted and
3 In Russian linguistics, what this article calls a derivational type—that is, formal structure—is most often considered a model (Черепанов 2004).
BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)
www.bendrinekalba.lt
ISSN 2351-7204
Page 3
LINA RUTKIENĖ. 1918–1940 m. statybos terminijos dūrinių darybos polinkiai | 3
doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.03
at the final stage in the development of construction terminology (late 20th–early 21st century), compounds included in the 2002 Statybos terminų žodynas (hereafter STŽ) are also examined from the perspective of formal structure. The material for the article was collected from 33 sources: construction textbooks, teaching books, and scholarly articles from interwar Lithuania. Most of the books were printed between 1929 and 1939. On this basis, one may assume that it takes nearly a decade of work to publish a major scholarly volume. Articles in the journal Technika were published starting in 1924. The construction-related sources consulted yielded 262 cognate compound construction terms.
Borrowed compounds are not examined in the article, since the act of derivation took place in a language other than Lithuanian. For compounds whose meaning may be unclear to the reader, references are provided to a textual footnote containing excerpts that illustrate the compound’s context.
1. OVERVIEW OF THE CONTEXT OF THE MATERIAL UNDER STUDY
After the First World War, following Lithuania’s restoration of independence, the construction sector, among others, developed rapidly. The war of 1914–1918 caused enormous damage to the construction industry, destroying 13,250 residential and 24,680 non-residential buildings (Macijauskas 1929: 10). During this period, it became important not only to restore what had been destroyed, but also to modernize the construction sector and introduce new materials and technologies. For example, 4,149 structures were built in Kaunas in 1919–1930, using new principles of composition and new structural systems (Butkuvienė 2001: 150, 153). Separate fields of construction also emerged and developed: road building, bridge construction, geotechnics, and the production of construction materials and structures. Scholarly literature became particularly important to the theoretical foundations of this activity. During the interwar period, numerous construction textbooks and educational books were published in Lithuania. Some of them were the first books in Lithuanian on a particular construction technology or even field. In 1924, the journal Technika began publication at the University of Lithuania. Each issue published scholarly articles on construction; it also featured reviews of scholarly publications on construction, which discussed not only specialist topics but also issues concerning the terminology used in construction publications.
The development of construction terminology was also associated with intensive construction activity and publishing. Outstanding individuals—construction engineers who worked in Lithuania, carried out significant scholarly research, wrote articles and books, and taught young people—played a major role in shaping the construction terminology and the professional language as a whole during that period. These included Juozas Gabrys, Pranas Jodelė, Jonas Kiškinas, Pranas Morkūnas, Anatolijus Rozenbliumas, Jonas Šimoliūnas, Kazimieras Vasiliauskas, and others. They were educated people who had studied and/or worked abroad and were able to apply best practices
BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)
www.bendrinekalba.lt
ISSN 2351-7204
Page 4
LINA RUTKIENĖ. 1918–1940 m. statybos terminijos dūrinių darb os polinkiai | 4
doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.03
in Lithuania. The lists of sources cited in their publications show that these engineers knew several foreign languages. When writing publications and textbooks, they most often translated from German, frequently from Russian, and less often from French. Since new realities had to be named, many new construction coinages were created at that time, including compounds. German was important to the creation of new compounds during the first period of Lithuania’s independence, as it is characterized by an abundance of compounds (in German, compounding is the most productive word-formation method). In scholarly construction texts, German equivalents were often given in parentheses alongside new Lithuanian terms. In the prefaces to their publications, authors spoke of the shortage of Lithuanian construction terms and apologized to readers for terms that might need correction. For example, the engineer and lecturer at the University of Lithuania (renamed Vytautas Magnus University in 1930), Jonas Gabrys, wrote in the preface to his textbook: “This textbook is being printed before a settled and established terminology of bridges and construction has yet been worked out. Therefore, more than one term used here may need correction. However, we will avoid these imperfections only in the future. A few terms used in the drawings (e.g., spragbalke, ledlaužys, pusiauupi uva) do not match the text, because the printing plates were made before these terms were changed” (SGBT 1931: 7).
Reading publications from that period, it is clear that the terms used depended greatly on the authors’ personal views. For example, Professor Pranas Jodelė held views opposed to those of Vireliūnas and was more in agreement with Jonas Jablonskis’s position that equivalents for international terms should not be coined unnecessarily. “As far as terminology is concerned, I am an advocate of international terms,” wrote P. Jodelė in the Preface to one of his textbooks (1922: Pr4). However, the professor also used borrowings that were not international terms, arguing that they had been “Lithuanianized.” P. Jodelė was a highly respected authority, and his views and attitudes toward the use of certain terms probably had a considerable influence on the spread of some terms or their retreat from usage (see section 3 on the term gelžbetonio).
As for compounds from that period, it should be noted that opinions on the subject varied. The Terminology Commission headed by Antanas Vireliūnas proposed numerous compounds that were calques of international words, for example: ormatis, šilčiarodis, šilčiomatis. When J. Jablonskis took over as head of the commission, international words were reinstated in place of such coinages (Piročkinas 1978: 180). Antanas Salys also criticized the unwise, excessive formation of compounds, known as “forging,” and their inclusion in dictionaries. In his review of Benjamino Sereiskio’s Lithuanian-Russian Dictionary (1933), A. Salys writes: “But the forging of compound words from numerals looks strange. On page 41 there is a series of words of the aštuon(ia)amžis, aštuon(ia)galis <...> type. By proceeding in this way, one could make all the words in the dictionary
4 Pr. – Preface, unnumbered in the publication.
BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)
www.bendrinekalba.lt
ISSN 2351-7204
Page 5
LINA RUTKIENĖ. 1918–1940 m. statybos terminijos dūrinių darybos polinkiai | 5
doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.03
daiktavardžius pakartoti su visais skaitvardžiais“ (Salys 1933: 31). Ir čia pat priduria: „Taip pat nevieta žodyne: baltadančiui, baltanosiu, geltondančiui, geltonuodegiui…“ (Salys 1933: 32).
Among construction specialists, Professor Jonas Šimoliūnas, head of the Construction Department at the University of Lithuania, contributed most to the subsystem of compounds in construction terminology of that period. His book alone, Construction. Construction Materials (1937), contains 72 related compound construction terms, while Construction. Earthworks (1939) contains 62 compounds. J. Šimoliūnas often gives German equivalents in parentheses next to new compounds, allowing us to conclude that new compound terms in construction terminology are essentially partial or complete calques, for example: miltamedis (Mehlbaum) SSM 1937: 159, dribsmėlis (Fliessand, Triebsand) ŠŽD 1939: 277, čiulpklozetis (Absaugeklo全tanlage) SSM 1937: 102, gruntagražtis (Grundbohrer) ŠŽD 1939: 308, vyšniamedis (Wildkirshe) SSM 1937: 159.
Of the 262 related compound construction terms identified in scholarly construction literature from 1918–1940, the following terms were the most widespread: dūmtakis, dūmtraukis, gelžbetonis, perkūnsargis, pusiausvyra, skerspjūvis, statramstis, šaligatvis, vandentiekis. Their prevalence and frequency of use were probably among the extralinguistic factors that led to all the compounds listed, except perkūnsargį, being used in later scholarly literature as well and included in the STŽ published in 2002.
2. TYPES OF COMPOUND FORMATION IN CONSTRUCTION TERMINOLOGY
According to Stasys Keinys, all the main types of compound formation found in contemporary Lithuanian are characteristic of the formation of Lithuanian compound terms. The scholar, having examined compounds in 11 terminology dictionaries published between 1954 and 1971, identifies 16 types of formation (see Keinys 2005: 131–132). An analysis of compounds in construction terminology from 1918–1940 established that they were formed according to 10 types of formation.
The most productive parts of speech are nouns, verbs, and adjectives. Only a few compounds were found in which one element is based on an adverb, numeral, or pronoun (see Fig. 1). Thus, although the same parts of speech participate in the formation of compounds in interwar Lithuanian construction terminology as in the formation of terms in the second half of the 20th century, compound formation in the construction terminology of the period discussed in this article is not characterized by a diversity of combinations of these parts of speech.
BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)
www.bendrinekalba.lt
ISSN 2351-7204
Page 6
LINA RUTKIENĖ. 1918–1940 m. statybos terminijos dūrinių darybos polinkiai | 6
doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.03
FIG. 1. Distribution of compounds in construction terminology from 1918–1940 by formation type5
In Lithuanian linguistics, the second element is conventionally regarded as the semantic and grammatical center of a compound. The material examined shows that the second element of most compounds in the construction terminology of that period is a noun. As stated in The Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian (hereinafter DLKG), “Compounds with a noun as their second element make up almost three quarters of all compound nouns in contemporary Lithuanian” (DLKG 1997: 151). In the construction terminology of the period under discussion, such compounds constitute an even larger share—fully 85 percent of all compounds. Far fewer compounds have a verb as their second element, and only one has an adjective. Across all formation types, determinative compounds predominate: most often, the first element defines the second, narrowing or specializing its meaning.
2.1. Compounds with a noun as the second element
The most productive written type of compound formation in construction terminology is noun + noun. It accounts for nearly half—139—of the related construction-terminology compounds from the period examined, e.g., akmengruntis ŠŽD 1939: 435, akmenkaltis ŠŽD 1939: 281, ąžuolmedis SSM 1937: 172, basliašulis SSM 1937: 161, darbavietė KPĮ 1939: 20, drenažgriovis ŠŽD 1939: 306, dujavamzdis ŠŽD 1939: 438, dūmtakis ŪP 1934: 10, durpiagruntis ŠŽD 1939: 305, gontvinė SSČ 1935: 25,
Another derivational type is distinguished by its productivity, although to a considerably lesser extent: adjective + noun. In the scientific literature on construction published in 1918–1940, 61 compounds of this derivational type were found, for example: aukštakrosnis SSM 1937: 85, drūtg alis SŽD 1939: 325, geležinkelis GTS 1930: 65, juodad arbis SDTSS 1930: 70, juodgrindys KS 1936: 27, juodlubės KS 1936: 27, juodmedis SSM 1937: 172, juodžemė PMST 1923: 17, laibgalis KS 1936: 6, minkštamedis SSM 1937: 161, plokščia geleilė SS 1940: 530, plongalis GTS 1930: 82, SŽD 1939: 309, raudonmedis SSM 1937: 267, sauskelis DS 1929: 6, skersbalkis KS 1936: 28, skersija MT 1929: 45, skersjėga MT 1929: 63, skystagruntis SŽD 1939: 355, skystastiklis SŽD 1939: 508, skystsmėlis SŽD 1939: 277, smailagalys SŽD 1939: 446, statramstis GTS 1930: 82, viešbutis TŽ 1920: 71, vieškelis DS 1929: 6, žaliašerd is SSM 1937: 150, žaliatvorė KS 1936: 245.
Keletas dūrinių atstovauja veiksm až. + daikt. darybos tipui: čiulp klozetis SSM 1937: 102, gaubmeškė7 SŽD 1939: 441, gręžk altis SŽD 1939: 316, gręžma išis8 SŽD 1939: 367, gręžskylė SŽD 1939: 307, jungiamalūnis9 SŽD 1939: 469, klijuotmedis SSM 1937: 267, klotsienė SŽD 1939: 352, spraustpolis SŽD 1939: 412, spraustsienė SŽD 1939: 349. Beveik visi (išskyrus važtapinig ius) rasti J. Šimoliūno knygose. Kadangi tokio darybos tipo dūriniai vartoti (gal ir padaryti?) vieno mokslininko, kyla klausimas, ar šie dūriniai sudaryti remiantis tuo pačiu darybos polinkiu, ar stichiškai. Atkreiptinas dėmesys į tai, kad J. Šimoliūno vartoti dūrinių pirmieji sandai remiasi
6 “On ground that is not permanently covered with water (by a layer at least 0.5 m thick), the foundation footing must be sunk into the ground deep enough to prevent the soil directly beneath it from freezing in winter.” SGBT 1931: 141.
7 “Express is a pile driver with a rounding device a, a shoe k left in place, a ring float d, a two-part casing b, and lifting cables e and k (see a–g v.).” SŽD 1939: 441. Meška is a pile-driving device.
8 “The soil is removed from beneath the caisson using buckets, tubs, drilling machines, Indian shovels, scoops, grabs, norias, and other tools and devices.” SŽD 1939: 367.
9 “From the three-part chamber (9–10), clinker with additives is fed into the connecting mill (Verbundmūle), where cement is produced; it is then raised by elevator to the cement silo (13), from which it is discharged below (14) into bags or small barrels.” SŽD 1939: 470.
BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)
www.bendrinekalba.lt
ISSN 2351-7204
Page 8
LINA RUTKIENĖ. 1918–1940 m. statybos terminijos dūrinių darybos polinkiai | 8
doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.03
primary verbs that do not exhibit vowel alternation in the root (čiulpklozetis SSM 1937: 102, gaubmeškė SŽD 1939: 441, gręžkaltis SŽD 1939: 316, gręžmaišis SŽD 1939: 367, gręžskylė SŽD 1939: 307, jungiamalūnis SŽD 1939), and past passive participles (klijuotmedis SSM 1937: 267, klotsienė SŽD 1939: 352, spraustpolis SŽD 1939: 412, spraustsienė SŽD 1939: 349). As stated in DLKG, participles of prefixed verbs are most often used to form compound nouns (DLKG 1997: 159). The collected examples show that during the interwar period, construction terms were formed only from past participles of prefixed verbs.
The form of the verbal constituent in purely verbal (non-participial) compounds does not indicate whether it is based on the past or present stem (cf.: čiulpklozetis: čiulpia, čiulpė; gaubmeškė: gaubia, gaubė; gręžkaltis, gręžmaišis: gręžia, gręžė; jungiamalūnis: jungia, jungė). In general, linguists differ in their assessment of the formation of compounds with verbal constituents. S. Keinys associates such compounds formally with the finite forms of the corresponding verbs, while semantically he relates some of them (giving the terms gręžvietė, lydroštis, siurbvamzdis as examples) to present passive participles. The scholar argues for the connection between the term gyvenvietė and a present passive participle by citing the synonym gyvenamoji vieta given in the dictionary (Keinys 2005: 159–160).
Very few compounds in construction terminology belong to the numeral + noun derivational type: five compounds of this type were found: tribalkis SDTSS 1930: 76, trikojis SŽD: 438, trišakis SDTSS 1930: 76, vienkiemis DS 1929: 11, vienratis SŽD 1939: 290. It is worth noting that the first constituents of compounds of this type are based only on the cardinal numerals vienas ir trys. No compound was found whose first constituent was associated with another numeral. Interestingly, the STŽ published in 2002 likewise contains no compound generic term whose constituent is based on a numeral other than vienas ir trys. However, all cardinal numerals up to ten are used as constituents of specific terms.
Tik du dūriniai – šaligatvis SDTSS 1930: 48 ir pusiaulet ena10 ŽŪS 1929: 88 – atstovauja priev. + daiktv. darybos tipui ir tik vienas – savikaina KPĮ 1939: 59 – įvard. + daiktv. darybos tipui. Terminas savikaina turi nekeistą galūnę, Vincas Urbutis teigia, kad dūriniai su pirmuoju įvardiniu sandu savi-, o antruoju daiktavardiniu yra artimi dūriniams, turintiems antrąjį veiksmažodinį sandą: savimyla, savišalpa ir pan. (Urbutis 1961: 105).
It should be noted that most compounds in construction terminology from 1918–1940 were formed from parts of speech with morphologically indivisible stems. Few compounds were found whose constituent would be
10 “At the corners, the wall plates are joined by half-lap joints (see Fig. 132), while in the middle of the wall their beams are joined with a universal lock (Fig. 133).” ŽŪS 1929: 88.
BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204
Page 9
LINA RUTKIENĖ. 1918–1940 m. statybos terminijos dūrinių darybos polinkiai | 9
doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.03
galima skaidyti darybiškai, pvz., medienšiulė SSM 1937: 267, geležinkelis GTS 1930: 65, nuolaidometras PMST 1923: 21, grąžtasukis SŽD 1939: 309.
In present-day Lithuanian terminology, the gender of a compound most often depends on the gender of the noun on which its second constituent is based: a compound usually retains the gender of that noun. However, this rule had not yet been applied to some compounds in the 1918–1940 construction terminology; for example, ugniasienis11 ŽŪS 1929: 79, vandenspumpis SBTĮ 1922: 100, šaligatvis SDTSS 1930: 48, trišakis SDTSS 1930: 76. The examples show that, although the noun on which the second constituent is based is feminine, the compound takes masculine gender. No instances of the reverse pattern—that is, a feminine compound whose second constituent is based on a masculine noun—were recorded. As for the ending, most compounds conform to the systematic pattern of formation: feminine compounds with a nominal second constituent most often take the ending -ė, while masculine ones take -is, -ys. Nevertheless, one or two examples were found in the construction-related scholarly literature consulted in which the feminine ending -a is retained, i.e. the same ending as that of the feminine noun on which the second constituent is based; for example: skliautsija SGBT 1931: 111, skersija MT 1929: 45, skersjėga MT 1929: 63.
2.2. Compounds with a verbal second constituent
As mentioned, 15 percent of the compounds have a verbal second constituent. Most of them, i.e. 37, belong to the noun + verb word-formation type; for example: akmenskaldė DS 1929: 10, akmenskaldys SSM 1937: 3, dulkėgauda TŽ 1920: 16, dūmčiulpis SSM 1937: 228, dūmtraukis T 1930: 348, gartraukis SDTSS 1930: 87, grąžtasukis SŽD 1939: 309, kaminbrėtys KS 1936: 79, kirvialaužis SSM 1937: 160, lentpiūvė KS 1936: 7, lytlauža12 PMST 1923: 73, orlaidis SDTSS 1930: 79, poliakalis SSM 1937: 3, poliarovis SSM 1937: 3, stogdengis SDTSS 1930: 70, takoskyra13 SGBT 1931: 20, ugniagesa TŽ 1920: 67, vandentie kis BŽV 1925: 6, vandent raukis SBTĮ 1922: 11, žaibolaidis KS 1936: 254, žemkasys SDTSS 1930: 70.
A few compounds with a verbal second constituent represent the adverb + verb word-formation type: greitmaišė SSM 1937: 87, greitpylis SSM 1937: 92, PMST 1923: Įž., pusiau piova PMST 1923: 73, pusiau svyra SGBT 1931: 7. Only one compound was found, namely viensėdis KS 1936: 3,
11 “According to the construction regulations of the former Lithuanian Reconstruction Commissariat <...>, ‘firewalls are defined as solid masonry walls without windows or doors, intended to protect against fire.’” ŽŪS 1929: 79.
12 “To protect bridge piers from ice floes, icebreakers are built.” PMST 1923: 73.
13 “On one side the basin is bounded by a road, and on the other by a line dividing the water, or a watershed (fig. 26).” SGBT 1931: 20.
BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)
www.bendrinekalba.lt
ISSN 2351-7204
Page 10
LINA RUTKIENĖ. 1918–1940 m. statybos terminijos dūrinių darbų polinkiai | 10
doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.03
representing the numeral + verb word-formation type. Further research should confirm or refute the low productivity of this type or, in O. Meshkov’s terms, its closed nature.
V. Urbutis, in examining the formation of Lithuanian compounds, notes that “[t]he second, verbal constituent is usually based on primary or mixed verbs without prefixes. Even the few verbal constituents that are associated with secondary verbs generally lack the suffixes characteristic of the latter; for example: <...> naktivalka (: valkiotis), saulėkaita (: kaitinti) <...> žemėnauda (: naudotis)” (Urbutis 1961: 109). Of the compounds in written construction terminology, only the second constituent of the term ugniagesa TŽ 1920: 67 is based on a suffixed verb, gesinti ‘to extinguish’. However, in forming the term ugniagesa, the suffix -in of the verb gesinti was omitted—the second constituent is based on a shortened stem. Thus, this is a case of so-called stem disintegration (for a fuller discussion of disintegration, see Urbutis 2009: 234–242).
The verbal constituent of all the other compounds is associated with primary and mixed verbs. In several compounds, the root vowel of the verbal constituent coincides with the vowel of the verb’s present-tense stem: takoskira SGBT 1931: 20 (: skiria), žemsemė SŽD 1939: 277 (: semia), pusiausvyra SGBT 1931: 7 (: svyra); and in several compounds the root vowel of the verbal constituent coincides with the vowel of the verb’s past-tense stem, for example: pusiaupiova PMST 1923: 73 (: pjovė), greitpylis SSM 1937: 92 (: pylė). However, it is probably not possible to assert that the compounds mentioned are based specifically on these verb forms. V. Urbutis notes that this vowel correspondence may have arisen not from a basis in past- or present-tense stems, but “from the ablaut of the root vowels involved in the formation of compound words” (Urbutis 1961: 109). Several compounds in construction terminology have been recorded in which the stem vowels do not coincide with the root vowels of any verb form; for example: lentpiūvė KS 1936: 7 (cf. pjauti, pjauna, pjovė), orlaidis SDTSS 1930: 79, žaibolaidis KS 1936: 254 (cf. leisti, leidžia, leido). These are clear cases of root-vowel ablaut; such compound formation resembles suffixal derivation (cf. pjūvis, laida). It should be noted that the ending -a most often occurs in compounds with an abstract meaning, whereas compounds with the endings -ė, -is, -ys have a concrete meaning.
2.3. Compound with an adjective as its second component
One noun + adjective word-formation type term was found: semicircular14 ŽŪS 1929: 191. This is a highly unusual way of forming a compound generic term for that period—mostly with
14 “In some parts of Württemberg, long shingles are used for roofing, from 0.85 to 1.10 m long and from 13 to 16 cm wide: they are nailed with wooden pegs to laths made from semicircular pieces (423 before).” ŽŪS
BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)
www.bendrinekalba.lt
ISSN 2351-7204
Page 11
LINA RUTKIENĖ. 1918–1940 m. statybos terminijos dūrinių darybos polinkiai | 11
doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.03
with a noun as the component half-, whereas at the time under discussion, other adjective components were used to form components of specific construction terms, cf.: half-stout pattern ŽŪS 1929: 17, half-pure board KS 1936: 6, half-coarse sand SŽD 1939: 340, half-cold building KS 1936: 9. Although in terminologists’ works such adjectives serving as components of specific terms are most often assigned to the noun + adjective word-formation type, in terms of word-formation meaning the components of the specific terms mentioned are more closely related to the adverb partly, cf.: half-stout – a partly stout pattern; half-pure – a partly pure board, half-coarse – partly coarse sand, half-cold – a partly cold building. An examination of the compounds with the component half- listed in STŽ, published in 2002, reveals a tendency for this dictionary, too, to use the component half- of generic compound terms more in connection with the noun half: half-arch STŽ 2002: 463, half-log STŽ 2002: 464, half-variety STŽ 2002: 464, half-brick STŽ 2002: 464, while components of specific terms are associated with the adverb partly: half-smooth bolt STŽ 2002: 698, semi-hard steel STŽ 2002: 421, semi-dry mixture STŽ 2002: 342, semi-transparent coating STŽ 2002: 101, semi-rigid connection STŽ 2002: 454. V. Urbutis calls half- a prefixoid and emphasizes that “more often half- indicates the incompleteness or uncertainty of the thing being discussed (compared with the thing expressed by the second component)” (Urbutis 1961: 74).
3. PHONETIC AND MORPHOLOGICAL VARIANTS OF COMPOUNDS
The sources examined contained a very wide variety of compounds and, as mentioned, many were used only in a particular text and did not occur in other scholarly texts on construction that were read. This variety resulted from the fact that various branches of construction were developing in a re-establishing Lithuania, and scholarly publications in different fields were being issued. Few terms recurring across different sources were recorded, so phonetic and morphological variants in the construction terminology of that period are also not numerous. Among the most widespread and variant-rich terms, the first to mention is reinforced concrete. The series of variants of this term has three members: reinforced concrete GTS 1930: 9, SĮRG 1933: 3, T 1935: 95 – reinforced concrete SDTSS 1930: 10 – reinforced concrete DS 1929: 10, MGN 1933: 100, KS 1936: 8, SŽD 1939: 453.
There was discussion in construction literature concerning the term in question. The author of the first Lithuanian-language textbook about this building material, Geležbetonis15 (1930), J. Kiškinas, used the correctly formed term geležbetonis. However, Professor P. Jodelė disliked a term formed in this way, and
1929: 192. “To make a box for storing meat, 2 m wide, 2 m long, and 1 m high, the following must be used: <...> semicircular pieces 22.5 cm wide <...>.” ŽŪS 1929: 434.
15 In current construction literature, the title of this textbook is corrected to: J. Kiškinas. Geležbetonis.
BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)
www.bendrinekalba.lt
ISSN 2351-7204
Page 12
LINA RUTKIENĖ. 1918–1940 m. statybos terminijos dūrinių darbosポlinkiai | 12
doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.03
In his review of J. Kiškinas’s textbook, he criticized the term under discussion: “Was it worth replacing the well-established word gelžbetonas with the word geležbetonis? Correctness cannot always be applied, and gelžbetonas is easier to pronounce than geležbetonis” (Jodelė 1930: 362). The term proposed by P. Jodelė is rather what is known as a contracted word with an unchanged ending than a genuine compound. J. Kiškinas did not heed P. Jodelė’s recommendation and continued to use the term geležbetonio in his books and articles. However, later literature (from 1937–1939) contains more compounds formed analogously to gelžbetoniui: gelžbalkis SŽD 1939: 347, gelžkelis GTT 1922: 75, gelžstiklis SSM 1937: 237, gelžžvyris SŽD 1939: 317. These compounds are characterized by elision16—the long vowel e is omitted (note that after the semivowel l, the same vowel is omitted as the one preceding the semivowel), thus reducing two syllables to one. Elision in the term geležbetonis was most likely motivated by the requirement for brevity in terminology. During the period under study, short compounds predominated: slightly more than half (55%) were trisyllabic, and slightly less than half (40%) were four-syllable words.
As can be seen, the term gelžbetonis exhibits both phonetic and morphological variation (both types of variation are also characteristic of the term dūmatakis – dumtakis). However, most compounds in the construction terminology of the period under study with varying forms have either only phonetic or only morphological differences.
There are only five sets of phonetic variants (although most of them could also be considered spelling variants). In three cases, the length of the root vowel in the first component differs: dūmatakis ŪP 1934: 10 – dumtakis ČSV 1936: 3; dūmtraukis ČSV 1936: 7, GTS 1930: 125, KS 1936: 38, MSUP 1938: 36, SDTSS 1930: 9 – dumtraukis T 1930: 348; trišakis SDTSS 1930: 76 – tryšakis VSD 1931: Įžn.; perkunsargis GTS 1930: 80, ŽŪS 1929: 49 – perkūnsargis PTŽ 1925: 23, SBTĮ 1922: 11. In two cases, the vowel in the second component varies: pusiauupiova PMST 1923: 73 – pusiauupiūva PMST 1923: 33; vandenpompis SŽD 1939: 138 – vandenpumpis SBTĮ 1922: 100. No consonant variation was recorded.
16In the Dictionary of Linguistic Terms, elision is explained as the omission of a vowel at the end of a word when the next word begins with the same or a similar vowel (Gaivenis, Keinys 1990: 56). In the 2007 Dictionary of International Words, elision is defined similarly: “the loss of a vowel preceding an identical vowel at the beginning of the next word, e.g., Lithuanian neesu >, French ‘Fr. le enfant > l’enfant (infant)’” (TŽŽ 2007: 291). However, the Lithuanian example is omitted in the 2013 edition of the Dictionary of International Words—most likely because the absence of one e in the word neesu should be considered a case of contraction. In recent years, the concept of elision has been broadened: Lithuanian phonologists use the term elision for any vowel deletion (Bacevičiūtė 2007). Foreign-language literature includes studies that define elision as the loss of a vowel or consonant (Underhill 2016).
BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)
www.bendrinekalba.lt
ISSN 2351-7204
Page 13
LINA RUTKIENĖ. 1918–1940 m. statybos terminijos dūrinių darybos polinkiai | 13
doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.03
More morphological variants were found. Several cases involve variation in grammatical gender: gontvinė SSČ 1935: 25 – gontvinis (cf. gontviniais) KS 1936: 40; juodžemė PMST 1923: 17 – juodžemis SGBT 1931: 138; lytlauža SGBT 1931: 199 – lytlaužas T 1930: 341. Some compounds in construction terminology have the same gender but a different ending: gelžbetonas SDTSS 1930: 10 – gelžbetonis DS 1929: 10, KS 1936: 8, MGN 1933: 100, SGBT 1931: 9; smailagalis SŽD 1939: 432 – smailagalys SŽD 1939: 446; stogdengys ŽŪS 1929: 191 – stogdengis KS 1936: 38.
Several more variant sets consist of compounds without linking vowels and their counterparts with them: buchsmedis SSM 1937: 145 – buchsamedis SSM 1937: 159, dūmtakis ŪP 1934: 10 – dūmatakis SDTSS 1930: 10, TŽ 1920: 16, ŽŪS 1929: 344; skerspiūvis ABSS 1929: 40, GK 1933: 27, PSD 1932: 103 – skersupiūvis SĮRG 1933: 7; viensėdis MS 1928: 1 – vienasėdis KS 1936: 3.
It is understandable that variation in the forms of the same terms was inevitable during the period under discussion, since the subsystem of compounds in the scientific construction terminology was only beginning to take shape at that time.
4. COMPOUNDS IN CONSTRUCTION TERMINOLOGY FROM 1918–1940 IN CONTEMPORARY SCIENTIFIC LANGUAGE IN THE FIELD OF CONSTRUCTION
The fact that a term is formed according to a productive word-formation pattern does not guarantee that it will become established in usage. Liudmila Morozova presents the following pattern for the life cycle of a term: 1) emergence; 2) rapid development, which is also accompanied by the formation of other words based on the term; 3) a period of stability and expansion of links with other lexical groups; 4) crisis, decline, and loss of terminological status (Морозова 1993).
Many compounds in interwar construction terminology remained so-called textual terms, used by only one author in a single publication. They did not even reach the second stage of the aforementioned pattern. These compounds are valuable as part of the passive Lithuanian lexicon, including its terminology. There may be various reasons why a term fell out of use: the lack of relevance of the real-world entity named by the compound; hybrid formation, especially when a borrowed component is based on a nonstandard word; non-systematic formation; and so on.
To assess the significance of compounds in construction terminology from 1918–1940 for contemporary construction terminology, and changes in word-formation patterns, compound construction terms were selected from STŽ, which best represents the body of contemporary construction terminology, and compared with compounds in interwar Lithuanian construction terminology in terms of their word-formation patterns. Of the 377 compound terms in STŽ, 38 coincide with those found in scientific literature in the construction field from 1918–1940
BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204
Page 14
LINA RUTKIENĖ. 1918–1940 m. statybos terminijos dūrinių darybos polinkiai | 14
doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.03
vartotais gimininiais statybos terminais dūriniais, pvz.: akmenskaldė STŽ 2002: 16, dribsmėlis STŽ 2002: 277, drūtagalis STŽ 2002: 128, dūmtakis STŽ 2002: 131, gruntkelis STŽ 2002: 183, juodmedis STŽ 2002: 530, kryžkelė STŽ 2002: 291, medvilnė STŽ 2002: 331, plentuolis STŽ 2002: 418, pusiausvyra STŽ 2002: 463, pusrūsis STŽ 2002: 464, šaltkalvis STŽ 2002: 607, savikaina STŽ 2002: 503, smagratis STŽ 2002: 532, stoglovis STŽ 2002: 585, trikojis STŽ 2002: 659, žalvaris STŽ 2002: 723. Šis sutapimas nėra atsitiktinis: pagrindinis STŽ rengėjas akademikas A. Kudzys teigia, kad, rašydamas žodyną (jį rašė 20 metų), naudojosi tarpukario Lietuvos mokslininkų veikalais (Kudzys 2002). Matyti, kad, atrenkant terminus STŽ, buvo paisoma ne tik dūrinio aktualumo, bet ir darybos taisyklingumo bei sandų lietuviškumo. Visi minėti terminai aktyviai vartojami šiuolaikiniuose statybos srities moksliniuose tekstuose.
FIG. 2. Comparative diagram of the quantitative distribution of compound-formation types among construction terms of different genders in 1918–1940 and 2002
As Figure 2 shows, the main tendencies in the morphological structure of compounds in 1918–1940 and 2002 are the same: most compounds are formed from a noun, a verb, and an adjective. Adverbs, numerals, and pronouns show very low productivity. All productive derivational types remain active and have been supplemented by new members. The marked difference is an increase in verb productivity in the formation of construction terminology compounds. Compared with the data for 1918–1940, the 2002 STŽ records more than twice as many compounds with a nominal first constituent and a verbal second constituent. In addition, two new derivational types appear, both involving a verbal second constituent: adj. + verb and pronoun + verb So far
BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)
www.bendrinekalba.lt
ISSN 2351-7204
Page 15
LINA RUTKIENĖ. 1918–1940 m. statybos terminijos dūrinių darybos polinkiai | 15
doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.03
it cannot be claimed that these derivational types are productive, since they are represented by few compounds. DLKG (1997: 161) states that “compounds whose second constituent is verbal make up approximately one quarter of all compound nouns.” The data presented in Figure 2 clearly show that, in terms of verb productivity, the formation of construction terminology compounds is diverging from the general tendencies in the formation of ordinary Lithuanian compounds: such compounds are becoming more numerous in construction terminology.
Not a single compound construction term of the same family was found in the 2002 dictionary under discussion to represent the unproductive derivational types numeral + verb and noun + adjective. This confirms the aforementioned assumption that compounds with this kind of morphological structure are unsystematic.
CONCLUSIONS
1. During the first period of Lithuania’s independence, 1918–1940, the development of the construction sector and the establishment of its individual branches led to the creation of numerous construction terms, including compounds. During this period, the development of construction terminology was closely linked to the formation and consolidation of scientific style and of professional language as one of the varieties of language.
2. Quantitative data on the related construction terminology compounds extracted from 30 publications and articles in the scientific style of construction show that compounding was an important method of forming construction terms in the interwar period: 262 related construction term compounds were found in the literature examined. German equivalents provided alongside some compounds suggest that these Lithuanian compounds may be regarded as partial or full calques.
3. In 1918–1940, construction terminology compounds were formed according to types that had developed historically in Lithuanian. Most construction terminology compounds belong to the most common group of Lithuanian compound nouns, with both constituents nominal—no fewer than 52.9% of the compounds fall into this group. Noun constituents also occur in the other numerous derivational types: compounds with an adjectival first constituent and a nominal second constituent make up 23.2% of all related construction term compounds, while compounds with a nominal first constituent and a verbal second constituent account for 14.1% of these terms. In general, a nominal constituent combines with constituents based on all the parts of speech listed above.
4. Compared with the noun, the verb is less productive: during the period under discussion, a verbal constituent is most often compounded with a nominal constituent (the verbal constituent may be either the first (4.6%) or the second (14.1%)); much more rarely, it is compounded with an adverbial constituent
BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)
www.bendrinekalba.lt
ISSN 2351-7204
Page 16
LINA RUTKIENĖ. 1918–1940 m. statybos terminijos dūrinių darybos polinkiai | 16
doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.03
(with only the second component being verbal (1.5 percent)), and especially rarely—with a numeral component (with only the second component being verbal (0.4 percent)).
5. Quantitative data show a high frequency of compounds containing an adjectival component in interwar construction terminology; however, adjectives are not characteristically used to form compounds of various derivational types: the adjectival component combines only with a nominal component (23.2 percent) and is almost always the first component (with the exception of the term semicircular discussed above).
6. Most compounds in construction terminology were formed from parts of speech with morphologically indivisible stems. In addition, a compound with a nominal second component most often retains the gender of the noun on which the second component is based. In this respect, compound formation does not differ from the general tendencies in the formation of compounds in modern Lithuanian. Only a few compounds were found whose gender had changed: the noun on which the second component is based is feminine, whereas the compound is masculine. No change in the opposite direction was observed.
7. Compounds in interwar Lithuanian construction terminology are not characterized by a high degree of phonetic or morphological variation. Variation occurs mainly in the root vowel and its length (phonetic variation, in some cases orthographic variation), as well as in gender and inflectional ending (morphological variation).
8. Although many compounds used in scholarly texts on construction from 1918 to 1940 remained so-called textual terms, some compounds are also used in present-day scholarly language and are included in terminology dictionaries and other terminographic resources—they have become part of the normative vocabulary of the standard language.
ŠALTINIAI
ABSS – Vasiliauskas K. 1929: Apskritimo būdas statybos statikoje, Kaunas: Spindulys.
BŽV – Čechavičius P. 1925: Bendrosios žinios apie vandentiekius, Kaunas: Valstybės spaustuvė.
ČŠV – Jasiukaitis J. 1936: Centralinis šildymas ir vėdinimas, Kaunas: Varpas.
DS – Šimoliūnas J. 1929: Danijos sauskeli[a]i ir jų su mūsų keliais palyginimas, Kaunas: Spindulys.
GK – Grinkevičius S. 1923: Geležinės konstrukcijos, Kaunas: Spindulys.
GTS – Kiškinas J. 1930: Geležbetonis: teorija ir skaičiavimai: vadovėlis, Kaunas: Spindulys.
GTT – Jodelė P. 1922: Geologiniai tyrinėjimai technikos žvilgsnius su Lietuvos geologiniais daviniais ir šulinių gręžiniais, Kaunas: Švietimo ministerijos knygų leidimo komisija.
BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)
www.bendrinekalba.lt
ISSN 2351-7204
Page 17
LINA RUTKIENĖ. 1918–1940 m. statybos terminijos durinių darbų polinkiai | 17
doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.03
KPĮ – Maslenikovas B. F. 1939: Kaimo plytinės įrengimas. Laisvai vertė T. Šilutis, Kaunas: Adomavičiaus spaustuvė.
KS – Degutis S., Drąsutis P., Gaižutis P., Gudzinskas L., Juška J., Kalita P., Kersnauskas E., Švipas V. 1936: Kaimo statyba, Kaunas: Žemės ūkio rūmai.
MGN – Švipas V. 1933: Miesto gyvenamieji namai: jiems statomi reikalavimai ir jų projektavimas, Kaunas: Varpas.
MS – Reisonas K. 1928: Molio statyba, Kaunas: Valstybės spaustuvė.
MSUP – Mūrinės statybos ugdymo planas. Rengė V. Juodeika ir V. Švipas, Kaunas: Spindulys. 1938.
MT – Grinkevičius S. 1929: Mediniai tiltai, Kaunas: Lietuvos universiteto technikos fakultetas.
PMST – Paprasčiausiųjų medinių sijinių tiltų tipai, Kaunas: Valstybės spaustuvė. 1923.
PSD – Grinkevičius S. 1932: Pastatams skaičiuoti dariniai, Kaunas: Spindulys.
PTŽ – Šliogeris J. 1925: Perkūnsargiai (trobų nuo žaibo apsaugojimo būdai), Kaunas: Valstybės spaustuvė.
SBTĮ – Zubauskas K. 1922: Statybos ir butų tvarkymo įstatymai, taisyklės: atstatymo apžvalga ir kritika, Kaunas: n. d.
SDTSS – Dušauskas-Duž K.: 1930: Statybos darbams technikinės sąlygos, sutartys ir kainos (gelžbetonas, kanalizacija, vandentiekis, centralinis apšildymas, elektros šviesos instalacija ir t. t., Kaunas: A. Bako spaustuvė.
SGBT – Gabrys J. 1931: Sąskėliai. Gelžbetoniniai ir betoniniai tiltai, Kaunas: Spindulys.
SĮRG – Kiškinas J. 1933: Skėlimo įtempimų reikšmė gelžbetonio pastatus projektuojant, Kaunas: Spindulys.
SS – Šimoliūnas J. 1940: Statyba. III tomas. Sienos, Kaunas: Spindulys.
SSČ – Kalita P. 1935: Stogai: skardos, čerpių, gontų, skiedrų, lentelių ir tolio stogų savybės, jų dengimas ir dengimo normos, Kaunas: Spaudos fondo dirbtuvė.
SSM – Šimoliūnas J. 1937: Statyba. I tomas. Statybinės medžiagos, Kaunas: Spindulys.
STŽ 2002 – Statybos terminų žodynas. Parengė A. Kudzys, A. Rosinas, B. Kudzienė, Vilnius: Lietuvos mokslas.
SŽD – Šimoliūnas J. 1939: Statyba. II tomas. Žemės darbai, Kaunas: Spindulys.
T 1930 – Technika. Nr. 6. Redaktorius V. Mošinskis, Kaunas: Kauno universiteto Technikos fakultetas.
BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)
www.bendrinekalba.lt
ISSN 2351-7204
Page 18
LINA RUTKIENĖ. 1918–1940 m. statybos terminijos kūrinių darbės polinkiai | 18
doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.03
T 1935 – Technika. Nr. 8. Redaktorius V. Mošinskis, Kaunas: Kauno universiteto Technikos fakultetas.
TŽ 1920 – Macijauskas A. Techniko žodynėlis, Kaunas: Valstybės spaustuvė.
ŪP – Švipas V. 1934: Ūkininko pirtis, Kaunas: Spindulys.
VSD – Vamzdžių sujungiamosios dalys, Kaunas: J. Kuznickio ir L. Beilio spaustuvė. 1931.
ŽŪS – Gimbutas L. 1929: Žemės ūkio statyba: bendroji dalis: statybos medžiagos ir trobesių dalys, Kaunas: Spindulys. 1929.
LITERATŪRA
Bacevičiūtė R. 2007: Balsių kontrakcija ir elizija lietuvių kalbos vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių šnektose. – Valoda 2007: Valoda dažādu kultūru kontekstā. Zinātnisko rakstu krājums XVII, Daugavpils: Daugavpils Universitāte, 11–17.
Butkuvienė A. 2001: Lietuvos kultūros istorijos metmenys, Kaunas: Technologija.
DLKG 1997 – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika, red. V. Ambrazas, 1997, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.
Gaivenis K. 2002: Lietuvių terminologija: teorijos ir tvarkybos metmenys, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla.
Gaivenis K. 2014: Rinktiniai raštai, sud. J. Gaivenytė-Butler, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla.
Gaivenis K., Keinys S. 1990: Kalbotyros terminų žodynas, Kaunas: Šviesa.
Harris Z. 1951: Methods in Structural Linguistics, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Inhoff A. W., Starr M. S., Solomon M., Placke L. 2008: Eye movements during the reading of compound words and the influence of lexeme meaning. – Memory & Cognition, 36. Prieiga internete: https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/MC.36.3.675 (žiūrėta 2019 m. sausio–kovo mėn.).
Jodelė P. 1922: Geologiniai tyrinėjimai technikos žvilgsniu su Lietuvos geologijos daviniais ir šulinių gręžiniais, Kaunas: Švietimo ministerijos knygų leidimo komisija.
Jodelė P. 1930: Inž. Kiškinas. Gelžbetonis: recenzija. – Technika 6: 362. Prieiga internete: http://www.epaveldas.lt/object/recordDescription/LNB/C1C1B0000831470 (žiūrėta 2019 m. sausio–kovo mėn.).
BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)
www.bendrinekalba.lt
ISSN 2351-7204
Page 19
LINA RUTKIENĖ. 1918–1940 m. statybos terminijos durinių darbų polinkiai | 19
doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.03
Jong Y. O., Jung Ch. K. 2015: Pedagogical Significance of Morphological Awareness in Korean and English. English Language Teaching 8 (8), 79–93. Prieiga internete: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1075489.pdf?fbclid (žiūrėta 2019 m. sausio–kovo mėn.).
Kaulakienė A. 2014: Terminologija. Terminografija. Terminija. Straipsnių rinkinys, Vilnius: Technika.
Keinys S. 2005: Dabartinė lietuvių terminologija, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla.
Kudzys A. 2002: Kad susikalbėtume. – Mokslo Lietuva 19 (265). Prieiga internete: http://mokslasplius.lt/mokslo-lietuva/2002-2004/200219/20021902.htm (žiūrėta 2019 m. sausio–kovo mėn.).
MacGregor L. J., Shtyrov Y. 2013: Multiple routes for compound word processing in the brain: evidence from EEG. – Brain and Language 126 (2), 217–229.
Macijauskas A. 1929: Civilės statybos darbų apžvalga. – Technika ir ūkis 1.
Pike K. L. 1954: Language 1, California.
Piročkinas A. 1978: J. Jablonskis – bendrinės kalbos puoselėtojas, Vilnius: Mokslas.
Polenz P. 1980: Synpleremik I: Wortbildung. – Lexikon der germanistischen Linguistik 2, 169–179.
Pupkis A. 2005: Kalbos kultūros studijos, Vilnius: Gimtasis žodis.
Salys A. 1933: B. Sereiskis. Lietuviškai-rusiškas žodynas. Recenzija. – Gimtoji kalba 2, 31–32. Prieiga internete: http://www.epaveldas.lt/object/recordDescription/LNB/C1B0004135373 (žiūrėta 2019 m. sausio–kovo mėn.).
TŽŽ 2007 – Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas. Ketvirtas pataisytas ir papildytas leidimas, sud. V. Vaitkevičiūtė, Vilnius: Žodynas.
TŽŽ 2013 – Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas, red. taryba A. Kaulakienė ir kt., Vilnius: Alma litera.
Underhill A. 2016: Assimilation or elision? Prieiga internete: http://www.adrianunderhill.com/2016/04/18/qa-assimilation-or-elision (žiūrėta 2019 m. sausio–kovo mėn.).
Urbutis V. 1961: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos sudurtinių daiktavardžių daryba. – Dabartinė lietuvių kalba, 65–121.
Urbutis V. 2009: Žodžių darybos teorija, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.
BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)
www.bendrinekalba.lt
ISSN 2351-7204
Page 20
LINA RUTKIENĖ. 1918–1940 m. statybos terminijos durinių darb...
Page 21
LINA RUTKIENĖ. 1918–1940 m. statybos terminijos durinių darbys polinkiai | 21
doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.03
1918–1940 COMPOUND FORMATION TRENDS IN CONSTRUCTION TERMINOLOGY
Summary
The article deals with the compound constructional terms in scientific literature, published between 1918 and 1940. In Lithuania, during the interwar period, the construction sector was rapidly expanding, there were many new realities, which called for many new terms, including compounds. Exclusive personalities were very important for the development of construction terms of this period and for the formation of this professional language: Kazimieras Vasiliauskas, Jonas Šimoliūnas, Pranas Morkūnas, Anatolijus Rozenbliumas, Pranas Jodele, Jonas Kiškinas, Juozas Gabrys and others. Not only did these construction engineers carry out significant research, writing articles and books, teaching young people, but also enriched construction terminology. Quantitative data of related terms from 33 scientific papers and articles on construction indicate that during the interwar period compounding was an important way of developing construction terms: in the literature read, 262 related compound terms were found. The German equivalents presented in addition to some of the compounds make the assumption that the Lithuanian compounds are to be regarded as partial or full evaluations.
Although general types of Lithuanian compound terms are characterized by the same major types of compounding found in the the present Lithuanian language, analyzing the period from 1918 to 1940 construction terminology compounds, it is determined that they are made according to 10 types of production. The most productive parts of the language are nouns, verbs, and adjectives. There are only a few of the compounds, of which of one part would be based on an adverb, a numerical character and pronoun. Thus, while all of the same language parts play a role in the development of Lithuanian construction term compound development as they did in the second half of the 20th Century, the terms of the discussed period do not possess a wide array of combinations of these language parts. It has been determined from the investigated material that the second part of most of the construction terminology compounds of that time is noun. Such compounds make up as much as 85 percent of all compounds. There are much fewer compounds that would contain a verb as the second part of it and only one containing a adjective.
The following types of construction terminology compounds have been identified following the examination of the material and the following quantitative data have been obtained: for the type of the noun. + noun made up 52,9% of all compounds recorded; adjective + noun – 23,2% of all compounds; noun + verb – 14,1% of all compounds; verb + noun – 4,6% of all compounds;
BENDRINĖ KALBA 92 (2019)
www.bendrinekalba.lt
ISSN 2351-7204
Page 22
LINA RUTKIENĖ. 1918–1940 m. statybos terminijos durinių darbų palinkiai | 22
There are few terms that are repeated in different sources, and therefore the phonetic and morphological variants in the terminology of construction of that period are not abundant. Of the most common and distinguished variants, the aforementioned reinforced concrete is mentioned. Although many of the compounds used in 1918–1940 scientific construction literature remained so-called textual1 terms, part of the compounds are used to this day in modern scientific language, are included in glossary terminology and other terminological resources. Thus, the compounds of the analyzed period are important not only for the history of the language, the development of terminology, but also for the modern construction terminology.
KEYWORDS: type of word formation; compound; phonetic variant; related term; morphological variant; construction science language.
