Lietuvių kalbos leksikos norminimo raida

112 Languages culture | 81 ANTANAS BALAŠAITIS Lithuanian Language Dictionary NorMINIMO letter The information contained in practical dictionaries affects the use of language, because they are created in order to regulate the lexicon (Naktinienė 2000: 12). The Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian Language (hereinafter – DŽ), published more than half a century ago, is considered a fundamental work of Lithuanian language (Keinys 1991a: 96). besides, this dictionary is “a simple, accessible and effective means of raising the culture of both spoken and written language” (ulvydas 1977: 13). Thus, DŽ is an important work for the development of the common Lithuanian language, and at the same time for the whole Lithuanian culture. therefore it is worthwhile to evaluate it in various respects, especially when preparing a general language dictionary. The article presents some features of the history of the preparation of the DZ from a sociological point of view, reminds the current young generation of philologists of things that are difficult to imagine – how the political power of the living time and its changes affected linguists, the nature of the work they prepared and the norms they provided. When examining the conditions for the preparation of the DG, the broader assessment of the period should not be forgotten. Attempts to organisedly take care of the preservation of the Lithuanian language under the conditions of the emerging bilingualism (to revive the Lithuanian Language Society) were stopped by the official authorities, and internationalism and the Russian language, which is necessary for the friendship of nations, were suppressed, and only its positive influence on the Lithuanian language was highlighted. thus “the Lithuanian language lost its sovereignty in the country – the main condition that allowed it to grow and strengthen” (piročkinas 1994: 5). The author of this article1 connects the state of language and its standardization with the life of society, as did Professor Zigmas Zinkevičius in his works on the history of language. Article 1 is substantially supplemented by the version of the presentation read at the jubilee international scientific conference on 23 June 2008 (see „Lexicology and terminology: theory, practice, history. Thesis of the presentation, 2008). The article is intended to honor the 100th anniversary of the birth of Jonas Kruopa (1908–1975), the editor-in-chief of the first two editions of the Journal. a. Ballistics. 113 2. the first attempt at a practical normative dictionary of the Lithuanian language was intended to be prepared by Kazimieras būga (1879–1924) alongside the larger dictionary. As stated in antanas salis (1902–1972) article in Lithuanian encyclopedia (lE XXXV 1966: 408), "a. Vireliūnas and Varnas had already begun to select material from the large dictionary library." but after the death of the drummer this ambition was forgotten. „The selection of material was re-started in the editorial office of the great dictionary under the leadership of Juozas Balčikonis“ (same). practical language work was prepared just after the end of World War II. The linguist and pedagogue Alfons Kalnius (1907–1981) and the geographer Stanislovas Tarvydas (1903–1975), using the onomastics collections of Mato Jurkynas (1909–1944), prepared a language manual. It was edited by Kazimieras Gasparavičius (1908–1983), Napalis Grigas (1896–1972), Kazys Ulvydas (1910–1996) and aleksandras Žirgulys (1909–1986), and the editor was Juozas Lazauskas (1892–1970). It was named the Lithuanian Spelling Dictionary and published in 1948. The title is clearly too narrow: this work presents the basics of spelling, punctuation, pronunciation, the use of syllables, an outline of dialects, several hundred place names and a pronounced dictionary of about five thousand words (without explanations). For some time it was a favorite book for students and a means of standardizing the common language. War refugees Lithuanian linguists in Germany also took care to prepare publications for the mother tongue. In 1950, a Lithuanian language manual was published in Bylefeld, prepared by pranas skardžius (1899–1975), stasys barzdukas (1906–1981) and Jonas Martynas laurinaitis (1894–1966). Mr. skardžius explained the history of the preparation of the publication. S. Barzdukas, a teacher at the Lithuanian gymnasium in Tübingen, suggested that he should prepare a spelling textbook for schools. Professor endorsed this initiative. In March 1948, the preparation of the textbook was approved at a meeting of the Lithuanian exile community. but it soon became clear that a broader publication was needed: “at the present time it is advisable to publish not only a textbook of spelling, but as much as possible a more comprehensive work, which in addition to spelling, even if briefly, would also cover more important subjects of general language pronunciation, word formation, conjugation, partly syntax and vocabulary”. All this is necessary “so that we all have a more serious language tool that would help us to maintain the cultural level of our mother tongue and its individuality for longer, facilitate our mutual communication and thus sustain our national and community sense for longer.” 114 Languages Culture | 81 to this end, the manuscript grew into a large book. In the Lithuanian language textbook Mr. skardžius discussed the use of common language, pronunciation, sound formation, accent and pronoun, pronunciation of individual parts of the language, spelling (and fluctuating things), writing foreign words, word formation, new forms, international words, use of pronouns, separation. added and platonic dictionary. a unique universal dictionary, comprising three quarters of the book (444 pages), was intended for the diaspora, taking into account the needs of compatriots in their countries of residence. In addition to Lithuanian names and place names, it also includes German, American, Canadian and Australian place names and names of characters. The dictionary also contains biblical names, pseudonyms of writers, names of scientists, names of temples, various abbreviations, popular Latin names and sayings. more common suffixes and prefixes are presented and explained in separate slots. Some of the known words are not explained (only the part of the speech, accent is indicated), others are explained by synonyms. Some words are indicated by their origin or their English, French, German equivalents. Most often, concise explanations with short examples of use are given. prepositional verbs are presented either in the illustration of the main word or in separate slots, sometimes explained. The dictionary also aimed to normalize the vocabulary: words not present in the common language are written in square brackets with a certificate of origin: [apat (prc., sl.), be, e.g.: be money, one of the grandmothers even got gifts], [gùzikas (g., l.), sagà], [leikà (g.), laistỹklė, piltùvas], [mierà (g., r.), mãtas, sajakkas], [šnėlcelis (german.), pjaus nỹs], [špõsas (german., l.), pókštas, išdáiga], [trùsikai (r.), glaudėnės, kelnái tės], [Vėlija (g., l.) Nerėras], [supernatural (translated loanword), supernatural], [že l (prc., r.), drebùčiai]. in general, took care to illustrate the subjects discussed in the introduction to the dictionary, show the usage of the language, raise its culture, teach correct pronunciation and spelling. The guide was completed after the start of emigration from Germany. editor p. skardžius finished reading the proofreading after arriving in Cleveland (U.S.A.) and signed the “editorial word” on December 15, 1949. at the end of the word „At the end of the work“, signed by the Lithuanian community in Germany in Munich on June 29, 1950, the contributors and sponsors of the preparation and printing are indicated. The publisher was Ventis. The Lithuanian language guide (604 pages) was printed in 5,000 copies and for a long time was the favourite book of our war refugees. a revised and supplemented edition of this book was being prepared, but it was not published (skardžius 1999: 793–794, 928). a. Ballistics. development of Lithuanian lexical standardization 115 3.The manuscript of the practical dictionary of the contemporary Lithuanian language was prepared only after the Second World War by the dictionaries of the Lithuanian Language Institute Napalys grigas and antanas lyberis (1909–1996). Antanas Kučinskas (1915–2006), who had recently started working at the Institute, also selected words from the large dictionary, since only about half of the alphabet had been written out for the small dictionary (Kučinskaitė 1981: 26–27). As this author has written, a large manuscript of the dictionary had already been written at the end of 1948 (ibid.). After getting acquainted with the manuscript, the Academy of Sciences management pointed out that there are lacking words of Soviet life, special terms. After the criticism of the great Lithuanian language dictionary volume II (1947), the extended meeting of the Ma Social Sciences Department on November 12, 1948 also discussed the manuscript of the common language dictionary being prepared. Juozas Balčikonis (1885–1969), director of the Lithuanian Language Institute, presented the future dictionary. It is planned to present all used Lithuanian words and more common international names, as well as place names with global geographical names. Already edited part of the dictionary (letters A–o, R, Š and u). “difficulties arise when editing the dictionary because of standardization, pronunciation, suffixes, etc. The weak side of the dictionary is that there is too little scientific terminology collected, as well as words created in Soviet life” (see Lietuvos tsr Mokslų akademijos žinynas, 1949: 301). The dictionary's manuscript received severe criticism. Vice-President J. Žiugžda reproached that “the dictionary uses outdated material collected in the past without any criticism. [...] both in terms of the choice of words and its phraseology (i.e. illustration of usage) The dictionary is detached from the reality of Soviet life” (ibid., 302). such a critical assessment was agreed by the truth editor H. Ziman, Ma president J. Matulis. K. Korsakas, director of the Lithuanian Literature Institute, emphasized that “the common language dictionary should be dedicated to the need for practice. [...] and in fact the dictionary of common language now edited is a shortened summary of the Great Dictionary” (ibid., 304). so the manuscript of the dictionary had to be shortened and at the same time supplemented. The authors of the dictionary not only took care to eliminate "ideological errors", but also discussed the issues of its structure. real names were abandoned, ways were sought to better present prepositional verbs. Academician Boris Larinas (1893–1964), who worked as deputy director of the Lithuanian Language and Literature Institute in 1952–1953, proposed to present prepositional verbs in separate slots. that proposal could not be accepted because the large dictionary card library was arranged differently. therefore later pa- 116 Languages Culture | 81 perhaps a. lyberis put in separate slots only prepositional verbs with specific meanings, while others remained in the examples of use. In the introduction to DŽ1 it is stated that “it would indeed be appropriate to give all prepositional verbs, even those with no exclusive meaning, separately in alphabetical order” (p. XI). this was done in the DZ2 release. In April 1952, at the union conference of lexicographers organized by the Lithuanian Language Institute, as is written in Literatūra ir menas (1952 05 11), “the employees of the Lithuanian Language Institute made a series of valuable presentations and gave serious instructions on Lithuanian lexicology and lexicography”. With the reorganization of the editorship of the Journal, J. Balčikonis withdrew from the position of editor and director of the Institute. In 1952, the Lithuanian Language Institute was merged with the Lithuanian Literature Institute. The head of the Joint Institute was appointed the academic Kostas Korsakas (1909–1986). According to the recommendations of the conference, the editorial commission of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language Dictionary, formed by the Lithuanian MA Presidium, prepared a corresponding editing instruction (its authors J. Kruopas, a. Kučinskaitė, b. larinas). K. Korsakas, b. larinas, J. Kabelka, J. Kruopas (replacing editor), a. lyberis, K. ulvydas were appointed to the editorial committee. on the cover page is also J. balčikonis name, although he In a letter dated 3 December 1953, he refused to be mentioned among the editors of the dictionary: “Because I am no longer a direct collaborator of the Lithuanian Language and Literature Institute and because I do not agree with the opinion of the other editors of the dictionary regarding the correctness of the language, I would therefore ask you not to mention me among the editors of that dictionary” (see atsiminimai apie lingvistą Juozas balčikonis, 2006: 296). The dictionary of modern Lithuanian language was published in 1954. The extensive introduction explains the structure of the vocabulary, the interpretation of the meanings of words, pronunciation. The dictionary contains approximately 45,000 words. The preamble describes the purpose of the DŽ as follows: “Soviet linguists were given the immediate task of preparing a comprehensive explanatory dictionary of the current Lithuanian language, which would clearly reflect socialist ideology and Soviet life, effectively contribute to the raising of language culture, to the introduction of literary language norms in Soviet society”. so the editors of the dictionary must have been concerned primarily with the ideology imposed by the Communist Party. According to the Communist Party’s provision mentioned in the preamble, the DZ provided the following and similar ideological interpretations of words of social life and illustrative sentences, mostly taken from Russian Soviet dictionaries: a. Ballistics. 117 ãgentas 3. spy of the imperialist government, divers. aggressor, predator, instigator of imperialist war, attacking country: imperialist ~ies. armija 5. speaker, troop, multitude: Our great homeland, the Soviet Union, is at the head of a huge, powerful army of peace-loving people. (1) 1. a house where people who adhere to religious preconceptions go to pray. "Orthodox Church of the Holy Sepulchre". búožė (1) 5. representative of the rural bourgeoisie – a rich peasant: Our ~ie class remained average. (1) one of the forms of social consciousness, a view based on mysticism and belief in magical powers and imaginary beings; religion: “religion is the opium of the people” (Marx). “religion is one of the forms of spiritual oppression” (Lenin). in class society r. is a tool of oppression of working people and domination of the exploiting classes. r. is contrary to science and prevents knowledge of the laws of nature and society development. tikýba (1) belief in the supposed existence of a god; pseudoscience of religion. A few more sentences, taken from the press of the time: Our great Soviet homeland is a fortress and a flagbearer of peace throughout the world. The Lithuanian nation, filled with joy and happiness, is marching in the October demonstration in the united family of Soviet nations. Unbreakable belief in the victory of communism. all roads lead to communism. Soviet rule created unprecedented opportunities for culture to develop. The life experience of those times suggests that such a political tone of the vocabulary was determined by the universal dictatorship and propaganda. Its executives urged the JZ to “improve” in the radiance of communist ideology and Soviet life out of conviction, and the editors did so out of fear of appearing disobedient and avoiding adopting the obnoxious ideology. There has been enough experience of disobedience being accompanied by repression. Recalling the first edition of DŽ, the editor of the third edition stasys Keinys admitted that “it was a difficult and complicated time. Each ideological disbelief in the authorities could then end up in long years of reflection on one’s ‘mistakes’ and muscle-twisting in the Gulag archipelago of the wide ‘homeland’” (Gimtoji kalba 8, 1991: 22). In the 1990s, Lithuanian linguists criticized the politicization of DŽ1. Mr. Skardžius wrote that “everything that forms the basis of culture and civilization in the West is here translated into letters on one mechanical shoe: [...] everything is subordinated to a blind mechanism, a social economic factor […]”. A considerable part of the dictionary “is overwhelmed by communist ideology” (skardžius 1999: 918); "...this dictionary is not scientifically objective, 118 Languages Culture | 81 ideo is logically selective: it deliberately omits many commonly used words in life, such as advent, anathema, apostasy, baptist, chekist, decalogue, encavedist, gospel, evangelist, communion, host, trinity, etc. (skardžius 1997: 411). Judging from the illustration of the words provided by DŽ, a. salys wrote in the article “Dictionaries” of volume 35 of the Lithuanian encyclopedia that “such propaganda ecstasy can at least be explained by the unlimited political terror of that year” (salys 1985: 236). but the Director of the Institute K. Korsakas informed about the dictionary published in fact (1954 10 05). The dictionary was soon introduced by the reply editor J. Kruopas (Soviet teacher, 11.11.1954), who mentioned some established norms: abažuras, velūrs, fakyrs, turnyras. He also emphasized that "the establishment of some normative forms caused great controversy in the dictionary's editing" (Kroopas 1998: 422-425). of course, it was not easy to determine the most acceptable norms in the first normative dictionary. Therefore, already in his first review Vytautas būda (Literatūra ir menas, 1954 10 30) raised doubts about the proposal “to form personal names from place names solely with the help of the suffix ėietis […]. Considering the literary spoken language of the Lithuanian people, the dictionary compilers would have better made all three suffixes (ėietis, ėiškis, ėėnas) by leaving them in parallel abbreviations.“ Six months later, in another review, Vincentas Drotvinas, adelė laigonaitė and Jonas paulauskas (Literatūra ir menas, 1955 04 02) made comments about the selection of words (nerado abiturientas, buldozeris), suggested paying more attention to words with common prefixes prieų, suų, užų. Vladas grinaveckis, Jonas palionis and Vincas urbutis published comments on the selection of words in the truth (05.03.1955): "the explanatory dictionary should also find a place for rarer dialectisms, if they are found in the works of Lithuanian fictional literature classics: e.g., luinas, pylė, repukas (Donelaitis), snopis (Žemaitės), atvalka, kraiguoti, nupiepti (Cvirka), panuovalis (Vienuolis), priebėga (I. simonaitytė). International words should be aeromodelism, bulldozer, milling, labourer, scraper, streptomycin.” Their main criticism was the presentation of borrowings: "The dictionary does not properly treat borrowings in lexicographic terms, does not limit them, does not specify the limits of their use. Introduced abbreviation not to be used. (= unpresentable word) is almost nowhere added to the really unpresentable borrowed words of the Lithuanian language…, it is not added to ainis, išdirbinys, laisvanoris, skaičilingas, vaizdinys, nor to balis, glita, šniūras, špricas, trusikai.“ a. balaŠaItIs. development of Lithuanian language lexical standardization 119 1962: The Chicago 4 In the review of the DG releases, we must also remember the first DG release in Chicago. A practical Lithuanian language dictionary was needed by the Lithuanian community that grew after the war in Japan – war refugees who came here from Germany. but there was no one to prepare such a dictionary: both linguists and educators first had to take care of establishing themselves, working in various physical jobs. It was decided to reprint the Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian Language published in Vilnius in 1954, only the communist propaganda had to be removed, in their term – “nubolshevikized”. The popular Lithuanian publishing house “terra” in Chicago began to take care of the dictionary in 1955. in the press (Drauge, naujienose, vienybėje) started a discussion about how it should be corrected. Many comments were made by Mr. skardžius (1999: 917-924) and benediktas babrauskas. The author B. Babrauskas (1910–1968), who had written about language culture in Lithuania and published a booklet “Orthography Rules” (1939), decided to undertake “nubolshevization” of the Lithuanian language. He replaced the politicized interpretations of the meanings of words and illustrative sentences, deleted some Soviet terms altogether and replaced them with neutral illustrative text of appropriate size for the adjacent words. The dictionary inserts were assembled in a very similar font and glued on top, and thus a photographic edition was printed in Chicago. The dictionary has its own preface “Notes to the second edition”, where the reasons for the correction are explained: the dictionary was corrected because of “the unacceptability of the first edition, especially because of its overloading with Bolshevik propaganda material, which has nothing to do with the purpose of the dictionary, nor with the linguistic requirements of the dictionary, nor finally with the seriousness and objectivity of the scientific work”. Due to the former Iron Curtain, the corrector is unable to contact the editors and ask for their permission to reprint. The title page did not contain the name of the editorial board member b. larin, because he was considered the political leader of Lithuanian linguists, the Russian term "politruk". There is no hint about the dictionary’s rearranger anywhere, neither in the review written by l. D. (probably leonardo Dambriūnas (1906–1976)) in Gimtojoje kalboje (1963, no. 1) nor even by the publishers. this is understandable, because the dictionary was reprinted without permission of the editors. The author of the review, of course, knew the corrector and the publisher of the dictionary, but writing about illegally done work was careless. The dictionary prepared in the Lithuanian press in the United States was advertised (in the published subscription) as Prof. J. Balčikonio dictionary, perhaps because his name is the first in the editors’ board, although the editor-in-chief is marked as J. Kruopas. In the press, J. Balčikonis even had to explain: "The American second edition was much more perfect and larger. first of all, it should be noted that it has been 120 Language Culture | 81 kote No one asked me for such a dictionary and I have not given my consent to use my name for that purpose” (Tõde, 1961 03 04). in Lithuania this release was not discussed anywhere at the time, even in the language press, as if it had not existed. Only in the years of the national revival several copies of it appeared in large Lithuanian libraries. I wrote about the history of this edition for the first time in 1999 in Gimtoji kalba (no. 5, 6) – Chicago edition of the “Dictionary of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language” (1962)”2. 5. After several years, the time was ripe for a new edition of the DG. There was an intention to prepare a much better new edition – not of the current, but of the general, at that time called literary (after the literary language used in Russian linguistics), language dictionary. To this end, a conference was convened on 23 October 1968 to discuss the glossary that had been started. J. Kruopas, the responsible editor, published an article entitled „Koks turėtų būti literatūrinės kalbos žodynas“ (What should be a dictionary of literary language) (Literatūra ir menas, 1968 10 19; see Kruopas 1998: 455–460). However, after some time it was convinced that a comprehensive example dictionary of common language was not yet possible to prepare, and the dictionary published four years later (1972) kept the old name. lexicographically rearranged, as promised in the introduction to DŽ1: prepositional verbs are presented in separate slots. in the first edition with prefixes were given only illustrative sentences. supplemented with new additions. in the preposition: ūkininkas, draugóvininkas, dùjininkas, dailtyra, dirvótyra, kosmonáutas, savįtarna, besides, taip pat láiptinė, motoròleris, nailònas, po ro lòų nas, taisyklà, teikinỹs (next to the former teikinmuõ) and others; rare and not very necessary for common language words have been abandoned: kasis, mainybos, miešinys, nuošalumas, nuožanga, pasaginė and others; new pronunciation variants have been introduced in view of the variation of the dialect: aistrà (4, 2), áiškus, ėi (3, 1), ašaróti, ãšaroti; beti, bér ti; deguūnis (2), deguonūss (3b); footrest (2), footrest (1); Stop, stop, stop. proa g a (1), progà (4); red (1, 3), reddish, reddish; species (1), grade (4); tractor (2), tow truck (4); vérgas (3), vegas (4) and others. „this was done so that the pronunciation variants existing in the language would not be considered as mistakes.“ 2 I did not miss the opportunity to investigate the circumstances of this publication in the summer of 1994, when I was sent to Chicago by Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla to collect data for the guide Jav lietuviai (1998, 2002). a. Ballistics. The development of lexical standardization in Lithuanian language In 127 the lexical standardization is proposed to be viewed from the point of view of language purity, its specificity. For the purpose of standardization DŽ1 used only one certificate see, which indicated more pronounced variants and proposed to change only one other foreignness: ankstybas see early, dyglus see dygus, kinečiai see chinese, skaičilingas see abundant, tarnystė see service, užvaizdas see superintendent, spintuvė see spinning mill, vėtrungė see windmill; bakūžė see lūšna, bonka see bottle, grabas see coffin, kaštuoti see cost, kulšis see thigh, špižius see ketus, špokas see varnėnas, špricas see syringe, trusikai see glaudės, vienok see however. a strict statement not to say. added to just a few words: apsunkinti 2. spec. not to say. exchange agricultural products for goods: a. kolkhoz production; good building not to say. see welfare; comma not to say. semicolon; ripka don't say. roll. thus more explicit provisions on extramarital affairs, so-called barbarisms, then do not dare to say. Language contaminants are underestimated. this was also mentioned in the reviews. Why was this the provision of the DG1? Apparently, this was because the official opinion was being introduced that the Russian language had only a positive influence on the Lithuanian language, enriching it. the official authority of the time akad. At the conference of Baltic and Moscow linguists in Riga in 1952, J. Žiugžda “raised the necessary issue of enriching Lithuanian terminology according to the practice and principles of Russian language production” (Literatūra ir menas, 1952 03 09). The intention to prepare a set of corrections to the constructive and lexical language, similar to the “Language Advisor” prepared by L. Dambriūnas and published in 1939, was rejected by the Soviet publishing houses. reason – most of the foreign words to be corrected are supposedly from Slavic languages (mostly from Russian). There is also an attempt to interpret the soft normative position of DG1 differently. This liberal approach to norms was also characteristic of pre-war linguists (Keinys 1991a: 83). Miliūnaitė’s article on the evaluation of language phenomena (Miliūnaitė 2000: 27) makes this questionable. Having examined the recommendations presented in the “Language Advisor” (1939), the author points out that of the more than one and a half thousand linguistic phenomena (mostly words) discussed therein, the majority (81%) are considered language errors. Thus, both the compiler of the “Language Advisor” L. Dambriūnas and its editors P. skardžius and A. salys properly assessed the unpresentable language phenomena. This view of pre-war linguists was partly supported by the authors of the aforementioned DŽ1 review, who criticized the lack of lexicographical treatment of borrowed words. The supposedly liberal attitude of the editors of DŽ1,2 is contradicted by another confession made at the time by the editor-in-chief of DŽ3, s. Keinis, that it was a “difficult and difficult time”, when repression was threatened for ideological errors (cf. p. 117). therefore, such a provision on obscenities and even on the purity of language 128 Language Culture | 81 for a long time stopped their correction in language culture, in Our Language, as well as the appearance of language practice advice, affected their works – only with the reference “better” were marked the values atelitei, all-union, immediate, deep (gratitude, impression), deep (compassion), gradually, fully, tense (connections) and so on. What is not deemed unpresentable in the DG, does not need to be corrected. Although the individual editors avoided the obscenities, they spread through the press and became acceptable. The sense of language was steadily weakened by bilingualism, and Russian was increasingly used in administration, production, and finally in everyday life. was not the “liberal” attitude of the editors of DŽ1 towards language norms a forced small concession to foreigners?4 The necessary attention to lexical norming was paid only in DŽ2, when there was less fear of criticism of foreign words. next to the certificate see, indicating the form variants to be provided, much more frequently used certificate ntk., i.e. word not to be provided, rarely stylistic certificate kn. and specially to the words not presentable in DŽ2 assign bakūžė = huts, boti = to play, brylius = hat, kaladė = to strike, kalnierius = collar, prūdas = pond, savistovus = independent, smala = resin, sosiska = sausage, špižius = cast iron, špricas = syringe, užganėdinti = to satisfy, užmesti, išmesti = to add, velyti = to allow, linkėti and so on, only with reference see leave laisvanoris, laisvanoriškas, lygsvara, ruimas (in DŽ3 they are considered not presentable). As not to be presented are also omitted the translational meanings of some words: DŽ1 was full 5 meaning "the highest, complete", sekti 10 meaning "to go, to be immediately after something". A more rigorous evaluation of foreign lexical heritage is given in DŽ3. in the second edition evaluated only with a certificate see knatas – dagtis, štepselis – kištukas DŽ3 are considered unpresentable. without any certificate of DŽ2 submitted atlieti, folder „cardboard folder for writings to put together“ DŽ3 are not submitted. tamprus 3. prk. “close, intimate” DŽ1,2, and DŽ3 is no longer a presentable value. disturbing, was without certificate, DŽ3 – not available. recommend, DŽ2 was without certificate, and DŽ3 – book. Tag 3. „didelis, reikšmingas“, significantly „daug, labai“ DŽ2 without mark, DŽ3 – book. unspoken DŽ2 see unspeakable, and DŽ3 it is not at all. The third edition abandoned the translational figurative meanings: flat „shallow, superficial“, p. thinking was not transferred to DŽ3. Front 3. „leading, progressive, va4 plg. Z. Zinkevičius’s thought in the “final note” to Volume VI of the History of the Lithuanian Language, written on February 16, 1993: “Small concessions to foreigners always have painful consequences, no matter what pretext they are justified (‘flexibility’, ‘reality understanding’, etc.).” a. balaŠaItIs. 129 dovaujantis“: ~iai darbininkai (most comprehensive, most advanced). P. Science. ~ is a technique. The role of P. workers – the translational meaning was only DŽ1. Gilus 3rd prk. "great, significant, essential": G. science. ~i wisdom, secret. G. revolutionary reorganization – DŽ1. Later the meaning was slightly changed: DŽ2 "large, strong": G. feeling, impression. ~i wisdom. Mr. Sleep. DŽ3 this value with a mark in the book. G. feeling, impression. Apparently, the recommendations of the language practice councils were taken into account. Maybe they affected and full-fledged DŽ3 evaluate certificate books. just wonder if it had to be moved to DŽ3 to be deleted? The usual repeat and agree should not be overshadowed by the value (cf. povtoritj). with rarer norming certificates kn. and spec. DŽ2 was marked with words of incorrect construction (most often due to the influence of Russian language) apspręsti „sąlygoti“, lemti „determinuoti“ (DŽ3 no longer has it), opposed to bookg. (compare with Russian protivopostavitj) – DŽ3 with a certificate ntk., degreasing spec. „remove fat“ (DŽ3 does not have it). At that time in the colloquial language of the producers were used more values of such action: nudùjinti, nu drùsė kin ti, nukeñksminti, numsinti, nuplaukinti, nušárminti, nuvandẽninti, nu žiẽė vin ti. They were corrected in the language practice advice (1976) and neither DG2 nor DG3 were included. this should mean that their use was stopped in time. Although the loan máikė was widespread, not finding a suitable smooth replacement for a long time did not dare to fix it. only in the second edition of the Kpp (1985) several substitutions are proposed: marškė, marškùčiai, sportinùkė, marškinliai. This loan is not in any of the DG's releases. only in the second edition of Kpp was corrected tàšė, and a good replacement – rañkinė was proposed. Unfortunately, this new item is not available in DŽ3, but it would be very nice to have it next to the handbag (it is not available in DŽ online version). Still debatable with the certificate of books. DŽ3 marked výstyti 2-th meaning, whose recursive form without any marking was DŽ1 as "grow, strengthen, mature" equivalent. DŽ2 with a certificate spec. it is given the meaning "to make more perfect, more complex, develop, roll". This is a verb that has always been questioned by many linguists, whose regressive meaning has spread as the equivalent of the Russian language razvivatsja. It was the opposite of the first literal meaning "to wrap, wrap in diapers". Now instead of development (society, consciousness, democracy, germ) more often used development, development, expansion, dissemination. develop the second value is given and DG4. Therefore, it is not feared in the writings, it is believed that the development can not be changed everywhere by the mentioned equivalents (Klimavičius 2002: 106). but the long and frequent development of use has not supported the content of these concepts and made those words that denote them as if irreplaceable. 130 Languages and Culture | 81 IŠVaDos The idea of preparing a practical dictionary alongside the large historical dictionary of the Lithuanian language, which was already raised by K. Būga, was only successfully implemented after the Second World War in the Lithuanian Language Institute headed by J. Balčikonis. After consideration, criticism and corrections, in 1954 the Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian Language was published. lexical standardization depended on the conditions of social life. They were unfavorable to the editors of J1. The then leadership of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences fulfilled the task of the Communist Party and demanded that the language works be adapted for propaganda, and the direct purpose of the dictionary came in second place. Therefore, Lithuanian expatriates in Chicago (U.S.A.) reprinted this edition in 1962, removing the communist propaganda that was unacceptable to the work. More attention could be paid to language culture only in the 20th century, when there was less ideologization of linguistics and less fear of criticizing Russian foreignness. more objective definitions of social terms and illustrative sentences. an objective normative dictionary was prepared only after Lithuania regained its independence and got rid of the imposed ideology, and linguists recognised the only positive influence of the Russian language. This was the third edition of the DG published in 1993. Compared to the previous ones, it has made greater progress in the direction of language standardization, its culture upliftment. lItEratūra b a l a š a i t i s a. 1995: Dictionary norms and advice. – The Native Word 6:1-3. b a l a š a i t i s a. 1999: The Chicago edition of the “Dictionary of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language” (1962). – Native Language 5, 28–31; 6, 28–32. b a l č i kon i s J. 1961: letter to the editor. – true, March 4. way a V. 1954: Contemporary Lithuanian Language Dictionary. – Literature and Art, October 30. b ū d a V. 1973: The long-awaited dictionary edition. – Victory 8, 161–166. Dictionary of Modern Lithuanian: I ed., 1954; II ed., 1972; III ed., 1993. Dictionary of Modern Lithuanian Language, Chicago (USA), 1962. Put word by word and you have a dictionary. memories of the linguist Juozas balčikonis. b. goberienė and a. pupkis. Vilnius: Lietuvos kalbos instituto leidyk la, 2006. D r o t v i n a s V., la i g o n a i t ė a., pa u l a u s k a s J. 1955: Notes on the "Dictionary of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language". – Literatūra ir menas, April 2. g r in ave c k i e n ė E. 1973: the showcase of literary language. – Literature and Art, February 10. a. Ballistics. 131 g r in ave c k i s V., pa l i o n i s J., u r b u t i s V. 1955: Dictionary of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language. – true, March 5. language practice tips. sud. a. pupkis. I ed., 1976; II ed., 1985, Vilnius. Ke i ny s s. 1991a: "Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian Language" and language normalization. – Lithuanian Linguistics Questions 29, 92–98. Ke i ny s s. 1991b: This and that about the third edition of the "Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian Language". – Native Language 8, 22–24. Ke i ny s s. 1993: Dictionary for Everyone. – School 10, 31–32. Ke i ny s s. 2004: "Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian Language" in fifty years. – Language Culture 77, 76–83. K i r va i t i s g. 1974: Let's improve the "Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian Language". – Cultural bars 1, 63–64. K l i m av i č i u s J. 2002: The Language of Catechism – The Catechism of Language. – Language Culture 75, 105–120. K r u o p a s J. 1998: Selected papers, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopedia Publishing. 1981. "Dictionary of the Modern Lithuanian Language". – Our Language 1, 25–28. Lithuanian language guide. ed. p. skardžius, s. barzdukas, J. M. laurinaitis. bielefeld, 1950. National Academy of Sciences of the United States. t. 4–5. Vilnius, 1949. M i l i ū n a i t ė r. 2000: Degrees of evaluation of language phenomena in the "Language Advisor". – Language Culture 73, 24–35. N a k t i n i e n ė g. 2000: General language dictionary and lexical standardization problems. – Language Culture 73, 12–24. pa u l a u s k a s J. 1952a: Scientific Conference of Moscow and Baltic Linguists. – Literatūra ir menas, 9 March 1952, p u l a u s k a s J. 1952b: Conference on Language Science. – Literature and Art, May 11. pa u l a u s k a s J. 1974: Current problems of lexical standardization and a dictionary. – Language Culture 27, 40–49. p i r o č k i n a s a. 1994: Lithuanian language in the grips of occupation (1940–1991) – 7–8, 1–7. salys a. 1985: raštai, t. 3, 213–244, roma. skardžius p. selected papers: vol. 2, 1997, 406–420; vol. 4, 1998, 649–660; vol. 5, 1999, 793–794, 917–924, 928, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopedia Publishing. ulvydas K. 1977: What raises language culture. – Language Culture 32, 3–21. Vaitkevičiūtė V. 2007: Dictionary of International Words, Vilnius: Žodynas. received 06/10/2008 132 Kalbos Kultūra | 81 oN tHE DEVElopMENt oF staNDarDIsatIoN oF lItHuaNIaN lEXIs summary the paper gives an overview of circumstances of compiling the Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian (DCl; Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas) and the standardisation of lexis in its different editions. the idea of compiling a dictionary for practical purposes belongs to Kazimieras būga (1879-1924). However, due to his early death the compilation of the dictionary was suspended and only resumed by Juozas Balčikonis (1885–1969) who headed the editorial board of the Dictionary of Lithuanian. Its manuscript was finalised after WW2 at the Institute of the lithuanian language. the manuscript was discussed at the Department of social sciences of the then lithuanian academy of sciences in 1948. the Department advised to amend the Dictionary by adding the materials from soviet newspapers and literature and by explicating the terms in the way they were explicated in dictionaries of the russian language. there was an editorial board set up for editing the Dictionary. J. Kruopas (1908-1975) was appointed as its editor-in-chief. In 1954 the Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian was published. to refer to the normative derivative variants of the lexis, synonyms and equivalents replacing loanwords the authors used the abbreviation žr. More attention to language standardization was devoted in the second edition of the DCl (1972), which was published when the political censorship was not so heavy. the edition amply uses the abbreviation ntk. for unacceptable loanwords. Moreover, the dictionary was revised by lexicographers; As a result, prefixed verbs were given in separate entries. In the third edition of the DCl which was published after the restoration of lithuania’s independence (1993) the evaluation of loanwords was even stricter.