e.g.: economic (=of the economy) reform, state (=of the state) revenue, state (=of the state) loans, state (=of the state) bank, state (=of the state) budget, etc. On p. 224, the term unified energy system is given (following the Russian единая энергетическая система). An attempt was made to correct it to “common energy system,” but both terms are poor. “Common energy-sector system” would be more suitable.

Incorrect terms sometimes appear in the definitions, for example, echolot “electronavigational (=electronic navigation) device for measuring sea depth using ultrasonic waves <...>”. Perhaps the economic term capital investments (p. 89), included in a geography dictionary, would be better replaced by capital inputs?

The dictionary contains very categorical but inaccurate statements, for example, “International languages are English and French” (entry “Language,” p. 87); “The international languages are English and French” (entry “Languages of the World,” p. 145). But are only these two languages considered international?

There is no intention here to evaluate this dictionary in greater depth. This time, the aim was merely to point out a handful of its obvious inaccuracies and errors.

Galutis LAUKAGALIS

THOUGHTS ON A DICTIONARY OF PEDAGOGICAL TERMS

In 1993, a much-needed explanatory and translation dictionary, “Pedagogical Terms,” compiled by Prof. L. Jovaiša, was published in a print run of 3,000 copies by the Šviesa publishing house¹. It was the first explanatory dictionary of pedagogical terms published in Lithuania, comprising about 1,000 common terms from theoretical and applied pedagogy, its history and methodology. It was reviewed and accented, and linguists also reviewed it alongside other scholars. The publication is useful to researchers and to lecturers, teachers, and students preparing for a career in teaching.

The dictionary’s preface states that this is “the first attempt to describe and systematize the concepts of the science of human education in the Lithuanian language” (p. 3). Yet we had long had—albeit printed from a manuscript for the first time only a couple of years earlier, and left unfinished—the work by Prof. St. Šalkauskis

¹ J o v a i š a L. Pedagogikos terminai. K.: Šviesa, 1993, 264 p.

98

a dictionary of pedagogical terms², comprising 1,600 terms with French, German, and Russian equivalents. A considerable number of the terms in this dictionary and the one under discussion coincide; however, it is unclear whether L. Jovaiša used St. Šalkauskis’s dictionary and whether he drew pedagogical terms from it. For example, the terms given by L. Jovaiša, atakla, įsitikinimas, do not appear in the “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language,” but we cannot regard them as recent neologisms, since they were already used by St. Šalkauskis. The terms savivaizdis, saviveiklumas, veiktis, included in the dictionary under discussion, may be neologisms, since they appear neither in the “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language” (the entry veiktis was sought in that dictionary’s card index) nor in the aforementioned dictionary of pedagogical terms by St. Šalkauskis.

First, it would be useful to discuss matters concerning the dictionary’s structure. The preface states that “when defining a term, a logical definition is given first, followed by a detailed explanation” (p. 3). If a term is polysemous, all its meanings are given. Although the preface says that the meanings of polysemous terms “are generally indicated in a single nest” (p. 3; this should be specified more precisely as “in a single entry”), the dictionary is not a nest-based one: compound terms, like single-word terms, are listed alphabetically according to the first word. For example, the terms agresyvus elgesys and elgesys; aiškinamasis skaitymas and skaitymas are listed separately, although for some reason this principle is not always followed. For instance, the terms neuropsichiniai sindromai, psychopathologiniai sindromai are listed not alphabetically but after the term sindromas. Moreover, with regard to the arrangement of terms, it should be added that the dictionary does not follow the established requirement for dictionary compilation in Lithuanian lexicography, stated in the “Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian” as follows: “When arranging words alphabetically, no distinction is made between long and short vowels (a, ą; i, į; y; u, ų, ū), or between the broad and narrow vowels e, ę, ė; for example, the word ūpas comes first, followed by upė; first tręšti, followed by trempti, trešti”³. In the publication, pedagogical terms containing the letter i are listed first, followed by those with į, and finally those with y; the same applies in other cases.

² Šalkauskis St. Raštai. V.: Mintis, 1991. T. 2. P. 227-345.

³ Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas. V.: Moklo ir enciklopedijų l-kla, 1993. P. VIII.

99

because of this, for example, įgėdis appears after izoliavimo, ypatingumas after įžvalgos, sąmonė after savybės, lėlių teatras after lenktyniavimo, and so on.

The Lithuanian terms in this dictionary are translated into English, German, and Russian, whereas for international terms only their etymology is indicated. It must be said, however, that this aspect of the structure is also not consistently observed. For example, equivalents in other languages are given alongside the term euristinis mokymas (as they should be), while alongside fakultatyvinis mokymas its etymology is explained instead (no equivalents are given); following the stated principle, the etymology is indicated alongside the international two-word term grupių homogeniškumas, whereas the international terms grupės atmosferą and grupės diagnostika are translated into other languages. For some terms, such as oligofrenopedagogika, neither etymology nor equivalents are indicated. Regarding the relationship between the etymology and equivalents of terms, it should be added that stating a term’s origin cannot substitute for giving its equivalents. Therefore, equivalents for international terms should also be included in the dictionary, since they may have different meanings in different languages and their forms may differ to some extent.

The dictionary contains omissions among the referenced terms. For example, the entry formalizacijos refers the reader to statistika, 58; the end of the entry veiklos refers the reader to pedagoginė veikla, 254; and mokytojų seminarija is not explained at all, but merely refers the reader to pedagoginė mokykla, 133. Yet the terms statistika, pedagoginė mokykla, pedagoginė veikla do not appear in the dictionary.

Very often the cross-referenced terms do not match: the terms in the references differ from those given in the dictionary. For example: klasifikacija refers to pedagogikos mokyklų klasifikacija, 95, whereas the dictionary gives pedagogikos disciplinų klasifikacija; masturbacija refers to seksualinis auklėjimas, 113, while the dictionary gives seksualinė pedagogika; namų darbai refers to visos dienos grupė, 136, while the dictionary gives visos dienos mokykla; veiksnys refers to statistinis tyrimas, 255, while the dictionary gives statistinė analizė. Perhaps these terms are equivalent or similar in meaning, but such discrepancies should not occur in a dictionary.

The headwords of the entries in the dictionary are marked for stress. The stress marks are generally correct, but because of poor printing quality they are very faint in many places and unclear in some. For some reason, however, a number of terms are left entirely unmarked for stress, for example, nepriežiūra, nuotaka, psichopatologiniai sindromai, tikslingumas, ugdymo dalyviai, and so on.

Turning to the dictionary’s content, it should be emphasized that the term defini-

100

The descriptions and explanations are extensive and detailed, and conform to the terminology standard, but they contain many complex scientific-style clichés and rare words requiring explanation. Perhaps this was determined by the publication’s purpose? Nevertheless, some things could be revised to make them simpler and clearer, for example, Normos interiorizuojamos, inkorporuojamos (=formuojamos, diegiamos) asmenybės gyvenime, jos tampa elgesį reguliuojančiu veiksniu (str. dorovinė norma, p. 45). There are inaccuracies in the definitions and explanations of terms. DŽ3 explains the meaning of the word negalia as “ailment, ill health,” so this should be revised: tėvų ir visuomenės negalia (=negalėjimas) rūpintis vaikų, paauglių auklėjimu dėl šeimos suirimo, p a b ė g u s vaikams iš namų (=vaikų pabėgimo iš namų) ir kt. priežasčių (str. nepriežiūra, p. 139).

Although the terms aspirãntas, aspirantūra have now become historicisms in Lithuania, both are included and explained in the dictionary, while the current term doktorãntas is absent, even though daktarantūra (=doktorantūra) is included. Incidentally, the meanings of aspirantūra and doktorantūra differed in the recent past, although the dictionary conflates them, stating that aspirantūra “is also called doktorantūra” (p. 17; cf. also the entry daktar antūra, p. 35).

The definitions and explanations of terms contain minor errors of language and style, for example: Hipotezės kūrimą s ą l y g o j a (=lemia) taip pat objektyvios s ą l y g o s jai realizuoti (str. hipotezės kūrimas, p. 68); Gamybiniame darbe, tempas s ą l y g o j a (=lemia) veiklos produktyvumą (str. darbo tempas, p. 38); Ji į g a l i n a (=leidžia, padeda, sudaro sąlygas) ne tik save pažinti, bet ir tobulinti savo veiklą ir santykius su aplinka (str. refleksija, p. 197).

Regarding the terms themselves included in the dictionary, it should also be noted that, as stated in the preface, much “attention is paid to similar and disputed terms, which the authors seek to differentiate and describe as precisely as possible” (p. 3). However, it is wrong that, in the course of differentiating terms, words considered linguistic errors have also been accepted as standard. For example, the term užsiėmimas should certainly not be used to mean “lesson, studying lessons at home, and so on. <...>.”

In explaining the term atlikimas, the author of the publication offers the expressions

101

atliekama pamoka, atliko pamoka in the following sense: “When we say ‘mokytojas veda pamoką’ [the teacher is conducting a lesson], we mean the process; ‘vedė pamoką’ [conducted a lesson] means it was not completed, while ‘atliko pamoką’ [completed a lesson] means that the teacher conducted and finished it” (p. 18). However, the verb atlikti need not necessarily be associated with conducting and finishing a lesson—it can also mean learning, for example: atlikti namų darbus, užduotis [to do homework, assignments]. Thus, perhaps “completed a lesson” could also be understood as “attended lessons” or “learned the lessons.”

In conclusion, it should be said that these remarks in no way diminish the scholarly and normative value of the dictionary. This publication encourages interest in and further development of the science of pedagogy and its Lithuanian terminology.

Nijolė Banevičienė

DICTIONARY OF PSYCHOLOGY

The appearance of every new terminology dictionary is a significant event both for the field of science concerned and for terminology in general. This is all the more true if the dictionary is the first of its kind, since it can determine what the terminology of that field will be and, at the same time, reveal the discipline’s orientations and, to some extent, its future development.

Psychology began to attract interest, and its terminology began to be developed, in prewar Lithuania. The small dictionaries of philosophy and pedagogy compiled by St. Šalkauskis (the latter, admittedly, was never published at the time) also contain quite a large number of psychological terms (sensation, consciousness, etc.). Later, psychology was not forgotten either: articles and books were published (though perhaps not enough of them), in which, naturally, it was impossible to do without the terminology of the field. However, the first dictionary appeared only in 1993. This was the “Dictionary of Psychology” published by the Science and Encyclopedias Publishing House¹. According to the dictionary’s compilers themselves, it is intended for psychologists as well as specialists in other fields and people interested in psychology for their own education. For this reason, the dictionary should have been prepared with great care. Not many

¹ Psichologijos žodynas. V.: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1993. 368 p.

102