Dar kartą apie Didžiųjų kalbos klaidų sąrašo žodyno klaidas: semantizmai

ERIKA RIMKUTĖ Vytautas Magnus University ONCE AGAIN ON LEXICAL ERRORS IN THE LIST OF MAJOR LANGUAGE ERRORS: SEMANTICISMS KEYWORDS: language culture, Lithuanian language, semanticisms, List of Major Language Errors, Corpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language, motivated and unmotivated usage. 1. INTRODUCTION This article seeks to discuss the extent to which the List of Major Language Errors (hereinafter, DKKS), approved by the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language (hereinafter, VLKK) back in 1997, remains relevant. As stated on the VLKK website1, it is one of the best-known resolutions of the VLKK. The DKKS lists errors in lexis, word formation, morphology, and syntax, together with their corrections, as well as the most essential pronunciation requirements. Let us pause over one part of the DKKS—lexical errors (termed “dictionary errors” in the DKKS). In 2014, the first two subsections of the DKKS (1.1 “Unacceptable foreign words and their derivatives” and 1.2 “Unacceptable recent borrowings”) were repealed (see Urnėžiūtė 2014 and the information on the VLKK website). Thus, two categories of lexical errors remain in the DKKS: 1) unacceptable calques and 2) errors in the meanings of words and phrases. It can confidently be said that both these categories of lexical errors are relevant to language users and pose a danger.2 This second (and final) article in the series on lexical errors in the DKKS (the first discussed the use of unacceptable calques; see Rimkutė 2014) focuses primarily on errors in the meanings of words and phrases, the so-called semanticisms; the findings of this study are compared with data on unacceptable calques presented in the previous article. Semanticisms were studied in a single source reflecting contemporary language—Corpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language (hereinafter, the Corpus). It should be noted at the outset that the Corpus is not the most suitable source for analysis, since many of its texts are (or should be) edited. The fact that the Corpus contains unacceptable calques and semanticisms from the DKKS (as well as other language errors) allows us to draw several conclusions: 1) some texts in the Corpus were published before the DKKS was approved (the oldest Corpus texts were published in 1992), so the unacceptable calques and semanticisms found in them cannot be regarded as major errors (they are ordinary language errors); 1 Available online: http://www.vlkk.lt/aktualiausios-temos/didziosios-klaidos. 2 Of course, language errors at other levels should also be written about and discussed, since they are abundant even in academic writing; cf. the VLKK study on the language of textbooks and abstracts of master’s theses and dissertations (see http://www.vlkk.lt/naujienos/kitos-naujienos/akademines-kalbos-tyrimas-rodo-zema-rastingumo-lygi). BENDRINĖ KALBA | 88 (2015) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 ERIKA RIMKUTĖ. Dar kartą apie Didžiųjų kalbos klaidų sąrašo žodyno klaidas: semantizmai | 2 2) the use of some nonstandard words is motivated: language users have deliberately made language errors (for more detail, see 3.4); 3) authors and language editors of texts fail to recognize and correct unacceptable calques and semanticisms. The next section discusses which words are considered semanticisms; the third section presents a study of the semanticisms listed in the DKKS and found in the Corpus, taking into account their frequency, their occurrence in different parts of the Corpus and in texts from a particular period, and the motivation for their use. 2. THE CONCEPT OF SEMANTICISMS AND RESEARCH METHODOLOGY This section describes in greater detail the semanticisms listed in the DKKS and found in the Corpus, that is, Lithuanian words or word combinations that acquire new meanings under the influence of other languages, and those meanings are considered nonstandard. According to Aldona Paulauskienė (2000: 76), secondary meanings of a word are most often affected, while the primary meaning remains intact. Aldonas Pupkis (2005: 263) semantizmus dar vadina semantiniais, reikšmės vertiniais, semantybėmis. Jų lietuvių kalboje atsiranda ne tik dėl netikslaus vertimo, bet ir dėl neapdairaus vartojimo (pvz., supainiojus dviejų žodžių reikšmes: kompanija ir kampanija, formacija ir far- macija). Jonas Šukys (2003: 51) mini keletą lietuviškų semantizmų: abuojas, -a (neteiktina reikšmė „abejingas, -a“), aplamai (neteiktina reikšmė „apskritai“), berods (neteiktina reikšmė „rodos, turbūt, matyt“), gangreit (neteiktina reikšmė „gana greitai“), tūlas, -a (neteiktina reikšmė „kažkoks, -ia“), ainis (neteiktina reikšmė „protėvis, prosenis“). Kaip matyti iš pavyzdžių, tai nesuprasti tarminiai žodžiai. Nevertheless, unacceptable meanings most often arise under the influence of other languages: formerly under the influence of Russian, and in recent years, English. Lionginas Pažūsis (2014: 21–30) mentions false friends of the translator, or false equivalents; for example, metropolitenas should not be used to mean “capital, metropolis”; prezidentas should not be used to mean “chairperson”; the recently widespread use of harmonizuoti to mean “organize, coordinate” is criticized; it is recommended that the word ambicija not be used to mean “aspiration, goal,” nor pilotinis to mean “primary, initial.” Vilmantas Vilkončius (2001) has also written about English words that are translated incorrectly. These words may be considered new semanticisms. Dalia Gedzevičienė (2014) and Rasuo­lė Vladarskienė (2013) discuss several new semanticisms that have arisen under the influence of English in articles published in recent years. The aforementioned DKKS is probably the best-known list of semanticisms. Other authors of language-culture publications also provide additional semanticisms—their works contain several dozen semanticisms not listed in the DKKS. For example, A. Paulauskienė (2000) considers the following words to be semanticisms: atmintis (meaning “remembrance”), dirbti (meaning “function” when referring to something other than a person), eilė (meaning “many,” “a multitude,” “more than one”), galvoti (meaning “think”), naudoti (meaning “use”), papirkti (meaning “attract,” “enchant”), pasisakyti (meaning “speak publicly”), pergyventi (meaning “worry,” “be distressed”), perlenkti (meaning “exaggerate,” “overdo”), and so on. J. Šukys (2003), be jau minėtų lietuviškų semantizmų, nagrinėja ir daugiau netinkama reikšme vartojamų, į DKKS neįtrauktų semantizmų: baltiniai (reikšmė „apatiniai drabužiai, BENDRINĖ KALBA | 88 (2015) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 ERIKA RIMKUTĖ. Dar kartą apie Didžiųjų kalbos klaidų sąrašo žodyno klaidas: semantizmai | 3 shirts”); dainuoti (meaning “perform an anthem”), didėti (meaning “increase in number”), duota(si), -a/-oji (meaning “this,” “available,” “known”), eilinį kartą (meaning “once again,” “yet again”), gimtasis, -oji (when not referring to one’s place of birth), ypatingai (meaning “especially”); negrįžtamas, negrįžtamai (meaning “irreparable,” “final”), pastovus, -i (meaning “constant,” “frequent”), sutikti (meaning “find,” “notice,” “detect”), šviežias, -ia (meaning “new”), and so on. In one of the latest language-culture textbooks, Fundamentals of Editing, published in 2013, Nijolė Linkevičienė regards the following words as semantic calques: early (in the sense of “considerably”³), round (in the sense of “circular”), discounted (in the sense of “at a lower, reduced price”), favorable (in the sense of “favorable,” “suitable”), double (in the sense of “twofold”), experiences (in the sense of “feelings”), what (in the sense of “which”), view (in the sense of “perspective”), material (in the sense of “articles,” “reports,” “announcements,” and the like), used (in the sense of “used”), enough (in the sense of “quite”), practically (in the sense of “almost”), meaning (when it means “significance”), significantly (in the sense of “considerably”), among others. Readers should note that the DKKS contains many words with incorrectly used prefixes (e.g., atkrauti, atredaguoti, pajungti, paskaičiuoti, praeiti, prafinansuoti, užskaityti), which would be more accurately classified as word-formation errors (e.g., Šukys 2003 holds this view). Thus, it should be emphasized that not all the semanticisms listed in the DKKS correspond to the usual understanding of semanticisms; however, this study takes a formal approach and examines the entire list of word meanings and combinations in the DKKS. The following discussion considers only the semanticisms listed in the DKKS. The statistical data and examples are taken from Laura Vilčinskaitė’s bachelor’s thesis “The Use of Semanticisms in the Corpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language” (2015)⁴. Semanticisms (like the unacceptable calques discussed in the first part of the series) are examined using the methodology applied in Povilas Rudzevičius’s (2005) article: the study investigated in which texts and when they were published semanticisms were used, and whether their use was motivated or unmotivated. 3. USE OF SEMANTICISMS IN THE CORPUS OF CONTEMPORARY LITHUANIAN The DKKS lists 115 semanticisms. All of them, in various forms (not only headwords), were searched for in the Corpus. Not a single occurrence of at reaguoti5 was found. For a few words, only examples of correct usage were found: these are atleisti, išvesti, pavesti, perspėti and uždaryti, for example: The STT cannot propose draft legislation under the law, so this is e n t r u s t e d to the Anti-Corruption Commission.6 after capturing this scout, the soldiers at first failed to think of searching him thoroughly and, e n t r u s t i n g him to others, let him go. 3 cf.: “Early (= Well in advance) before the meeting, people were already gathering by the courthouse” (Linkevičienė 2013: 92). Less frequently used semanticisms that may cause uncertainty about usage are explained. 4 Supervisor Erika Rimkutė. 5 In general, the question should be raised whether atreaguoti can be considered a semanticism, since it is difficult to imagine a context in which this word would be used correctly. This word is more like an inadmissible calque. 6 Here and below, examples are taken from the Corpus. The examples have not been altered; only the meaningless beginnings and endings of some concordance lines have been deleted, and the relevant words highlighted. Neither lexical nor other errors have been corrected. BENDRINĖ KALBA | 88 (2015) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 ERIKA RIMKUTĖ. Dar kartą apie Didžiųjų kalbos klaidų sąrašo žodyno klaidas: semantizmai | 4 this matter is resolved by mutual agreement and, with the employer’s consent, the employee is d i s m i s s e d on the date specified in their application, with wages paid up to the day of dismissal the arming of criminal groups (Article 234-4) – conditional r e l e a s e from a sentence before its term, or replacement of the unserved part of a sentence with a lighter penalty He w a r n s the Christians in Corinth that those who commit adultery, steal, or get drunk will not inherit the kingdom of God. On the Panorama program, we heard a w a r n i n g from a Russian representative that we should not even think about recognizing Chechnya, since it is still Russian territory. Some semanticisms occur only in language recommendations, that is, in a motivated context (for more on the motivation for usage, see subsection 3.4). These are the words apsidėti, atidengti, atkoreguoti, atredaguoti, gyvybingas, išnešti, prachi(u)opti, pradiktuoti, prafinansuoti, pragalvoti, prakomentuoti, prakonsultuoti, pr kontroliuoti, prileisti trūkumų, užėjimas, užplaukimas and užvežimas, for example: “run, run off”: I run (=run off) a few kilometers every day. 1.3.71. p r a č i u o p t i – not recommended usage: “feel, touch”: When the liver is enlarged, it is easy to feel it a book, a notebook; open an umbrella = unfold an umbrella. 1.3.10. atidengti: u n c o v e r the culprit, the criminal = identify the culprit, the criminal; It is not always clear how to assess usage cases of sekantis, -i. The DKKS states that sekantis, -i may not be used in the senses “this, such” (before a list), “here is what, here is why” (before an explanation), while sekančiai is not to be used in the sense “so, in this way.” In these nonstandard senses, sekantis,-i; sekančiai account for only about 8 percent of all the incorrect usages found in Tekstynas (without distinguishing motivated from unmotivated usage, but excluding cases where the words mentioned were incorrectly used in language-recommendation publications while explaining that they are language errors), for example: The Soviet government confirms the veracity of the following facts reported by Lithuania’s Foreign Minister Urbšys: 1. Over the past few months, the Lithuanian authorities But, all the same, you will make your final decision only after honestly answering the following questions to yourself: – Can I be an entrepreneur? The importance of logistics can also be substantiated with the following arguments: – companies must take customers’ needs into account In the data presented below, examples with sekantis used in the senses “other,” “subsequent,” “upcoming,” “following,” and so on, are also treated as language errors (though not major ones; cf. Kniūkšta 2008) and are not distinguished from the nonstandard senses of sekantis, sekančiai specified in the DKKS. 3.1. Frequency of use of semanticisms in the Corpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language Most occurrences in the Corpus were found for the following words examined: žinoti (50,925⁷), priimti vais-tus (34,064), skaityti (20,194), statyti (16,236), išlaikyti (16,023). Faced with such a large 7 The corpus queries give the total number of occurrences of the word in the Corpus, without distinguishing correct from incorrect usage. In the following examples, the number of incorrect usages found is given in parentheses. BENDRINĖ KALBA | 88 (2015) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 ERIKA RIMKUTĖ. Dar kartą apie Didžiųjų kalbos klaidų sąrašo žodyno klaidas: semantizmai | 5 volume of data, it was decided to examine in greater detail the use of the words mentioned above (and other words or expressions occurring more than 3,000 times in the Corpus) only in the journalistic section (the other words examined were studied in all sections of the Corpus). Only 7 incorrect uses of žinoti were found in this section of the Corpus, two each of priimti vaistus and skaityti, 28 uses of statyti and 5 uses of išlaikyti in an incorrect meaning. Thus it is clear that nonstandard usage of these words constitutes a very small proportion. For words for which not all examples were examined because of their high frequency (in addition to those mentioned above, these include atidaryti, atleisti, dėti(s), išeiti, (iš)pildyti, išskirti, išžiūrėti, nešti atsakomybę, pavesti, perspėti, pervesti, peržiūrėti, prabėgti, praeiti, reiškia, uždaryti, užsipilti, vesti), usage cannot be reliably generalized as correct or incorrect. Examining the other words for which all occurrences found in the Corpus were studied makes it possible to draw clear conclusions about the proportions of correct and incorrect usage. In total, 58,518 concordance lines of correct usage (85.31 percent) and 10,073 instances of incorrect usage (14.69 percent) were found. Thus, relatively few semanticisms occur in the Corpus (cf. the Corpus size of 140 million words). By frequency, semanticisms were divided into four groups: 1) used more than 501 times; 2) used 101–500 times; 3) used 10–100 times; and 4) used 1–9 times. It should be noted that here and throughout, only instances of incorrect usage are examined; correct examples have been excluded. The eight most frequently used semanticisms, examined in all sections of the Corpus, are: paskaičiuoti (1666), peržiūrėti (1591), apmokyti (1153), sekantis, -i (832), pašvęsti (593), vieningas, -a (574), iššaukti (548), įpakavimas (519). Twelve semanticisms were found in the second most frequent group, i.e. words used 101–500 times: ap(si)jungti, apsivesti, at(si)žymėti, bendrai, gautis, įjungti, matomai, pašalinis (vaistų) veikimas, pervesti, reiškia, stovis ir užskaityti. Semanticisms were most often used relatively rarely in the Corpus (10–100 times)—51 words were found in this group, for example: abuojas, apsieiti, aptarnauti sąskaitą, atlieti, atremontuoti, atrestauruoti, atsiekti, aukščiau stovintis, -i, davinys, glaustas, įnešti, išdirbti, išieškoti, išjungti, išpulti, išrišti, išskirti, išžiūrėti, įvesti, kurčias, nuimti, pajungti, pakelti, pernešti, praeiti, praklausyti, pravesti, pribūti, priešakinis, -ė, prigulėti, rastis, regimai, sąstatas, statyti, talpinti, tūlas, -a, užmanyti, užsipilti, among others. The 38 least frequently used semanticisms (1–9 times) include, for example: atidengti, atkoreguoti, atmainyti, atredaguoti, atreguliuoti, atsinešti, gyvybingas, -a, išimti, išlaikyti, išstatyti sąskaitą, išstoti, nešti atsakomybę, prabalsuoti, prabėgti, pragalvoti, užėjimas, užinteresuoti, užkrauti akumuliatorių, užnešti, užplaukimas, užvažiavimas, among others. Words worth noting are those that in the Corpus are used almost always (in 80–100 percent of cases) only in an incorrect meaning. These words are abuojas, -a, ap(si)jungti, apsivesti, aptarnauti sąskaitą, apturėti, atkoreguoti, atkrauti, atmirti, atredaguoti, atreguliuoti, atremontuoti, atrestauruoti, atsiekti, at(si)žymėti, aukščiau stovintis, -i, gautis, išmetinėti / užmetinėti, paskaičiuoti, praanalizuoti, prabalsuoti, pračiuopti, pradiktuoti, prafinansuoti, pragalvoti, prakeliauti, praklausyti, prakomentuoti, prakonsultuoti, prakontroliuoti, praskambėti, pribūti, užinteresuoti, užmanyti, užskaityti, užvežimas. Some of the words listed above occur only a few times in the Corpus, so no reliable conclusions can be drawn that they are used only in an incorrect meaning. Language standardizers should note that derivatives with the prefixes at-, pra- are often used incorrectly (although quite a number of instances occur in language-culture works illustrating incorrect BENDRINĖ KALBA | 88 (2015) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 ERIKA RIMKUTĖ. Dar kartą apie Didžiųjų kalbos klaidų sąrašo žodyno klaidas: semantizmai | 6 usage). An examination of the Corpus data gives the impression that the usual usage is becoming the nonstandard meanings of gautis, paskaičiuoti, užskaityti. Nevertheless, before claiming that these words pose a threat to correct usage, their motivation still needs to be examined (see Section 3.4). In the Corpus, the following words are most often used correctly (in 80–100 percent of cases; words that are always used in the appropriate meaning are not included here; they are listed at the beginning of the article): apsieiti, atidaryti, atidirbti, bendrai, davinys, dėti(s), gyvybingas, –a, glaustas, įnešti, išdirbti, išeiti, išieškoti, išimti, išjungti, išlaikyti, išnešti, (iš)pildyti, išrišti, išskirti, išstoti, išvesti, išžiūrėti, kurčias, –a, nuimti, pajungti, pakelti, pernešti, pervesti, praeiti, praplaukti, pravažiuoti, pravesti, priešakinis, –ė, rastis, reiškia, sąstatas, statyti, talpinti, tūlas, užbėgimas, užėjimas, užnešti, užplaukimas, užvažiavimas, vesti, vieningas, –a, žinoti. Summarizing the data on the frequency of semantic calques, they can be compared with the main findings of the study of non-recommended calques. The Corpus yielded 3,086 concordance lines containing non-recommended calques (in various forms) from the DKKS. Thus, calques are much less numerous in the Corpus than semantic calques. The most frequent calques found in the Corpus are: išsireikšti, išsireiškimas (506), vienok (277), gerbūvis (241), neužilgo (235), (kaž)koks tai (231), (kaž)kas tai (209). The least frequently used translated expressions are ant kiek, ant tiek, ant sveikatos, kaip kartas, (kaž)kieno tai, (kaž)kodėl tai. No occurrences were found in the Corpus of the calques būti (ne) kurse, ir taip, (kaž)kur tai. As the data described above show, both the number of semantic calques listed in the DKKS and their occurrences in the Corpus are considerably greater. This means that recognizing semantic calques and correcting them demand greater attention from language users and language planners. 3.2. Distribution of semantic calques across the subcorpora of the Corpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language When counting the semantic calques found in the Corpus subcorpora, the data should be interpreted cautiously. The first figure shows that semantic calques occur most often in journalistic texts. This can be explained by the fact that journalistic texts make up the largest part of the entire Corpus. At first glance, spoken language appears to be the most correct, but this is not the case: fewer errors were found here— —primarily because spoken-language texts make up the smallest part of the Corpus. FIG. 1. Distribution of semantic calques in the Corpus8 8 The Corpus texts are divided into the subcorpora shown in Figure 1; their proportions are given in http://tekstynas.vdu.lt/tekstynas/menu?page=statistics. Semantic calques examined only in the journalistic subcorpus are not included here, since more than 3,000 occurrences of them were found in the Corpus. BENDRINĖ KALBA | 88 (2015) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 ERIKA RIMKUTĖ. Dar kartą apie Didžiųjų kalbos klaidų sąrašo žodyno klaidas: semantizmai | 7 Let us compare the corpus data on the use of fairly similar non-recommended calques: most calques were also found in journalistic writing (58.2%), far fewer in non-fiction (18.4%), spoken language (12%), and fiction (8.8%). The fewest instances occurred in the administrative-language section of the Corpus (2.6%). After calculating normalized frequency (the number of instances per 100,000 words), quite different data emerged: semantic errors were recorded most often in spoken language (36 instances per 100,000 words); the frequencies of semantic errors were fairly similar in journalism (9.8 instances), the administrative-literature section (8.8 instances), and the non-fiction section (7.8 instances). Neteiktinų vertinių (plačiau žr. Rimkutė 2014) normalizuoto dažnumo duomenys gerokai skiriasi nuo semantizmų: sakytinėje kalboje 100-ui tūkst. žodžių pasitaiko 65,3 atvejai, negrožinėje literatūroje – 2,7, publicistikoje – 2, grožinėje literatūroje – 1,5, administracinėje literatūroje – 0,6 pavartojimo atvejų. Taigi tik sakytinės kalbos dalyje neteiktinų vertinių pavartojama daugiau nei semantizmų, o kitose Tekstyno dalyse vertinių kelis kartus mažiau. Ir vėl galima daryti išvadą, kad semantizmus sunkiau atpažinti nei kitas leksikos klaidas. Šiuos duomenis galima palyginti ir su P. Rudzevičiaus straipsnyje (2005) apie nevartotinas senąsias svetimybes pateiktomis išvadomis. Jis teigia, kad svetimybių daugiausia grožinėje literatūroje (30,2 proc.). Darytina prielaida, kad senosios svetimybės yra reikalingesnė stilistinė priemonė grožinės literatūros veikėjų kalbai ir charakteriams iliustruoti nei vertiniai ar semantizmai. The five most frequent semantic errors in each section of the Corpus are listed below, along with their frequency of occurrence. In administrative literature, the most frequent semantic errors were paskaityti (339), įpakavimas (110), užskaityti (82), sekantis, -i (78), and pašvęsti (77). The fiction section contained these frequently used semantic errors: paskaityti (120), iššaukti (88), sekantis (87), apmokyti (79), and pašvęsti (36). The non-fiction section featured these frequent semantic errors: sekantis, -i (221), stovis (169), apmokyti (165), pašvęsti (149), and iššaukti (136). In the journalistic-writing section, the most frequent semantic errors were paskaityti (1,073), apmokyti (797), sekantis, -i (429), vieningas, -a (420), and pašvęsti (331). The five semantic errors most frequently used in spoken-language sources were gautis (118), paskaityti (19), sekantis, -i (17), apsivesti (6), and užsipilti (5). As the examples show, the semantic error sekantis can be found in every section of the Corpus, while pašvęsti, paskaityti are used in almost all sections. The verb gautis is also worth noting: it is common both in spoken language and in journalism (accounting for 46% and 40%, respectively). Thus, language planners should pay attention to these frequent words, used across various texts. They are also the subject of debate (cf. Dainius Razauskas’s (2008) opinion on sekantis); moreover, certain fixed expressions featuring one or another semantic error are prevalent (see Section 3.4), and their frequent use may give language users the mistaken impression that these expressions are correct. 3.3. Distribution of semantic errors in texts from different periods In examining the lexical errors listed in the DKKS, it was assumed that language users gradually become more familiar with language norms and make fewer errors. It was therefore hypothesized that older BENDRINĖ KALBA | 88 (2015) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 ERIKA RIMKUTĖ. Dar kartą apie Didžiųjų kalbos klaidų sąrašo žodyno klaidas: semantizmai | 8 texts (published before 2000) would contain more semantic errors (as well as other errors identified in the DKKS), while newer texts (published from 2001 onward) would contain fewer semantic errors. The data analysis confirmed the hypothesis: semantic errors in texts published before 2000 account for 60% of all examples, while those in texts published from 2001 onward account for 40%. The findings for non-recommended calques are very similar: 59% of calques were found in texts published before 2000, while 41% occurred in texts published from 2001 onward. In texts published before 2000, no instances were found for only one semantic error, dėti(s) (it occurred once in later texts), whereas in texts published from 2001 onward, no instances were found for as many as 26 semantic errors: apsidėti, atidengti, atkoreguoti, atredaguoti, atreguliuoti, atsinešti, gyvybingas, -a, išimti, išnešti, praanalizuoti, prabėgti, pračiuopti, pradiktuoti, prafinansuoti, pragalvoti, prakeliauti, prakomentuoti, prakonsultuoti, prakontroliuoti, prileisti trūkumų, skaityti, užbėgimas, užinteresuoti, užplaukimas, užvažiavimas, užvežimas. It is open to debate whether these words should be included in the DKKS, since their incorrect use is unfamiliar and often incomprehensible, particularly to young people. The most frequently used semantic errors before 2000 were paskaičiuoti (1,181), peržiūrėti (716), apmokyti (714), įpakavimas (440), and sekantis, -i (425). The semantic errors most frequently used incorrectly from 2001 onward were peržiūrėti (875), paskaičiuoti (485), apmokyti (414), and sekantis, -i (407). Thus, some semantic errors have remained relevant. As noted in the previous section, these words are used in almost all sections of the corpus and are among the most frequent; therefore, those wishing to speak and write correct standard language should pay attention to the nonstandard meanings of these words. 3.4. Motivation for the Use of Semanticisms The most accurate data on the correct or incorrect use of lexical items can be obtained by examining motivation, since it is possible to determine fairly clearly whether the semanticisms listed in the DKKS are used consciously—that is, with an awareness that they are errors (which are most often graphically marked)—but, for stylistic or other reasons,9 are nonetheless needed words, or whether language users do not realize that they are using some words with an inappropriate meaning. According to Dalia Blažinskaitė (2000: 96), “[g]ood language can also be incorrect if linguistic correctness is violated for one or another stylistic reason.” Other linguists (e.g., Šukys 2003: 25–26) also agree that stylistically motivated violations of norms, most often found in fiction, journalism, and everyday speech, are not considered errors. Kaip teigia P. Rudzevičius (2005: 215), „aiškiai atskirti motyvuotą ir nemotyvuotą vartojimą ne visada galima ir dėl to, kad patys kalbos vartotojai nevienodai suvokia svetimybių10 nenorminškumą ir galimas jų funkcijas kalboje“. Ir tiriant šiame straipsnyje aprašytų semantizmų vartoseną, ne visada buvo lengva nustatyti motyvaciją: kartais pritrūkdavo ilgesnio konteksto, kai kuriais atvejais būdavo neaiški sakinio mintis. P. Rudzevičius (2005: 214–215) motyvuotais normų pažeidimais laikė: 1) existing or implied insertions from forms of language other than present-day standard language: a) folklore; b) old literature; c) dialect texts; 9 Plg. Jurgitos Girčienės (2007: 149) minimas priežastis: dėl „noro pasakyti kitaip, stilistiškai ekspresyviai, išreikšti socialinę tapatybę, taigi siekiant naujesnės, madingesnės kalbinės raiškos“. 10P. Rudzevičius examined obsolete foreignisms that are not recommended (E. R.’s note). BENDRINĖ KALBA | 88 (2015) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 ERIKA RIMKUTĖ. Dar kartą apie Didžiųjų kalbos klaidų sąrašo žodyno klaidas: semantizmai | 9 2) reactivated foreignisms, when elements of usage from earlier periods are reworked and inserted into a context for stylistic reasons; 3) quotations from present-day nonstandard language: a) when a longer text is quoted in order to preserve the authenticity of the language; b) when only an individual word is put in quotation marks; c) when a foreignism is used as an emotive-expressive stylistic device; d) in dialogue; e) in language recommendations. In this article, the following cases are considered motivated uses of semanticisms (each is immediately illustrated with several examples of usage): 1) written in quotation marks, e.g.: another possible meaning in English—“come out” can also mean for something to “turn out” (“come out”) for someone, trans. Then the editorial office’s communist cell, truly showing its vigilance, “passed a resolution”... The street, alcohol, or a psychiatric hospital awaited them. from mid-May, they went on tour around Lithuania. The theatre “fulfilled and exceeded” its plans, while actors met their “quotas” for performances and roles It is believed that lettuce can “attract” love and “induce”11 labor in a pregnant woman. In those days, before Independence, performances were “taken off” not only for political but often for artistic reasons: And next week, a representative of the Moscow government promises to “pull the documents” and find out whether Aleksandras is being announced in Lithuania no one can deny that “those higher up” skim Judas’s pennies from this kind of work organization, which is why three posts are defended tooth and nail 2) found in verbatim quotations, as well as quotations from older texts and in terminological texts, e.g.: Vaižgantas noted: “There is nothing, nor has there ever been anything, that would have been of the nation to Dr. J. Basanavičius, but that he would have regarded as indifferent and unacceptable. September 27, 1926 – February 2, 1933 // LVA. F. “In carrying out the procedure established by the Ministry of Education, I report on my activities And that one’s son married her anyway. But (she) couldn’t do anything. “Where darkness rules, refreshing, / Again, consecrated to the origins of being, / She will be born anew for the coming dawn” (Sonnet 17, “Winter,” p. 65). “The Prime Minister and several ministers are interned and are located at army headquarters. Government offices have been occupied by army units.” From Kazys’s letter of 1948-09-27: “Things are not looking good with our Vladas. He is somewhere in a sanatorium and, most likely, is sinking into pessimism. 3) find in normative publications intended for teaching and education, for example: Aptarnauti: aptarnauti sąskaitą = manage an account; Atkoreguoti – not recommended, see “(pa)koreguoti”: Our committee recently atkoregavo this project; Atidirbti (=finish preparing, creating, processing, or refining) a methodology, a plan. 11 In this example, quotation marks may have been chosen not out of a desire to protect oneself after using an incorrect word, but for the sake of wordplay. BENDRINĖ KALBA | 88 (2015) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 ERIKA RIMKUTĖ. Dar kartą apie Didžiųjų kalbos klaidų sąrašo žodyno klaidas: semantizmai | 10 1.3.53. apparently – do not use as an insertive word expressing an opinion: A p p a r e n t l y (=It seems), we should consult once again. A p p a r e n t l y (=Probably) it is time 1.3.52. d e a f – do not use for “muffled”: a d e a f (=muffled) explosion. He has let us d o w n (=disappointed us, deceived us) more than once. 1.3.63. e n d u r e – do not use for “bear, suffer, withstand, tolerate, endure” 1.3.94. c o m p o s i t i o n – do not use for “membership”: the c o m p o s i t i o n (=membership) of a team, committee, council. 1.3.95. f o l l o w i n g – do not use: 1. “this, such” 4) used in the speech of characters in works of fiction, e.g.: “Look,” he says again, holding up the drawing, “how many little squares there are. You can c o u n t them, if you like. And there are three chimneys, too...” But Mom has no time for little squares. “Once again it’s just the two of us,” said the volunteer. “I’ll d e v o t e the moments before sleep to the lecture and explanations” to say “retro, Satan,” when Andrzej shouted through the open window: “Until next time! Good luck, my fairy of dreams! And take this.” from fifty to one hundred and fifty pounds, depending on the c o n d i t i o n... “We have a phone; we’ll discuss it and call” 5) found in colloquial speech in quotations conveying someone’s words (most often in journalistic texts), e.g.: will it also give painting new impetus? – I remember that you promised to i n c o r p o r a t e into the stage design a painting you had made especially for the production? robot: “My face, my hand in a white glove, my posture, my r e h e a r s e d way of speaking – I am an honest cog in the wheel. similarly constructed advertisements “r e l i e v e s t r e s s” for more than one member of the target audience, “announcing” that the eroticized product itself can the parliaments of Central and Eastern Europe and the Baltic countries will help r e v i e w them,” says the appeal by Russia’s State Duma. are the medicines superior to chemical ones? – These medicines have no s i d e effects whatsoever, and they are easily combined with other medicines. “If ‘Kareda’ is t r a n s f e r r e d to a lower league, I will not finance it,” the businessman declared. “The budget must be stable; it must not be r e v i e w e d several times a year,” said the Prime Minister. — Well, let’s say at this stage. — So, r e a l l y, are you initiating a Seimas resolution to halt it now? — Yes. 6) found in the spoken-language section of the Corpus, for example: you’re not taking a vacation. — What do you mean, I’m not? I am. — I t m e a n s, you have time off. — So you have time off. Yeah. Starting Monday. — But Sunday is a day off. for example, in the energy sector, does cutting off gas supplies to Ukraine and, at the same time, to all of Europe c a u s e any result? It c a u s e s Europe to have an energy strategy. BENDRINĖ KALBA | 88 (2015) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 ERIKA RIMKUTĖ. Dar kartą apie Didžiųjų kalbos klaidų sąrašo žodyno klaidas: semantizmai | 11 wait there, she says. — Well, then maybe Angelė with her nuvės nu. You can p o u r some gasoline for Angelė, or whatever she drives, and she... because they count those two years toward your total. Well. Those years you studied at college—they count those two years toward your higher-education years. — Oh, where did you get that from? to sit in a café. I said, to go dancing. Well, that’s the kind of free time it t u r n s o u t to be. When you get back, c o n s i d e r i n g everything, there isn’t much time left to go out anywhere — We don’t have sockets. — So I guess we should bring a socket from here. We’ll c o n n e c t it somewhere with solar batteries. Several instances of motivated usage can occur in a single sentence. The aim of this article was not to classify the examples examined precisely according to the classification presented above, but to determine whether the language error was used with or without motivation. All the instances found in the spoken-language section of the Corpus were treated as motivated usage. This decision was made for two reasons: 1) most of the spoken-language section consists of informal everyday colloquial speech; 2) in the current version of the Corpus, examples of formal speech cannot be distinguished from informal everyday colloquial speech (formal speech is subject to language-correctness requirements, and these instances should be considered unmotivated violations). Readers of the article may wonder whether the previously mentioned cases 4–6 of motivated usage can indeed be considered motivated usage—that is, whether it can be clearly established that a speaker or a character in a work of fiction deliberately uses a semantic error. These cases are complex and debatable. Nevertheless, it is likely (though not certain) that the author of a work of fiction uses semantic errors in a character’s speech to reveal the character’s lack of education, plain manner of speaking, or closeness to everyday language (which contains numerous language errors), perhaps conveying irony. The examples given under point five can be explained similarly: journalists presumably seek to reproduce their interviewees’ words accurately, perhaps not only to achieve authenticity but also to reveal the interviewees’ lack of education or linguistic incompetence, or because they consider the semantic error (or another language error) necessary for conveying the intended meaning precisely. In spoken language, there may also be instances in which speakers use semantic errors even though they know these are considered language errors, because they want to be understood correctly, identify with the social group whose members they are speaking with, or engage in wordplay or irony. There is no doubt that some of the semantic errors discussed here were used because the speakers do not know the language rules and are unaware that they are making an error, but establishing this is difficult and subjective. Thus, these instances may be considered transitional between clearly motivated and unmotivated usage. Below are several examples of unmotivated usage found in the Corpus: A stick could be seen, which he usually just dragged along behind him or hopelessly waved a b o u t in the air. These compositional elements of order are also reinforced and j o i n e d by private property. Incidentally, previously the post office took money for bill p r o c e s s i n g services only from utility companies. the aforementioned company’s fuel depot, but there were no special terms or discounts when f i l l i n g up with petrol. are still considered only auxiliary means, especially information h o s t e d in virtual spaces, the costs of obtaining which are usually associated with telephone However, M. Šalkauskas cannot boast of a sense of humour: the certain Gediminas he has brought into the world looks like Ilja Muromietis with a pretzel in his pocket. BENDRINĖ KALBA | 88 (2015) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 ERIKA RIMKUTĖ. Dar kartą apie Didžiųjų kalbos klaidų sąrašo žodyno klaidas: semantizmai | 12 The district leaders were vitally interested in his favour. My friend decided to exploit this circumstance. The most frequently used unmotivated semanticisms are: review (1438), calculate (1423), train (1096), unified (520), and packaging (504). The frequent use of some semanticisms was determined by the linguistic characteristics of a particular publication or author. This means that in certain cases one should speak of the linguistic incompetence of editors or writers at some publications, rather than of language errors widespread in contemporary language. As mentioned earlier, some semanticisms occur in fixed expressions. Below are several expressions containing semanticisms that stand out for their frequent use—often, it was precisely this fixed use of a semanticism that accounted for most of the errors. The semanticism train is used unmotivatedly in as many as 95 percent of cases; the most common expressions are train staff, specialists; staff training, e.g.: Havras also proposes training specialists at the Port of Klaipėda and maritime students at Klaipėda University staff training and retraining costs are considered, including training staff to operate equipment and master new technologies Indeed, it is quite difficult to determine whether train is used in an appropriate sense, since it is unclear whether the author meant “to instruct superficially and briefly” or “to teach thoroughly and for a long time.” Therefore, the use of train can be assessed in different ways. The use of the semanticism join is also unmotivated in 95 percent of cases; the frequently used expression join forces is worth mentioning. E.g.: one employee, regardless of the company they work for. The advantage is that trade unions joined together from various industries are better organised How can we join the efforts of all sports organisations? On paper everything is fine, but in practice. In 91 percent of cases, the unmotivated use of the word mark in an inappropriate sense was found; the most common expression is marking of a free throw (or penalty shot)12. E.g.: On the note that the missing woman had left with the hotel receptionist, officers found an entry indicating that the passport holder had arrived in Lithuania on December 30 via Kalvarija nearly twice as poorly, „Alita“ attacked from the marks for three-pointers and free throws, and was clearly outmatched in the fight for the ball. The adverb bendrai is used with an incorrect meaning in the expressions bendrai paėmus / imant (“taken / viewed overall”). Its unmotivated use accounts for 84 percent. For example: On Tuesday, forests were ablaze at 25 locations in Italy. Taken overall, the situation on the fire front is less alarming than it was a few days ago taking into account pauses, repetitions, and discussions of intonation, dynamics and, taken overall, interpretation. 12 In this case, the different forms of at(si)žymėti were examined and counted as a single semanticism, as were related words linked to it by derivation, i.e. atžyma. This approach was chosen because there are few such cases; moreover, in DKKS they are included under the description of errors of meaning involving a single word and expressions. BENDRINĖ KALBA | 88 (2015) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 ERIKA RIMKUTĖ. Dar kartą apie Didžiųjų kalbos klaidų sąrašo žodyno klaidas: semantizmai | 13 More than 90 percent of the examples of unmotivated use of the semanticism įjungti are unmotivated; the most frequently used expression is įjungti į sistemą (“connect to the system”). For example: Use Blockade Fund funds to restore the Resurrection Sanctuary and include this project in the state millennium program. will harmonize the application of customs and peripheral regimes, and incorporate all customs services into a common automated control system. The semanticism įnešti is quite often used without motivation (unmotivated uses account for 93 percent overall). In the corpus, the expression įnešti pataisą (“make a correction”) stood out for its frequency; for example: And life is m a k i n g c o r r e c t i o n s, when the reform will finally begin in earnest. With the opportunity to repeat the games, pupils will improve them involuntarily, m a k i n g c r e a t i v e c o r r e c t i o n s. As many as 97 percent of uses of the semanticism įpakavimas are unmotivated. Among the other errors, the expression prekių (prekės) įpakavimas (“packaging of goods/products”) stands out; for example: yogurt varieties, a new kind of cheese, “Feta,” is already being produced; the quality of p a c k a g i n g has improved significantly. the quantities of soft drinks consumed, the sizes of p r o d u c t p a c k a g e s found in shopping centers In 94 percent of the examples, the expression side effect (of medicines), phenomenon was used with an incorrect meaning and was unmotivated; for example: the action of physiologically active substances in the body, and therefore causes adverse effects and allergic reactions less frequently. decreased to 250–300 mg%, while heparin increased by 37–80%. No adverse effects on the liver or kidneys were observed during treatment. In as many as 90% of cases, examples of unmotivated use of the semanticism pervesti were found; the most common word combination using this semanticism is pervesti į mokyklą (“transfer to a school”). For example: In 1690, the prisoner was t r a n s f e r r e d to the famous French prison, the Bastille. There he was cared for so well 1839/40 – 6 (of whom two were new, but those too, as indicated, had been t r a n s f e r r e d to the Vilnius Nobles’ S c h o o l). The following studied at the Švenčionys Nobles’ School: Similarly, 90% of all cases of unmotivated use were examples of the semanticism peržiūrėti. The most commonly used word combination with this semanticism is peržiūrėti įstatymą (–us) (“review the law(s)”), for example: what should an able-bodied person do without work? The Seimas should r e v i e w the l a w s concerning pensioners’ employment. We will discuss many important, substantially r e v i s e d and entirely new l a w s that the Seimas of Lithuania plans to enact. In examining the use of the semanticism vieningas, -a, the combination vieninga nuomonė (“unanimous opinion”) stood out, for example: will consider how Russia should respond to the events of September 11. Clearly, there will be no u n a n i m o u s o p i n i o n, since politicians’ views differ greatly. BENDRINĖ KALBA | 88 (2015) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 ERIKA RIMKUTĖ. Dar kartą apie Didžiųjų kalbos klaidų sąrašo žodyno klaidas: semantizmai | 14 apparently, there were deputies, and correspondingly together with the public, but there is no unanimous opinion either; nevertheless, the majority supports that idea Other semantic calques worth mentioning, which are more often used in the Corpus unmotivatedly than with motivation (in more than 80 percent of instances), are: iššaukiantčiai, matomai, paskaičiuoti, sekantis, -i, užskaityti (frequent collocations include skolų / įsiskolinimų užskaita / užskaitymas), pašvęsti — the latter word is especially frequent in religious texts; it seems that in them it is becoming standard to use pašvęsti in the sense of “to devote, dedicate” (especially frequent collocations are pašvęsti gyvenimą, pašvęstasis gyvenimas — given the nuances of meaning, it would be difficult to find a correct substitute for the latter collocation, so in many religious texts it is used as a term). The following fixed expressions containing semantic calques are used unmotivatedly somewhat less often than those mentioned above: (iš)pildyti pareigą (–as), išskirti pašalpą / sklypą, iššaukiantis elgesys, elgtis iššaukiančiai / iššaukiamai, įvesti pataisas, pravesti liniją, karo stovis, talpinti informaciją. Thus, excluding spoken language, motivated use of semantic calques in the Corpus accounts for 13.94 percent, while unmotivated use accounts for 86.06 percent (cf. the very similar usage data for non-standard loan translations: motivated use — about 16 percent, unmotivated use — 84 percent (Rimkutė 2014)). These data support the important conclusion that language users find it difficult to identify both non-standard loan translations and semantic calques: loan translations resemble Lithuanian words in form, while the foreignness and non-standard status of semantic calques’ meanings are difficult to determine. Šio tyrimo rezultatus palyginus su P. Rudzevičiaus (2005) neteiktinų senųjų svetimybių analizės rezultatais, išryškėjo tokie skirtumai: kaip minėta anksčiau, neteiktini vertiniai ir semantizmai daug dažniau vartojami nemotyvuotai (atitinkamai 84 ir 86 proc.), o senųjų svetimybių dažnesnė vartosena motyvuota (60 proc.), vadinasi, kalbos vartotojai geriau atpažįsta svetimybes ir, jei jas pavartoja, tai grafiškai ar kitaip išskiria. Tokią vartoseną galima paaiškinti tuo, kad gana lengvai atpažįstama svetimybių forma, o vertinius ir semantizmus sunkiau atskirti nuo taisyklingų lietuviškų žodžių. Semantizmus atpažinti sudėtinga dar ir dėl to, kad jie neretai painiojami su perkeltinėmis reikšmėmis vartojamais žodžiais. 4. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Semantic calques are fairly common lexical errors in the Corpus of Contemporary Lithuanian. Their frequency of use varies greatly: some words occur more than 50,000 times (e.g., žinoti), while only a few forms of others were found. Nevertheless, it should be noted that words and expressions that may be semantic calques are used correctly more often than incorrectly. Excluding data for especially frequent words (used more than 3,000 times and examined only in the publicistic section), 58,518 concordance lines showing correct use were found for other words that may be semantic calques (85.31 percent), as well as 10,073 instances of incorrect use (14.69 percent). It might be worth considering whether the DKKS should retain words that are rare in the Corpus and whose erroneous use is found mostly in excerpts from prescriptive publications (words with the prefix pra-, and several words with the prefix at-). BENDRINĖ KALBA | 88 (2015) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 ERIKA RIMKUTĖ. Dar kartą apie Didžiųjų kalbos klaidų sąrašo žodyno klaidas: semantizmai | 15 More attention should be paid to those fairly frequent words that in the Corpus are used unmotivatedly in an inappropriate sense almost all the time (in 80–100 percent of instances): abuojas, -a, ap(si) jungti, apsivesti, aptarnauti sąskaitą, apturėti, atremontuoti, atretauruoti, atsiekti, at(si)žymėti, gautis, išmetinėti / užmetinėti, paskaičiuoti, prabalsuoti, pribūti, užmanyti, užskaityti. After calculating normalized frequency (the number of occurrences per 100,000 words), it was found that semantic calques occur most often in spoken language (36 occurrences per 100,000 words); the figures for their use are fairly similar in the publicistic (9.8 occurrences), administrative (8.8 occurrences), and non-fiction sections (7.8 occurrences). Motivated use of semantic calques accounts for 13.94 percent, while unmotivated use accounts for 86.06 percent (all instances from spoken language were considered motivated use). Thus, language users probably find semantic calques difficult to identify because foreign meanings are hard to determine and are confused with acceptable figurative meanings of other words. In texts published before 2000 (i.e., older texts), semantic calques account for about 60 percent of usage, compared with 40 percent in texts from 2001 onward; it may be assumed that language users and editors are becoming more knowledgeable about language norms. Both the loan translations examined in the previous article in the series on lexical errors in the DKKS and semantic calques warrant greater attention. The list of these lexical errors should be updated and expanded: non-standard translated expressions (often vivid ones) should be added to the loan translations, and the list of semantic calques should be supplemented with the latest examples. A reliable, continuously updated electronic register of lexical errors and their corrections is needed. It should include not only words considered errors and their correct equivalents, but also comments and explanations of why a particular word cannot be used in Lithuanian and how serious an error it is considered to be. Language norms must be described more clearly. Silence about disputed or unclear meanings increases language users’ distrust of linguistic knowledge. It is questionable whether it makes sense to retain the words apmokyti, paskaičiuoti in the DKKS, since it is usually difficult to determine the degree of completeness or precision of an action. The correct and incorrect use of the participle sekantis, -i should be described more clearly. Prescriptive publications should provide more examples, and a greater variety of them, to bring out the difference between correct and incorrect usage. ŠALTINIAI Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos tekstynas. Prieiga internete: http://tekstynas.vdu.lt. Didžiųjų kalbos klaidų sąrašas. Prieiga internete: http://www.vlkk.lt/aktualiausios-temos/didziosios-klaidos/zodyno. LITERATŪRA Blažinskaitė D. 2000: Stilistiškai motyvuoti reklamos kalbos nukrypimai nuo normų. – Kalbos kultūra 73, 96–101. Gedzevičienė D. 2014: Semantizmų vartosena teisės mokslo darbų rankraščiuose. – Taikomoji kalbotyra 5. Prieiga internete: http://taikomojikalbotyra.lt/lt/2014/08/semantizmu-vartosena-teises-mokslo-darbu-rankrasciuose (žiūrėta 2015 06 21). BENDRINĖ KALBA | 88 (2015) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 ERIKA RIMKUTĖ. Dar kartą apie Didžiųjų kalbos klaidų sąrašo žodyno klaidas: semantizmai | 16 Girčienė J. 2007: Naujųjų skolinių vartosena: kalbos kultūros ir stilistikos takoskyra. – Kalbos kultūra 80, 143–152. Kniūkšta P. 2008: Ką seka sekantis? – Kalbos kultūra 81, 236–244. Linkevičienė N. 2013: Redagavimo pradmenys, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Prieiga internete: http://www.flf.vu.lt/mokslas/elektroniniai_istekliai#vadovėliai-mokymo-priemonės (žiūrėta 2015 05 15). Paulauskienė A. 2000: Lietuvių kalbos kultūra, Kaunas: Technologija. Pažūsis L. 2014: Vertimas ir kalba, Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas. Prieiga internete: http://www.espa-rama.lt/es_parama_pletra/failai/ESFproduktai/2014_Monografija_Vertimas_ir_kalba.pdf (žiūrėta 2015 04 10). Pupkis A. 2005: Kalbos kultūros studijos, Vilnius: Gimasis žodis. Razauskas D. 2008: Dėl sekančio klausimo. – Kalbos kultūra 81, 224–235. Rimkutė E. 2014: Ar vis dar aktualus Didžiųjų kalbos klaidų sąrašas? Vertinių atvejis. – Bendrinė kalba 87, 1–13. Prieiga internete: www.bendrinekalba.lt/Pdf/Rimkute_BK_87_straipsnis.pdf (žiūrėta 2015 06 05). Rudzevičius P. 2005: Svetimybių vartojimo polinkiai lietuvių kalbos tekstyne. – Kalbos kultūra 78, 210–219. Šukys J. 2003: Kalbos kultūra visiems, Kaunas: Šviesa. Urnėžiūtė R. 2014: Taisyklingos kalbos niekas neatsūaukė (R. Urnėžiūtė kalbino D. Vaišnienę, J. Palionytę, R. Miliūnaitę, A. Dvylįtę, D. Smalinską). – Gimtoji kalba 2, 18–26. Vilčinskaitė L. 2015: Semantizmų vartosena Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos tekstyne. Bakalauro darbas, Kaunas: Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas. Vilkónčius V. 2001: Vertimas į lietuvių kalbą: trafaretų antplūdis, Vilnius: Gimtasís žodis. Vladarskienė R. 2013: Naujos tarptautinių žodžių reikšmės administracinėje lietuvių kalboje, – Taikomoji kalbotyra 3 (2013–2014). Prieiga internete: http://taikomojikalbotyra.lt/lt/2013/12/naujos-tarptautiniu-zodziu-reiksmes-administracineje-lietuviu-kalboje (žiūrėta 2015 07 20). Gauta 2015 07 22 Priimta 2015 11 03 BENDRINĖ KALBA | 88 (2015) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204