„Kaštai“ – vengtina svetimybė ar ekonomikos teorijos neišvengiamybė?

R. Vaskelaitė. Costs – avoidable alienation or inevitability of economic theory? 265 Bank of Lithuania Costs – Preventing pregnancy OR ECONOMIC THEORIES Not a wedding? KEY WORDS: debt, avoidable alienation, word meaning, norm, usage, term, concept. INTRODUCTION The circumstances in which the Lithuanian language has been functioning for the last couple of decades are the reason why the attention of language normers is mainly focused on one layer of borrowed vocabulary, namely, new foreign words. These circumstances are well known and understood: the country’s extended political, economic, cultural and almost all other fields of relations, maintaining them mainly in English, membership in a group of countries where English is also predominant, integration, convergence, globalization processes that make the status of that language even more important, etc. While the focus is on new foreign words and their standardization principles, words that have entered or pretend to enter the Lithuanian language somewhat later are left aside. Of course, their problematicity is less than the norm. These words are subjected to a lengthy examination of usage, and those that seem necessary to it are usually legalized as norms. On the contrary, usage is not relevant, foreign words that can easily be replaced by their own equivalents are usually left outside the codified norm. The diachronic criterion of relevance for use, determined by the time gap between the foreign word's entry into the language and the present, greatly simplifies the distinction between the norm and non-norm of old foreign words. It is reliably used not only in normative, but also in lexicological works. In the latter, words that entered the Lithuanian language in earlier periods are divided into borrowed words that have become established in the common language and words that are not relevant for usage (Jakaitienė 2010: 233). In normative or norming-related publications the former tend to be called borrowed or real borrowed, the latter, emphasizing their unrepresentability 266 language culture | 86 common language – foreign words (unpresentable, avoidable), indicating also the difference from the unpresentable words that enter the language in the present period – old foreign words (kPP1 1976; kPP2 1985; Girčienė 2004; kP4 2005, 2013; Vaicekauskienė 2007). The most commonly used usage is those borrowed words that have suitable Lithuanian substitutes that fully convey the meaning of the foreign word. The diachronic criterion of relevance to usage should provide for an absolute harmony between usage and norm, but can it always be established? At least one noun belonging to the group of foreign vocabulary – kaštas – does not show such harmony in terms of use and norm. In the 1976 edition of the Language Practice Advices (hereinafter – kPP1) this word is identified as an unpresentable foreignness (kPP1 1976: 122), in the current loan rate of the Language Advices (hereinafter – kP4) booklet it is also evaluated quite strictly – as an avoidable foreignness (kP41 2005: 64), the same degree of evaluation is maintained in the newly released new edition of the booklet (kP42 2013: 37), and in such an important field of general language use as economic theory, costs are widely used. Without this word and the whole group of terms formed with it, almost no economic textbook, including teachers, can do without them, and they are included in the dictionaries of terms. this immediately leads to the assumption that the use of this word is not an incidental breach of the codified rule, but a contradiction of use based on certain arguments. Zofija Babickienė (2012) has pointed out that economists and linguists do not agree on costs, but she has not examined the gap between norm and usage more broadly. The issue of costs as an economic term was raised at the third conference of the Terminology Forum of European Union and Lithuanian Institutions and Bodies, held on 7 June 20131, but one afternoon’s discussion is too short time for a detailed analysis of the phenomenon. It was this discussion that prompted the author of the article to examine this exceptional case of non-concordance between norm and usage in more detail. The phenomenon is truly phenomenal – a word, which was started to be corrected almost forty years ago, does not disappear from usage, so there may be important factors determining it. analyzing the usage of the economic field, and aims to clarify them, at least to grasp as far as the linguistic competence allows. After all, it is decided to study a complex field – economic theory, science. Linguists who understood its subtleties, without having finished that 1 discussion about the conference and the costs, wrote on the forum’s website, accessible via the Internet <http://ec.europa.eu/translation/lithuanian/ltf/index_en.htm>. R. Vaskelaitė. Costs – avoidable alienation or inevitability of economic theory? 267 field studies, do not have as many possibilities as economic theorists, meaning that some factors may remain untouched. on the other hand, representatives of economic science, usually not having studied linguistics, do not have the opportunity to understand all the subtleties of the language system, its functioning, norm. This reciprocal lack of possibilities is probably the reason why the linguistic aspects of the cost problem have not been examined until now, and the lack of a more detailed analysis may in turn have led to a gap between the codified norms and the usage, or at least to a difficult relationship. insofar as contrary to the codified norm is justified, texts such as textbooks and dictionaries are very easy to interpret. After all, in them terms are not only used, but also interpreted, the concepts marked by them are defined, i.e., all semantic aspects of the word of concern are revealed. since the totality of terms is presented, the relationship of terms is also clarified. But most importantly, textbooks and dictionaries are not the edge of common language. They are areas of exceptional importance for the use of the common language, having a great impact on the use of that area as a whole, and not only2. The evaluation of the noun cost is to be found primarily in the publications providing the standard of Lithuanian language lexicon. there are three such cases, with certain exceptions – four. This is the Dictionary of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language (hereinafter – DŽ), kP41 and kP42, while the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language (hereinafter – lkŽ) can be classified to this group only with reservations, since language standardization is not its main purpose. the cost of a word in online electronic DZe and lkŽe is the same as in printed DZe and lkŽe3. In all publications, the evaluation of the noun in question differs. lkŽ kkastė is not subject to any degree of negative evaluation, only the word 2 is indicated. When this article was already given to the press, the problem was solved practically – the term was discussed in Vlkk and, based on the arguments of economics and accounting specialists, it was decided to submit it for use in certain meanings as a term of economics and management accounting. Thus, the gap between the norm and the use has been reduced, but, as can be seen from the legalized definitions (see http://www.vlkk.lt/lit/104940), unresolved issues remain. This article could contribute to further reducing the gap. 3 continues to use the lkŽe and DŽe available on the Internet, so the page is not referred to. If there are any differences between the online and the printed publication, the printed publication is referred to. 268 language culture | 86 source of origin – the Polish noun koszt – and the locations where the loanword is recorded. They alone reveal a wide geography, covering all regions of Lithuania: léipalingis, seirrajiai, sienas, liškiavà, Rozalumas, Dùsetos, Jonišklis, Pasvalỹs, skisnemunė, Viekšniaė, Mažeikiai, Plūngė. Examples of usage are given from Tauragnė, Daukšių, Bagótosios (Bagótšilio), Alytaus, Geistãrų (Didvyžių), Veivųržėnų, alsdžių, Rietãvo, kùk tišė kių. The fact that kaštas was also used in written language is confirmed by the 1747 Lithuanian-German and German-Lithuanian dictionary by Pilypas Ruigis (for which material was also collected from Lithuanian books) and his study of the Lithuanian language, the later work of Jur gius Pa brė žas (1771–1849), Mykolas Mie ži nis’s Lietuviškai–lat viš kai–len kiškai–ru siškas žo dy nas (1894) and Lie tu viška gra ma ti ka (1886) and examples from antanas Juškevičius (Juška)’s Lithuanian language dictionary (1897–1922). Examples of written usage are also included from the writings of Simonas Daukantas (1793–1864), formerly a member of the Lietuvių kalbos draugija. There are few written sources of the Preussian and Klaipėdian regions. Although lkŽe reveals the wide range of the word and its old use, this would not be an argument for its use in the current common language. The structure of lkŽe shows that the ambiguity of the places where the word is recorded is rather a sign of its dialectic connotation, and foreign vocabulary was not avoided in the old writings. on the other hand, standardization is not the main objective of lkŽe. This dictionary is primarily explanatory, scientific. However, there are some normative aspects: foreign words are marked in the dictionary with the sign ×, and borrowed words are marked immediately after the title word in parentheses with the equivalent of the language from which the word originated. The Polish equivalent is given with the cost, but the sign × is not present, thus it is considered only as a loan in lkŽe. stylistic notes psn. (obsolete), used in this dictionary to indicate rarely used words, are also absent. It is true that the sign × is added to some words of the kaštų root (kaštaunas, kaštaunus, kaštaunai, kaštaunumas, etc.), but it is obvious that they are marked because of constructional characteristics that are unacceptable for Lithuanian. The verb kaštuoti, like the base word, lkŽ is left without the foreignness mark, only with the reference to the Polish origin (from kosztować). such a sign is not even in the vedic kaštavimas, kaštytis (and įsikaštyti, išsikaštyti), kaštuodintis (įsikaštuodinti, išsikaštuodinti), and this sign and the specified rule in the linga form kaštuoti to the verb kaštavoti would indicate that such a word is not acceptable because of a non-Lithuanian suffix. The cost of assessing relevance in terms of usage inevitably comes to DZ, since its introduction states that it is also a normative dictionary. From the R. Vaskelaitė. Costs – avoidable alienation or inevitability of economic theory? 269, issued in 1972, to the last4 both cost and costed are marked with reference see (=see). The meaning of this reference is not entirely clear. The 1972 edition states that it “orients the reader from a word that is not considered a language error to a more common, more common word” (DŽ 1972: iii), and in newer editions – that it “directs narrowly used, dialectal, obsolete, borrowed and other similar words or constructions to words that are more widely used in common language” (DŽ 2000: Xii). This means that not only is the word used less frequently, but it also indicates the status of the word as a borrowed word. If the latter is indicated, it follows that the cost of DŽ is not corrected, especially since in the introduction it is written that those old borrowed words are added to the dictionary which have become common language or do not have settled Lithuanian equivalents (DŽ 2000: VII). It is true, that some foreign words that are not present in common language are also included in the DŽ, but the status of foreign language is indicated by the abbreviation ntk. and the equal sign (neteikti na=). Whatever the reason for the cost being marked with a reference see – due to narrower usage, dialecticity, existing debt status or for several reasons – it is probably not considered a widely used word in the current common language. second, the decision to shift the cost to more commonly used words could be supported by the possibility given to the user to decide for itself how much it needs the word. However, this freedom of choice is significantly limited by another publication providing the borrowing rate – the aforementioned kP4 booklet. Here, costs (in the plural form rather than the singular) are referred to as avoidable strangeness: svet. vngt. (kP41 2005: 64). In this context, evaluative phenomena that are not legalized as the norm of common language are considered to be avoidable: they are already non-normative and no longer have any prospects, or they are still non-normative, insufficiently studied, etc. (kP41 2005: 11). it is clear that costs are considered a non-normative and no longer prospective word, but the basis for such a decision is not clear. In the preface of the publication it is stated that when including borrowed words in the list, two sources are taken into account: previous or current written corrections (1976 and 1985 editions of the kPP, the Vlkk-approved “List of major language errors”, corrections published by Pranas Skardiejus and Juozas Vaišnis, online language consultation databases, etc.) and public spoken language usage (kP41 2005: 5–6). that the latter has been used, the reference to fin., indicating that the cost correspondance is provided for financial texts, would give rise to doubt. "The 4 DŽ editions of the Great Language: i – 1954, ii – 1972, iii – 1993, iV – 2000, V – 2003, Vi – 2006, Vii – 2012. 270 kalBos kultūRa | 86 klaidų sąraše“ (pkk 1998: 127–177) nei the noun kaštai, nei the verb kaštuoti are present. These words were corrected only in the 1976 edition of kPP1, probably based on it, since the second edition – kPP2, published in 1985, does not include the word costs. DŽe is not mentioned in the preamble, but if it were, it would not give a relatively strict assessment of the word. In addition, kP41 provides a non-DG substitute, cost. The fact that a noun used in the plural is regarded as avoidable foreignness and is corrected as a financial term would lead to the assumption that the word is considered to have lexicalized, i.e. acquired a different meaning in terminology. however, this assumption is decreased by kP42. In the list of lexical borrowings presented here, costs are also assessed as an avoidable foreignness in the financial field (kP42 2013: 37), but three substitutes are presented, and two of them – costs, funds – coincide with those indicated in DŽe and lkŽe, which are mainly based on general usage. this raises the question of whether the assessment of the term takes sufficient account of the differences in areas of use. providing three substitutions is also more typical of general usage than of the field of terminology. There are various approaches to synonymy of terms, but it is usually considered as a sign of the initial formation of terminology (Zemlevičiūtė 2001; umbrasas 2004; stunžinas 2005; Rimkutė 2007). If three words are given as different substitutes, this would also indicate the problem of the evaluation (or the evaluated phenomenon) – most likely the meaning of the corrective word is not properly conveyed. An overview of the codified norm would show that the norm is quite uneven and unclear: lkŽe word is considered a loanword, probably a dialect, but not corrected, kP41 and kP4 – foreignness and corrected. what the cost is considered to be DGE, from the reference provided see difficult to determine, but it is obvious that the status of non-receivable alienation is not granted. another contradiction of the rule is that kP41 and kP42 consider the term as avoidable foreignness, and none of the dictionaries indicate the status of the noun kaštas as a term. Since they do not in principle deny the acceptability of a word for general common use, it is unlikely that a word that may be used could be considered a term to be avoided in the special field. However, the absence of a certificate indicating the status of the term in dictionaries does not mean that cost is not considered a term in them. We will try to clarify this further, but if it turns out that no distinction is made between the noun and the term, the contradiction of the norm remains – kP41 and kP42 evaluate that term much more strictly. R. Vaskelaitė. Costs – avoidable alienation or inevitability of economic theory? 271 corresponding iR Requirements The General Purpose DICTIONARIES lkZ and DZ do not contain termbooks, but they do not exclude words from special fields. e.g. lkŽ refers to dialects as the main lexical base, but another important source is considered written sources from the first Lithuanian book to the present day. lkŽe indicates that the vocabulary for the dictionary was collected not only from the most significant fiction, non-fiction and other fields of literature, but also from scientific literature, in addition, all the most important printed or manuscript dictionaries were used. DŽ as one of the sources of lexicon refers to scientific terms that occur in science popularization literature, press, and textbooks for primary education schools (DŽ 2000: Vii). Especially the scientific terminology should be taken into account in DŽe, because here “both in selecting the words to be added to the dictionary and in interpreting them, all Lithuanian explanatory dictionaries and Lithuanian encyclopedias published in the 20th and early 21st centuries were used. Important sources for the search and selection of words were Lithuanian term dictionaries, as well as some translated general dictionaries. In preparing the dictionary, the authors relied on Lithuanian language scientific works, language practice publications <...>. For some terms and other words, explanatory dictionaries and encyclopedias of other languages have been used in necessary cases.“ Such a description of the selection of words, of course, does not allow us to determine what – common usage or terminology – was used to include the noun cost in the dictionaries, but this can be determined from the given entries, the interpretation of the meanings, and finally – from the structure of the dictionaries. The fact that Lithuanian towns and villages are mentioned next to the word kaštas would indicate that the main source is the old folk language, and in it the word could not be used as a term of a special field. that it wasn't even there, shown by examples: Without cost you can't do anything (tauragnai); At his expense will drive (Daukšiai); He had a lot of cost (the Rich); That work is worth the high cost (alytus); I have no cost – from what you can make (Geistarai); The cost of his death, only the sum received (Geistarai); I put the highest cost, just settled cow (Veiviržėnai); Only kaštaang and kaštaang (seated); There will be no writing without cost (Rietavas); How much I've helped in your cost (kuttiškės). Similar to the usage of spoken language reveals and written language – an example from the writings of S. Daukanto (Koštas buvo didis), from the former. They published three books at their own expense. as already discussed, lkZ cost is not negatively evaluated in relation to the rate, only equivalents are indicated, which can also be considered as an interpretation of the meaning. 272 Language Culture | 86 Cost is explained as expenses, funds, and the difference between expenses and funds is described by defining funds as cash resources, money, credits, expenses – as expenditure money, funds. this word relationship is also determined in DŽ. The words expenditure and funds are defined in the DG in the same way and, as mentioned, since 1972 the cost is directed to them. since in this edition the reference see is a sign of a rarer, less common word, it follows that in 1972 it is decided that the noun cost is withdrawing from usage and can be replaced by expense with funds. In the absence of origin research, from these dictionaries alone it would be possible to assume that both equivalents appeared or at least spread later than cost. lkThe examples illustrating the noun funds are given only starting with the writings of Janas Jablonskis (His funds don’t bring so much; He lives in funds – he has a lot of everything). There is also mention of DŽe (Sustaining funds; Turnover funds), and the abbreviation (sov.) sp. is given for the sentence People’s government allocates huge funds for the protection of the health of working people, their education, and the development of culture, showing that this is a word from the press reflecting Soviet realities, which would lead to the conclusion that it was popular in the Soviet period. The example of folk language is given from the village of ukmergs r. (Not their money to teach the son), but it may also be from later use. The sentence illustrating the expenditure Growth in the profits of the country’s industry will allow to increase the expenditure on capital construction (cf.), as well as the examples presented in DŽ and the reference that the meaning of the word is opposite to income (I had a lot of expenditure in the city; Coordination of expenditure with income), would encourage to believe that expenditure also became popular later than cost5. such examples are more representative of the formal business style than illustrating the cost, and the compounds livelihood funds, turnover funds are terms. Since the DG cost is directed to the words illustrated by such sentences, and the lkZ cost is interpreted by them, it can be assumed that in dictionaries no distinction is made between the cost as a word of general use and the cost as a term. Although cost is associated in dictionaries only with expenses, funds, but the examples given in lkŽ do not show such a coincidence of meanings. in general, it is difficult to determine the meaning of them, especially since there are almost no words in the sentences that help to clarify it. In the examples That one cost would be, He had a lot of cost, Only kaštaang and kaštaang, The cost was great the used noun can be associated with both expenses and some loss, not necessarily monetary. Of course, more reliable conclusions about the emergence and establishment of the words expenses and funds could be obtained only by examining the older usage, but it is not the subject of this article. R. Vaskelaitė. Costs – avoidable alienation or inevitability of economic theory? 273 closer connection with the funds spent only in the sentences Titis turėjo didelį kaštą ant sodvos (veselijos) savo dukters, They published three books at their own expense. The verb kaštuoti, which is associated with cost in the operative relation, would indeed indicate that there may not be any connection with money. In the examples given in lkŽe Kiek vienas virbelis kaštuoja pinigus (Žemaitė), Šita kepurė du rubliu kaštuoja (J. Jablonskis), Daug pinigų kaštuoja veseilia atkelt (leipalingis), Toks parėds ale ir kaštuojas auksinių tūkstantį (Jurkšaitis) it is obvious, but this is not a verb, but the dependent words of objective or circumstantial meaning: kaštuoja pinigus, daug pinigų kaštuoja, du rubliu kaštuoja, kaštuojas auksinių tūkstantį. and in the examples Those bridles and saddle cost him a good horse (a. vienuolis), This cost me a lot of money, a lot of work (kuršaitis) the dependent elements (ahlio kaštavusios, daug darbo kaštavo) show that there is no connection with the monetary expression. when it is not indicated by dependent articles, one verb does not show it, e.g. : Oh, virgin lily, what does lavender cost? (Rudamina); And what did the green crown cost? (A collection of poems by V. Kalvaitis.) the verb does not describe the property on a monetary basis. this is confirmed by the corresponding costing and disclosure. the equivalent to cost is related to money, lkŽe also indicates that its main meaning is “to have value in money”. but the other equivalent – to separate – may not be related to money. in the sentences Buying expensive clothes is cheaper than buying cheap ones (left), Maintaining Asilas is quite inexpensive (J. Balvočius and Gerutis) such a connection can be seen, but it is also shown by dependent elements. and in the sentence Nemaža jam sveikatos at at siejo (by Boruta) such a spot shows that there is no connection. Thus, the verbs to cost and to separate the meanings can be assigned on a monetary basis, but for the word cost the dictionary does not provide such a possibility – its meaning is associated only with expenses, funds, in other words, money. However, further analysis of the operative connections generally leads to doubt whether the operative connection between the words cost and costing is adequately conveyed by the interpretation of meanings. After all, one of the equivalents of costing – costing, he associates with price, and there should be semantic connections between these words. and indeed in both dictionaries price is defined as “to have value in money” and price as “value in money”. If the equivalent of costing is costing, then cost should be related to price, and since price is value in money, it is probably also related to value. One of the meanings of value given in lkŽe – “a quantity of something, by which one thing is exchanged for another” would mean that the nouns price and value, 280 Language Culture | 86 shows the following grouping of terminology: for terms with the element cost, the corresponding terms are mostly chosen with the term costs, while the English equivalent of expenses is mostly expenses (administrative i. – office e., prepaid i. – prepaid e., stationery i. – office e., travelling i. – travelling e., etc.), there are also charges (back i. – back c., transfer i. – remittance c., etc.), spending (total i. – agregate i., deficit i. – deficit s.), expenditures (non-balance sheet budget i. – below line). There are only four terms that include costs: prepaid exan penses, capital expenditures, time costs and cost recovery, and the word costs itself is associated with input and expenditure(s). The first translation of the Economic Terms Dictionary (etŽ1), published in the same year, does not include any costs at all, but it is the first dictionary that does not include any costs at all. Almost all English terms containing cost are translated here by Lithuanian terms having the equivalent cost. Thus, total c. becomes total i., marginal c. becomes marginal i., production c., factor c. become production i., costs become costs, function c., cost-benefit analysis (c.ubenee fit analysis), minimization c., transaction c., social c., transaction c., economic c., etc. Occasionally cost is translated as price (c. of capital), production (c. price – g. price, average c. price – average g. price) and so on. Since the dictionaries published in 1991 and 1994 do not show any tendency to decrease the relevance of the term costs, on the contrary, they show that the term spread, so the decision of etŽ1 to abandon the term costs could not be explained by the irrelevance of the term. It could only be explained by the attempt to Lithuanianize the debt or to standardize the different concepts of costs and expenses. It is difficult to establish how justified the second assumption is, but the aim of avoiding international terms and jargon is indeed mentioned (etŽ1 1994: 5). However, the word cost in English could not be supported and at that time it could hardly be considered an international word. It was not possible to translate correctly. For example, the opporr tunity cost (economic cost) could not spread as the most appropriate cost in the usage. The etŽ1 proposal to translate cost as expenses in all cases was also rejected quite quickly – three years later (in 1997) when the dictionary was released. In the new edition – etŽ2, costs have appeared everywhere instead of expenditures: general s., marginal s., production s., alternative s., social s., s. function, s. effectiveness, s. maximization, transaction s., implicit (indirect) s., ex-plicit (direct) s., added s., etc., judging only from the development of dictionaries, R. Vaskelaitė. Costs – avoidable alienation or inevitability of economic theory? 281 equivalent costs could be considered as a solution of economic terminology, found after deciding to expel costs from it. etZ2 at the term costs do not return. Apparently, the word correction in the 1995 issue of the Mother Language had an effect and, following the above-mentioned objection, the editor’s proposal to refrain from incurring costs, if they had already refused to do so, was printed after the reader’s letter. but further development of dictionaries would show that costs were not a sufficient substitute for costs. Mr. Gaivenis also revised the terms of the Banking and Commerce Terms Dictionary (hereinafter referred to as BKT) published by Anton Burač in 1997. The compiler mentions foreign multilingual dictionaries, classificators and international computer databases as the basis of the dictionary (Bkt 1997: V–Vii), which means that foreign terminology must have had a considerable influence on the Bkt terms. Perhaps it has led to the costs being included again, only the reference see linked to costs. However, the drafter of the BCT could not have been unaware of etZ1, in which the costs were proposed, and etZ2, in which the costs were adjusted to cost. The use of the time had to be respected. Probably because of these factors, in addition to the terms formed with the term costs, a synonym is given: costs (approximate consumption costs, casual costs, circulation costs, actual costs, external costs, variable costs, transaction costs, etc.), costs (deferred costs, general costs, fixed costs, net costs, acquisition costs, external costs, normative costs, marginal costs, internal costs, etc.) or even two synonyms (indirect costs, additional costs, constant costs, initial costs, etc.). Almost all English equivalents focus on costs. of the total number of synonymous terms with the word cost is 53. such synonymy and variety does not help to decide which term to use, but this dictionary is neither standardizing nor normative. It is merely a reflection of the usage and shows that it did not have enough expenditure, but also not enough costs. Consumption and costs. One of the possible reasons for the inadequacy of costs is revealed by the meaning of the concept of costs specified in Bkt: 1) costs; 2) monetary evaluation of costs (Bkt 1997: 165-166). costs are not simply costs – they are the monetarization of costs. The second meaning of costs indicated by Bkt could also be given to the word cost, if for a long time, starting with the 1991 issue of the Šet, costs were not defined as resources used in the production process: “inputs – economic resources used in the production process (labour force, materials and raw materials, equipment, capital, etc.).” (2004: 190). By the way, this definition coincides with the one given in Lithuanian dictionaries, so on this point the general usage 282 language cultures | 86 and specialized dictionaries agree. as resources used by business enterprises to produce goods or provide services, costs are also defined in the 1999 glossary Economic Terms and Concepts (ets 1999: 148), and costs are used to identify the monetary amount of resources used to produce the output of an enterprise (ets 1999: 77). Costs are also defined in the Explanatory Glossary of Management Terms (hereinafter – EMT) published in 2000 as only the resources used. There is neither a word that conveys the meaning of costs nor a term that can convey it, costs, in this dictionary (aĪV 2000: 157). However, this dictionary is not economics, but business management. The concept of costs as an economic theory is not needed here, perhaps that is why the problem of the term does not arise. It appears in one of the most recent works of lexicography in the field of economics – Rūta Vainiene’s Dictionary of Economic Terms published in 2005. It attempts to solve the Probum lemma by providing several equivalents. If you add ntk. (=not presentable) to cost, the equivalents are cost, expense, price, and the English equivalent of saaj vikaina shows that it is also cost. This glossary contains such economic theory terms as cost-benefit analysis, cost-push inflation, opportunity costs, variable costs, and the concept of costs is defined as “value expression of economic resources consumed during the production of goods and services” (Vainienė 2005: 242). therefore, the meaning given to the word is related to the value of the resources. The resources themselves are referred to in the definition in a descriptive way, and production resources are referred to separately. it is true that it refers to the factors of production, and the latter are defined as “economic (limited) resources used in the production process” (Vainienė 2005: 95). so it is probably assumed that the term input function to identify the resources used in production can perform two-word compound production factors. how real such a possibility is, should be clear from the texts operating with concepts – in the dictionary this is not necessary. and the economic dictionaries show that the term costs has not automatically disappeared from usage. judging from them alone, less than the expenditure spent in the Soviet period, in the terminology of the transitional economic period, affected by contact with Western economic theory, it spread and became relevant. Consistent change of the term by cost in one of the dictionaries could not fit the terminology due to insufficient correspondence of meanings, and in dictionaries (or in the usage) other correspondences were searched. Most likely, as a result of such searches, instead of costs, costs appeared, but the subsequent development of dictionaries shows that this word alone was not enough to convey the meaning of costs. R. Vaskelaitė. Costs – avoidable alienation or inevitability of economic theory? 283 The Lithuanian translation of David W. Pearce’s English–Lithuanian Explanatory Dictionary of Economics (hereinafter referred to as aetŽ), published in 2006, stands out from the dictionaries in this field in that it was prepared by a group of economists assisted by language specialists – the terminology centre of the Lithuanian Language Institute. Apparently, the joint work, or perhaps the persistence of the usage, led to the fact that the term costs, after a good circle, returns – it is chosen as the equivalent of the English cost. However, the dictionary also indicates other equivalents – cost is translated as costs/costs/prices/expenses (aetŽ 2006: 131–132). In the aetŽ itself cost is translated only as costs: c.ubenefit analysis – k. and benefit analysis, c.ueffec tiveness analysis – k. and efficiency analysis, c.upush inflation (c. inflation) – k. promoted inflation, c. minimization – k. minimization, c. of capital – capital k., marginal c. – marginal k., variable c. – variable k., fixed c. – fixed k., implicit c. – implicit k., opportunity c. – alternative/assigned k., transactions c. – transaction handling k., etc. In terms of this group, costs are not consumed and expenses are only related to expenditure (aggregate e. – general e., e.uswitching policies – i. restructuring policy, e. tax – i. tax, e.uvariation controls – i. change control) or expence (e. preference). The short description of the term cost provided by aetŽ essentially reveals both the reason for such a choice and, perhaps, the abundance of corresponding terms. this is the meaning that economists give to the concept of cost. as indicated, they usually identify costs with opportunity costs8, which are defined as the value of everything that would have to be given up, lost or given up in exchange for something else (aetŽ 2006: 131). This definition would confirm the assumption made during the discussion of Lithuanian language dictionaries that the word costs, at least as an economic theory term, is not related to costs, but rather to value or price, meaning that costs cannot replace it. aetŽ and directly indicates the difference between costs and expenses: the costs understood in economic terms may coincide, but do not always coincide with the cash payments that the accountant would record as expenses (aetŽ 2006: 132). from the description of the concept one can see another shade of meaning – what would have to be lost to get something else. The word cost would not convey it either. The concept of replacement costs is species, meaning that even if economists identify the concepts, there should be a relative. This dictionary does not define the term kašų, but some of the terms marked with it are8 This dictionary provides opportunity costs lietuviški pakaitiniai kaštai, priskirtiniai kaštai are not used in economic theory works, as the already established term alternatyvieji kaštai (alternatyviniai kaštai were also used in textbooks of the previous period). 284 Language Cultures | 86 Envelope Shades of Meaning reveals the interpretation of cost-benefit analysis. defined as a framework for evaluating investment projects in the public sector, this analysis is explained as different from direct financial evaluation in that it ‘considers all revenues (benefits) and losses (costs) irrespective of who bears them’, and benefits are explained as an increase in utility and costs as a decrease in utility, defined as the replacement costs of the project under consideration; It is also added that in most cases the benefits are not measured in money, and the costs are determined as the actual monetary costs of the project (aetŽ 2006: 132). therefore, costs are here identified with loss, measured in money. both this interpretation and the definition of replacement costs show that the concept of costs is not related to use or consumption, so that the word costs would not be appropriate, at least in that sense. and in fact, economic textbooks reveal that the term costs in economic theory does not replace costs, although the latter word is used. There are almost no economics textbooks for higher schools in which the concepts of the system are explained without cost. but the textbooks are not the same. There are two main branches of economics: microeconomics and macroeconomics. In the teaching of macroeconomic theory, which is focused on the economy as a whole, costs are not discussed separately, they are mainly focused on such basic topics as unemployment, inflation, economic growth. However, the fact that a term is not discussed does not mean that it is not used. In the analysis of various economic laws and processes, it is used as self-evident and is presented in such composite terms as borrowing costs, money-holding costs, consumption opportunity costs, labour costs, idleness costs, job loss opportunity costs, menu costs, social costs, inflation costs, projected inflation costs, cost inflation, economic growth costs, external costs, etc. (Wonnacott, Wonnacott 1994; Drilingas et al. 1997; Paliulytė 2005; snieška et al. 2005; skominas 2006; Čiegis 2012). The concept of costs is directly related to production, and production is not conceivable without enterprises – one of the main objects of microeconomics, therefore it is discussed in detail in all microeconomic textbooks (Wonnacott, Wonnacott 1997; Varian 1999; snieška et al. 2000; skominas 2000; Rastenienė 2005; klimašauskienė 2006; Panovas 2011). R. Vaskelaitė. Costs – avoidable alienation or inevitability of economic theory? 285 The concept in question is activated by textbooks covering both microeconomics and macroeconomics. are economic theory, basic economics textbooks or teaching materials for higher education. The genre leads to a considerable repetition of texts, and there are many textbooks, so when analyzing the concept of costs taught in them and the group of terms it assumes, we will not aim to cover all – typical ones are selected. hereinafter collectively referred to as economic textbooks, with an indication of the type where appropriate. The chapter on costs is an essential part of the general economics textbooks. It is usually presented after discussing the market mechanism and the theory of flexibility, but one concept is explained at the beginning of the textbooks. The essence of the notion of opportunity costs is presented by discussing the basic economic problem, described everywhere the same – as the contradiction between unlimited needs and limited resources (kerem, Randveer 1998: 16–17; skominas 2000: 36–38; Martinkus, Žilinskas 2001: 95–99; Jakutis et al. 2003: 14–15; lukuševičius, stankevičius 2003: 42; Buračas et al. 2005: 24; Rastenienė 2005: 13–16; snieška et al. 2005: 26; Jakutis 2006: 15–16; Davulis 2009: 19–22). Human needs are unlimited and the resources needed to satisfy them are finite, so every society faces the problem of resource scarcity. This problem prompts choices on how to use them effectively. Different economic systems solve these tasks in different ways, for example, in the case of a centralized planned (command) economy, such questions are answered by planning institutions, in market economy conditions - the market itself; Mixed economy is also often mentioned (kerem, Randveer 1998: 20; Martinkus, Žilinskas 2001: 16; lukoševičius, stankevičius 2003: 42–47; Rastenienė 2005: 20; snieška et al. 2005: 25; Davulis 2009: 35–39). and economics itself is often described as the science of how one of the possible options of using limited resources is chosen in order to produce products (Yakutis et al. 2003: 14; Jakutis 2006: 16; Paunksnienė, liučvaitienė 2009: 7). further, the problem of choice is related to social production, since the majority of economic activity is devoted to the production of goods and services. when resources are limited, each resource used in one way can no longer be used to produce other products. If a society decides to increase the production of one product, it has less resources to produce another (Mar- 286 language culture | 86 tinkus, Žilinskas 2001: 96–99; Jakutis et al. 2003: 15–16; lukoševičius, stankevičius 2003: 42–47; Rastenienė 2005: 13–17). therefore, the choice is alternative: choosing one, losing the other. Textbooks provide French equivalents for the phenomenon in question: alternatif (lukoševičius, stankevičius 2003: 42), alternative (Martinkus, Žilinskas 2001: 19). The costs associated with the choice alternative are called alternative costs, but this term, as can be seen from the discussed dictionaries of economic terms, is already associated with the English equivalent, i.e. opportunity costs (Martinkus, Žilinskas 2001: 20, 213). The latter would allow the compound to be translated as the cost of opportunity or ala ternative, but as a term almost without exception is used a compound with the noun form of the adjective, occasionally the non-noun is used (Jakutis et al. 2003; Jakutis 2006). in relation to the production of a good, opportunity costs are understood as the lost goods that could have been produced from the resources used to produce it: “The actual opportunity costs of producing any good may be defined as those alternative goods that could have been produced from the resources used to produce that good.” (Martinkus, Žilinskas 2001: 206). More specifically, they are referred to as the quantity of goods or services – the one that has to be given up in order to obtain a certain quantity of other goods or services (Martinkus, Žilinskas 2001: 97), and abstractly – as an alternative of resource utilization, which we give up by producing a certain product (Mikučionis 2000: 46; Rastenienė 2005: 14). However, the problem of choice in the textbooks is not only related to society, the economic system, but also to each individual, the business enterprise: Everyone faces the need to choose and the problems of opportunity costs – the doctor and the lawyer, the entrepreneur and the teacher, the official and the consumer. Young doctors have to decide whether to take general practice or spend money and continue to study, become a specialist in a narrow field. Entrepreneurs need to choose one of the possible types of production and allocate their money to equipment, materials and workers in such a way that the expenses provide the maximum income. Consumers must decide how to spend their money to achieve the best results (benefits): buy fish or meat, bread or potatoes, a new clothing or new curtains, a new book or a ticket to a concert, and how much to buy those goods that they must periodically purchase. (Martinkus, Žilinskas 2001: 20). The broadly understood opportunity costs are often referred to simply as a lost opportunity (Wonnacott, Wonnacott 1994: 32; Martinkus, Žilinskas 2001: 20; Davulis 2009: 20) or as the best R. Vaskelaitė. Costs – avoidable alienation or inevitability of economic theory? 287 (Martinkus, Žilinskas 2001: 20). It is clear from the interpretation of the concept that the word costs would not convey this meaning. After all, in most cases nothing is lost – simply choosing one loses the other. The interpretation of the concept of opportunity costs in the textbooks would first allow to see the connections of meaning with the indirect meaning of price given in general purpose dictionaries, i.e. “loss value”, “loss, loss in pursuit of something”, especially since those costs are called price. One textbook puts this meaning straightforwardly: “Resource alternatives make us realize the simple truth that nothing comes for free. therefore, the notion of option price or cost of lost opportunities arises. This is known as alternative value or alternative costs. The name does not change the essence, because it is about the fact that each option has its own price. this is a universal truth, but it is most evident in the economy.” (Mikučionis 2000: 43). The relationship with the transfer price value is shown by the call of the opportunity costs as lost benefits: “Lost benefits, when comparing the chosen alternative of resource use with the rejected one, and constitute the alternative or possible costs” (Martinkus, Žilinskas 2001: 213); “in general, opportunity costs are the benefits of the best alternative of resource use that has been rejected.” (skominas 2000: 41). Elsewhere it is written that opportunity costs are “the lost benefit of the best alternative of the chosen activity”, but it is immediately specified that “in practical analysis, opportunity costs are usually expressed in money” (kerem, Randveer 1998: 35), which would allow this term to be linked to the direct meaning of price. and in fact, the loss is sometimes associated with money, for example, the opportunity costs of a music center are compared to the price of a new computer (Martinkus, Žilinskas 2001: 20). In the definition of the term opportunity costs, that loss is usually referred to as value: “<...> opportunity costs are the value of the best alternative abandoned or rejected.” (kerem, Randveer 1998: 16); “Opportunity costs are the value of other goods that could have been produced if the resources had been used elsewhere” (Rastenienė 2005: 14). The concept of costs is also defined as value: “costs – the value of the resources used for the production of the enterprise’s output” (Rastenienė 2005: 72). It can also be linked to a monetary expression: “costs are the value of all the factors of production consumed in production, i.e. the value of the costs at actual prices.” (skominas 2000: 142). where costs are defined as the value (of used resources) and opportunity costs as the value of the alternative, as if it appears that the loss, lost benefits 288 Linguistic Culture | 86 A two-word term is given meaning by the dependent accent, and the principal accent is related to value or price. However, the relationship between the concepts of costs and opportunity costs is not so unambiguous and clear. On the one hand, these concepts may be identified, as has already been noted in the context of aetG. This is also stated in economic textbooks: "Economists treat all costs as lost opportunities, so the words costs and altero native costs mean the same thing. However, to remind us that the choice is a sacrifice of the real possibilities, economists add the word alternaaj tyvieji.” (Martinkus, Žilinskas 2001: 20). Despite this identification, it may be assumed that costs only need to be defined as lost opportunity (benefit), value of loss or price, and adjustment alternatives would no longer be necessary. However, the dependency point indicates a species nature, i.e. there should also be no altered native costs or other concepts of costs. It becomes apparent when reaching the microeconomic level, more precisely, the enterprises that carry out the production process. This concept will be discussed further, and the interpretation of opportunity costs in economic textbooks suggests that the term is used both in a more abstract sense, i.e. as a specific loss, and more specifically as a loss measured in terms of quantity of goods, services or money. There are words for loss in Lithuanian language: nuostolis, netektis, praūd radimas, praradimas, sustojimas, žala. but the concept of opportunity costs would show that the phenomenon in question is not simply a loss, material damage. it is a loss, no benefit when choosing or getting something else, and to convey such a shade of meaning, the Lithuanian word is lacking. In general usage, this semantic gap could be filled by the price used in figurative sense (e.g., the price of life, the price of love), but in economic theory the word is used in its literal meaning and as a term. Costs and expenses Although, as you can see, in economic textbooks costs are associated with any choice, they are primarily associated with production. Most often, production costs are discussed in a separate chapter (kerem, Randveer 1991: 35–40; Martinkus, Žilinskas 2001: 191–222; Žutautienė 2007: 43–46; Davulis 2009: 49–71). like alternatives, they are also called simply costs, also defined as value or price, but at least in the definitions they are not associated with loss. In the 1933 edition of Petro Šalčius’s Fundamentals of Economics, the concept of goods is used to define costs – costs are defined as acquiring a good because the resources are used for production, and also they create utility9, so the word costs would be appropriate to name R. Vaskelaitė. Costs – avoidable alienation or inevitability of economic theory? 289 the amount of other goods produced and consumed (Šalčius 1991: 60), but the economic textbooks of the last two decades tend to define production costs using the concept of resources used for production. These resources are usually discussed at the beginning of textbooks and are defined as all that is used to produce goods and services, i.e. goods (skominas 2000: 37; lukoševičius, stankevičius 2003: 37). resources are considered land, labor and capital, entrepreneurship and information are mentioned separately (Martinkus, Žilinskas 2001: 14; lukoševičius, stankevičius 2003: 37–38; Rastenienė 2005: 11–12). Although the terms resources (economic resources) and production factors are often used synonymously (e.g.: “resources – everything that is used in the production of goods and services, therefore resources are often called factors of production” (lukoševičius, stankevičius 2003: 37), in some places the difference between the terms is emphasized: “economic resources are what has a potential opportunity to participate in the production process of goods and services, which is limited, and whose increase in volume positively affects the results of economic activity of society. These characteristics give them economic value, i.e. they have a price. Factors of production are only that part of economic resources that is used in the production process.’ (skominas 2000: 235). Production costs are defined as the value of the inputs used in production. the concept so defined does not appear to have the nuance of meaning that has emerged in the discussion of the concept of opportunity costs. However, the similarity of meaning may not be shown by definitions alone. After all, production in those same textbooks is interpreted as a purposeful activity aimed at satisfying human needs, producing goods that satisfy them, e.g.: “Production is the creation of goods and services to satisfy human needs by using economic resources.” (Rastenienė 2005: 13). Thus, it would be possible to see semantic similarity: the word costs in this case also as it were refers to what has to be lost in obtaining another, i.e., producing a good, assessing the measure of a business enterprise, which in economic theory is considered as a characteristic feature of profit pursuit, – obtaining profit. but this nuance of the meaning of the concept of production costs is not directly emphasized in textbooks. them. 1962 P. skardžiaus 9 Plg.: "In other words, production is the process in which the economic resources of society are used to create usefulness, regardless of the forms that this usefulness takes. therefore, production, while meeting our needs, also creates utility.” (Martinkus, Žilinskas 2001: 162). 296 kalBos kultūRa | 86 even defined as costs, for example, fixed costs are described as “costs that do not change with changing (increasing or decreasing) the quantity of the output (service) produced”, and variable costs – as “costs that vary depending on the quantity of the output (service) produced” (Martinkus, Žilinskas 2001: 190). In the school textbook of economics, definitions are harmonized, for example, production costs are defined both as the value of all production factors consumed in production and as the costs necessary to pay for all production factors (Makutėnas, Makutėnienė 2004: 94), gross costs – as the sum of fixed and variable costs over a certain period and at the same time – as all monetary costs for producing products or providing services (Makutėnas, Makutėnienė 2004: 95). In economic theory, the term production costs in parentheses usually refers to costs (Davulis 2009: 56). however, as a term and classification concept in economic textbooks, unlike most management accounting works, cost is chosen. short-term costs and long-term costs of the enterprise, fixed and variable costs, overhead costs, average costs, marginal costs (kerem, Randveer 1998: 38–40; Varian 1999: 347–366; Bhaskar 2000: 122–135; skominas 2000: 149–156; Martinkus, Žilinskas 2001: 193–208; Jakutis et al. 2003: 44–52; lukuševičius, stankevičius 2003: 76–78; VDu 2005: 80; Davulis 2009: 49–55; Panovas 2013: 123–129). and the definition of the types of costs of the enterprise, however, it is intended to formulate taking the concept of costs as a starting point. Fixed costs are defined as costs that do not change when the enterprise changes the volume of production, variable costs are defined as costs that change when the enterprise changes the volume of production, total costs are called the sum of fixed and variable costs, average costs are the total costs divided by the quantity of the product produced (kerem, Randveer 1998: 38; lukoševičius, stankevičius 2003: 76–77; skominas 2000: 149–150; Davulis 2009: 51). The reasons for the tendency in economic theory to choose costs rather than costs are probably primarily to be found in the definitions of production costs. While the costs of production are interpreted as an enterprise’s expenses, in economic theory, which is often defined as the science of the use of limited resources, they are associated with the use of resources and are defined as the value of the inputs used in production or the cost of inputs, the monetary expression of costs. therefore, the word costs is understood in a different sense than “money spent”. It is not related to cost but rather to price, and that price is the purpose of the cost, that is, what is consumed in order to obtain a benefit. The production costs of a business enterprise basically coincide with its R. Vaskelaitė. Costs – avoidable alienation or inevitability of economic theory? 297 authorized funds. therefore, the differences in terminology are probably due to the evaluation of the phenomenon from different perspectives. Costs are important to the economy not as chronological records of spent funds, but as a theoretical concept. This would also show a whole group of derivative concepts such as cost function, short-term cost function, long-term cost function, cost minimization, cost creation, cost inflation, etc. The aforementioned functions, which convey economic relationships, would also confirm that the term costs is not suitable for properly conveying the relationships: by multiplying the amount of costs by the price, the resulting amount is called the cost kebloka. However, perhaps the tendency and production costs, which coincide with expenses in the practice of enterprises, to be referred to as costs, is determined by the desire to include them in the general cost classification scheme, which is evident in economic textbooks. The general classification of costs and the relationship of concepts from the definitions given in the economic textbooks would reveal not completely the same meaning of the word cost: in the combination of alternative costs it refers to the loss, suffered by choosing something else, the benefit not obtained or the opportunity price, and in the combination of production costs – the value of the resources used for production, usually monetary, more precisely – the cost of inputs. If that word conveys different meanings or at least their shades, it would be that the cost of the general concept can not be defined. in fact, it is avoided in economic textbooks and dictionaries, and if it is defined, it is as an abbreviation for production costs. However, one textbook for secondary school gives such a definition, and takes the concepts of opportunity costs and production costs as its basis. The definition of opportunity costs and production costs is based on the definition of cost of opportunity. (Makutėnas, Makutėnienė 2004: 192). It is as if the connection between the compounds opportunity costs and production costs, at the same time the explanation of the meaning of the word costs and the argument why in economic theory a large debt – to convey such a meaning Lithuanian word is lacking. the use of the term in macroeconomic textbooks would confirm that the word has a similar meaning. For example, the personal costs of economic growth – a more tense life “enriched” with emotions, stresses, conflicts and increased uncertainty about the future – are described as costs “which have to be covered by the person and the family by acquiring the higher material well-being provided by economic growth” (Buračas et al. 2005: 255), which shows that whatever the meaning given 298 language culture | 86 that costs are called a certain loss of another gain, more precisely – the price of material goods. elsewhere the costs of unemployment are directly referred to as a price, using this word in a figurative sense: “Unemployment has considerable economic costs. The main economic cost of unemployment is lost (unproduced) output.” (2012: 125). but some formulations would suggest that the meaning of the word cost is very close to the meaning of the words loss, consequence, consequence. For example, the subsection “Costs of Unemployment” lists the decrease in output or gross domestic product, loss of personal income, loss of qualifications, etc. (kerem, Randveer 1998: 104), which could also be called negative consequences of unemployment. The redistribution of wealth, considered as the cost of inflation, the lower competitiveness of the country in the export market (kerem, Randveer 1998: 105–106) can be called the effects of inflation. The social costs of economic growth, such as urbanization accompanied by industrial development, rapid exploitation of nature, fundamental changes in people’s lifestyle (Buračas et al. 2005: 255), could be called losses incurred as a result of economic growth or consequences of economic growth. However, these phenomena can also be understood as the price to be paid for unemployment, inflation or economic growth. Since the semantic boundary is not clear, elsewhere when discussing these phenomena, the words effect, consequence, loss are used (snieška et al. 2005: 403–406; 448–454) or these words and costs are used as synonyms (kerem, Randveer 1998: 100–101). After all, the word 104, 106–107; Čiegis 2012: 128). to the word costs, it is clear from the definitions that in the combination opportunity costs it is more related to the loss suffered by choosing another, i.e. with the transfer price meaning of the word, and in the combination production costs – to the costs expressed in money, cost price, i.e. the direct meaning of price. This would suggest that it should be difficult to find a common basis for the classification of costs as a related concept. and indeed, almost all textbooks for higher education schools approach the classification of costs and the definition of their types without defining the related concept. Most of the units of classification are the above-mentioned types of production costs of the enterprise, but the general scheme also includes opportunity costs, accounting and economic costs, implicit and explicit costs, distinguished on a slightly different basis. individual and social costs are also mentioned (Jakutis 2006: 58; Davulis 2009: 56). linking the concepts of opportunity costs and production costs is attempted by defining both as value, but value is not the basis for differentiating these concepts by different dependent words. What-- R. Vaskelaitė. Costs – avoidable alienation or inevitability of economic theory? The discussion of costs in Table 299 shows that opportunity costs are not a type of production costs, as other types of production costs (variable, fixed, average costs, etc.) are distinguished. Therefore, it is impossible to differentiate all concepts on one basis. on the other hand, opportunity costs and production costs are not separate concepts. as has already been shown, opportunity costs in textbooks can be considered as a measure of production cost assessment. In other words, production costs can be measured by benefits lost by choice: in the case of society production – lost benefits by using resources in one way, unproduced goods or services by using resources in one way, etc., in the case of the use of own resources in a business enterprise – lost income. only such association of concepts would support the use of the adjective. and the concept discussed at the beginning of economic textbooks and applied to any choice is rather called the cost of opportunity, i.e. the cost of an alternative, or, as it is called in textbooks, the price of an alternative, the native value of an alternative, the cost of an opportunity, a lost opportunity, etc. The broadly understood opportunity costs and costs as a microeconomic concept have been tried to differentiate by a reference word in perhaps the only economic textbook – here the terms opportunity costs and production costs are used (Maldeikienė 2003). but when no other costs are mentioned, the question arises of whose alternative the opportunity costs are considered. on the other hand, the analysis has shown that the replacement production costs do not adequately reflect the concept of production costs. The textbook is intended for grades 9-10, it does not present either production or cost functions, there is no need to assign quantities and values related to production, so the term problem does not arise. The following explanation of the concept of cost may also be sufficient only for students: “so, in order to achieve the goal, the producer is forced to have costs. such costs are commonly referred to as costs. therefore, costs are primarily monetary costs for the enterprise.’ (2003: 58). There are no further attempts to differentiate the concepts in different main focuses. The search for different substitutes is probably also hindered by the fact that in the economic theory developed in English, both the loss of benefit associated with the choice alternative and the word designating the production costs of the company in monetary terms is cost. If it is decided to avoid the debt, one equivalent is also chosen in all cases: costs (Jakutis et al. 2007) or expenses (Little, Brown 2009). 300 Language Cultures | 86 costs in economic terminology already have a long tradition of use – sufficient to legitimize the old loan as a term and relevant for use. For the terminology of the economic blanket prevailing in the Soviet period, the word was perhaps less relevant, but for the market economy, price, monetary expression – things of exceptional importance. and production costs, as can be seen, are also linked to the cost price. on the other hand, there is no Lithuanian word suitable as a term in the field of economics that conveys the meaning of “what is lost by acquiring another”. probably these semantic factors are the main reason for the cost of borrowing. NoRMos iR VaRtoseNos atotRūkio PRieŽastYs analyzed the noun cost rate and its use in economic textbooks reveals that the reasons for the gap are not one and quite tricky. but perhaps the most important, as it emerged from the analysis, is the insufficient assessment of the semantics of the word and the specificity of its usage. When the noun cost is defined in Lithuanian dictionaries only as “expenses, funds”, one nuance of the meaning of the word is revealed. As a term of economic theory, this word is precisely associated with the meanings of cost not specified in dictionaries, i.e. “price”, “value”. at the same time, in economic theory, debt is used in a meaning for which a Lithuanian word is lacking. is to lose something by choosing, by getting, by acquiring. It is not simply a loss, so the words loss, damage, loss, loss, loss do not convey the meaning properly. that meaning in general usage would be more or less conveyed by the figurative word price, but in the economic field it would cause problems of ambiguity. but the codified standard does not even offer a substitute price, value. In normative lexical works and dictionaries of the Lithuanian language that explain the meanings, the costs of borrowing are indicated as replacement costs, funds and expenses. An analysis of the actual use based on economic theory texts reveals that these substitutes are not used, and the definitions of the concepts in the texts indicate that they could not be used at all. The substitution of costs, as proposed in another dictionary, is used in the same field with another meaning – as a term designating the resources consumed for production or their quantity. Costs in economic theory do not gain, probably also because of semantic preconceptions. English language, which prevails in the R. Vaskelaitė. Costs – avoidable alienation or inevitability of economic theory? 301 causes: The phenomenon in this area is perceived as the value of the resources consumed, the cost, rather than as the funds spent by the company to acquire those resources. In economic textbooks, the term “alternative funds” has not even been attempted to be used, because its meaning is not suitable for the phenomenon under consideration. The substitution of costs and expenses would not fully reveal the essence of the concept of opportunity costs, since it is related to a certain loss in choosing an alternative, and in economic textbooks, which mainly convey the economic theory developed in English, the concepts of opportunity costs and production costs tend to be linked by choosing the same main element. The influence of English cannot be completely ruled out, because both in Lithuania and in other European Union countries economic theory prevails, which is developed in English, while teaching it in Lithuanian, the concept system is respected. This effect is also evident in the dictionaries of economic terms: as economic science moved towards the West, the cost of terms with the word increased considerably. Many concepts of the theoretical level, including the word cost, have appeared, with this word composite terms have been presented, the main focus of which in previous dictionaries was the word costs. on the other hand, the word cost standardization is not consistent. the codified norm is not coherent, neither synchronous nor diachronic. Even today, the word is considered to be both a narrowly common language word or simply a loanword (DŽ), and a loanword with a dialectic connotation (lkŽ), and an avoidable foreignness (kP4). as an avoidable alienation, the cost of the term was only assessed more than 30 years after the first negative assessment (ntk) made in kPP1 (1976). by then the term had already been in use. the fact that the costs were not included in the 1985 kPP2 would also indicate fluctuations in the rate. They are also shown by the evaluation of the word in the periodical press. In 1962, P. skardžiui proposed replacements costs, funds, it was noted that they are suitable only in some cases. In 1995, it was also observed that in journalism the word costs is used as a word signifying price, value, but as substitutes are proposed funds, costs, expenses (Pupkis 1995: 14). Moreover, when speaking about the word cost, one more nuance of the meaning is underestimated, namely the connection with the loss suffered in obtaining something else, with the value of the loss. The corrected noun was linked to the verb kaštuoti and was based on the latter’s withdrawal from the usage. analyzed economic texts show that the verb kaštuoti is not used at all, but the noun is relevant to economic theory as a term. development of economic theory, not only encourages respect for the correspondence of concepts, but also shows the English cost and Lithuanian kaštai fo- 302 language cultures | 86 online sounds. as already mentioned, the phonetic structure of the German Kosten is similar. Today's contact with other languages of the world reveals that the word of the same root is used in many other languages: Spanish cost (cost), Italian costo, Portuguese custo, Dutch kosten, French coȗt, Norwegian kostnad, Belarusian кошт, Danish omkostning, Finnish kustannus, etc. Z. Babickienės article confirms P. Skardžius etymological insights: the term kaštai is Indo-European. According to the author of the article, it entered Middle English from Old French: cocter, to cost – Latin cōnstāre, “to be fixed”, const (Babickienė 2012: 57). this origin of the word changes its status as a foreign word and is another factor that supports its use. But whatever the origin, this word has fully adapted phonetically, morphologically and does not differ from such foreign words as post, letter, etc. As can be seen, the factors supporting the word cost in economic terminology are strong, and the problem is multilayered, multi-branched, covering more than one field. More factors of mismatch between usage and rate would be revealed by a broader analysis of other areas of consumption, especially the area of accounting. The presented analysis would be significantly supplemented by a study of the word’s prevalence in general usage, especially in economic or accounting scientific articles, as well as a more detailed examination of the term’s evolution. Therefore, there are still many lines of research, and this article is rather a preliminary initiative to examine the relationship between usage and the codified norm and its inefficient factors. iŠVaDos 1. In the latest works of the codified norm (kP41 and kP42) the word costs is negatively evaluated in relation to the norm, i.e. considered as an avoidable alienation, but in economic theory texts, namely in economic textbooks for higher schools, it is widely used. such a ratio can be considered as a gap between norm and use. 2. One of the reasons for the gap is the heterogeneity of the rate itself – both current and past. In lkŽe the word kaštas is considered to be a loanword commonly used in dialects (from Polish), in DŽe the reference see is only a proposal to replace the word with more commonly used words of Lithuanian origin – išlaidos, lėšos, and in kP4 this word is considered to be an avoidable foreignness in the field of finance. Strictly speaking, it is evaluated in kkP1 as an unpresentable alienation, but it is not included in kkP2. R. Vaskelaitė. Costs – avoidable alienation or inevitability of economic theory? 303 this, therefore, from 1976 to 2005 a long period of time of language normative work has been created. 3. when correcting a noun in language practice publications, it is usually based on the automatic withdrawal of the vedic kaštuoti from the usage. This derivative is not used in economic theory texts, but the noun cost has become established as a term. The analysis of usage reveals that in economic theory this debt conveys a special meaning of “loss by acquiring something”, for which a Lithuanian word is missing. In words loss, loss, loss, damage it is not sufficiently conveyed. In general usage, the price of the transferred value would more or less reveal this meaning, but in economic theory this word is not suitable because of its ambiguity. as a term denoting production costs and their types, the word costs is usually associated with the monetary expression of value – price, and therefore more with the direct meaning of price. 4. substitutes proposed in language normative publications do not sufficiently convey the meaning of the concepts of funds, expenses, costs, and they are used in the same field with different meanings. The term costs also separates the fields of economic theory and accounting. One of the factors that support the word cost in economic theory is the desire to provide a common scheme of cost classification, and such a desire is influenced by the economic theory being developed in English and the arrangement of concepts in English. This is confirmed by the dictionaries of economic terms translated from English or drawn up in the light of English economic terminology. 6. term costs use in economics is quite old. It was also used in the dictionary of economic terms of the Soviet period (1966), and the dictionaries prepared during the transition to the market economy and the economic science formulating its principles show that the term has become even more active. 7. the term in economic terminology is supported by phonetic similarity to analogous terms used in other languages. This word is not of Polish, but of Indo-European origin, and has adapted phonetically and morphologically in Lithuanian. The factors supporting cost as an economic term are quite strong, and the substitutes proposed so far are inadequate to convey the meaning. Therefore, the continued use of the specific field should determine whether to seek new substitutes or, in accordance with the principle of stability, to continue to use the term cost. Furthermore, considering that in economic theory the word costs has different nuances of meaning – it refers to both the value of the loss due to the need to choose (price) and the value of the costs (price), it is worth considering whether the economic terminology does not like the use of the same word in both cases. 2000: Martinkus B., Neverauskas B., sakalas a., Venskus R., Žilinskas V. Explanatory dictionary of business management terms, kaunas: technologija. BBB 1994: Buračas a., svecevičius B. Business, banks, stock exchange terms dictionary, Vilnius: Žodynas. B h a s k a r J. D. 2000: Management economics, kaunas: technology. Bkt 1997: Buračas a. Dictionary of Banking and Commerce Terms. Part I: Explanatory Dictionary of Banking and Commerce Terms, Vilnius, Kaunas: Vilnius University, Kaunas Faculty of Humanities. Buračas a., Jakutis a., Petraškevičius V., stepanovas a., Šečkutė l., Zaicev V. s. 2003: Theory of Economics. 5th edition, Vilnius: eugrimas. 2012: Macroeconomics. Vilnius University, Vilnius: Vilnius University Press. D avu l i s G. 2009: Theory of Economics. A handbook for high school students. 2nd supplemented and revised edition, Vilnius: Mykolas Romeris University. Drilingas B., Čiburienė J., snieška V. 1997: Macroeconomic analysis of floors, kaunas: techologija. ets 1999: Economic terms and concepts. Vilnius: Vilnius Pedagogical University. etŽ1: Pass Ch., Lowes B., Davies L. 1994: Dictionary of Economic Terms. Editor A. Pupkis, editor of economic terminology consultant St. Vaitkevičius, Vilnius: Baltijos biznis. etŽ2: Pass Ch., Lowes B., Davies L. 1997: Dictionary of Economic Terms. 2nd revised and supplemented edition. from English translated by Z. Bareikytė, l. B. Žemaitytė, k. Francūzevičienė. Edited and revised by a. V. Rutkauskas, st. Vaitkevičius, Vilnius: Baltijos biznis. Jakutis a. 2006: Fundamentals of Economic Theory. A teaching book. 6th revised and supplemented edition, Vilnius: Vilnius Gediminas Technical University. Jakutis a., Petraškevičius V., stepanovas a., Šečkutė l., Zaic e vas s. 2003: Fundamentals of Economic Theory. fourth revised edition, kaunas: smaltija. Jakutis a., Petraškevičius V., stepanovas a., Šečkutė l., Zaic e v s. 2007: Theory of Economics. Sixth revised edition, Kaunas: eugų rima. k a l č i n s k a s G. 2007: Fundamentals of Accounting. Sixth edition, Vilnius: Patchouli. kalčinskas G., Černius G. 1997: Financial and Management Accounting 1: Fundamentals of Corporate Accounting, Vilnius: Pačiolis. R. Vaskelaitė. Costs – avoidable alienation or inevitability of economic theory? 305 ke r e m k., R a n dve e r M. 1998: Ekonomikos pagrindai. Introduction to Studies in the Baltic States, Vilnius: Jonas and Partners. klimašauskienė Z. 2006: Microeconomic analysis. University of Wisconsin Press. pp. 10. lakis V., Mackevičius J., Gaižauskas l. 2010: Theory and Practice of Management Accounting. Vilnius: Vilnius University Press. l u ko š ev i č i u s V., s t a n k ev i č i u s P. 2003: Teorinė ekonomika. Methodical teaching tool. i dalis, Vilnius: Vilnius Pedagogical University. M a c k ev i č i u s J. 2003: Management accounting: concept, methodology, policy, Vilnius: teV. Mackevičius J., Poškaitė D. 2003: Financial Analysis, Vilnius: Catholic World. 2004. pp. 24. "Economics". "Teacher's Manual for Xi-Xii Class". First book, Kaunas: Light. M a l d e k i e n ė a. 2003: Ekonomika. Textbook for 9-10 classes, Vilnius: tyto alba. M a r t i n k u s B., Ž i l i n s k a s V. 2001: Fundamentals of Economics. 2nd revised and supplemented edition, kaunas: technologija. Mikučionis P. 2000: Principles of Economic Theory. Vilnius: Vilnius University Press. Pa l i u l y t ė R. 2005: Macroeconomics: lecture series, Vilnius: Vilnius School of Management. Pa n ovas i. 2013: Microeconomics: textbook, Vilnius: Mykolas Romeris University. Pa u n k s i n ė J., l i u č va i t i e n ė a. 2009: Microeconomics: a textbook, Vilnius: technika. R a s t i n i e n ė a. 2005: Microeconomics. A series of lectures. 2nd supplemented and revised edition, Vilnius: Vilniaus vadybos akademija. RlŽ 1966: Russian-Lithuanian Dictionary of Economic Terms. Editorial board: k. Meškauskas (adj. ed.), a. Poviliūnas, V. Puronas, a. skupeika, Vilnius: A thought. s ko m i n a s V. (eds.) 2000: Microeconomics, Vilnius: enciklopedija. s ko m i n a s V. (ed.) 2006: Macroeconomics, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. 2000: Microeconomics. 2000: Microeconomics. 2000: Microeconomics. 2000: Microeconomics. 2000: Microeconomics. 2000: Microeconomics. 2000: Microeconomics. 2000: Microeconomics. 2000: Microeconomics. 2000: Microeconomics. 2000: Microeconomics. 2nd revised and supplemented edition, kaunas: technologija. 2005: Makroeko nomika. Handbook. third revised and supplemented edition, kaunas: technologija.