HALINA KARÁŠ

University of Warsaw, Institute of Polish Language

Research interests: dialectology, the history of the Polish language, lexicography.

JAN KARŁOWICZ’S CONTRIBUTION TO DIALECTOLOGY RESEARCH. DICTIONARY OF POLISH DIALECTS – A BREAKTHROUGH DICTIONARY¹

Jan Karłowicz’s contribution to dialectology. Dictionary of Polish Dialects as a breakthrough project

ABSTRACT

Šiame straipsnyje aptariamas Jano Karlovičiaus (1836–1903) indėlis į lenkų dialektologijos raidą. Didžiausią šio indėlio dalį sudaro autoriaus parengtas Lenkų tarmių žodynas. Veikalas buvo didžiulis lūžis lenkų tarmių leksikografijoje, be to, jis yra pirmasis visų tarmių žodynas ne tik lenkų, bet ir apskritai slavų kalbų plote. Karlovičius vertinamas ir kaip puikus mokslinės veiklos organizatorius. Mokslininko organizacinės pastangos geriausiai atsispindi Vilniaus valstybės istorijos archyve saugomoje medžiagoje, ypač laiškuose, kiek mažesniu mastu – Lenkijos archyvų medžiagoje. Ši medžiaga rodo, kad rinkdamas „liaudies dalykus“ Karlovičius bendradarbiavo tiek su mokslo žmonėmis, tiek su tarmių, folkloro ir plačiai suprantamos liaudies kultūros mėgėjais. Straipsnyje, atsižvelgiant į Kazimiero Nitz’o 1911 m. publikuotą kritišką Lenkų tarmių žodyno recenziją, taip pat aptariamas šio veikalo turinys ir tikslai.

¹The preparation of the article was funded by the Research Council of Lithuania (Research Council of Lithuania). Contract number: No. VAT-36/2012. Research project Jan Karlovičius – a disseminator of scientific and cultural life at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries.

K E Y W O R D S: dialectology, Polish dialects, Lithuanian dialects, lexicography, Jan Karłowicz, Dictionary of Polish Dialects.

K E Y W O R D S: dialectology, Polish dialects, Lithuanian dialects, lexicography, Jan Karłowicz, Dictionary of Polish Dialects.

78

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVII

Jano Karlovičiaus indėlis į dialektologijos tyrimus. Lenkų tarmių žodynas – lūžio žodynas

ANNOTATION

The paper discusses Jan Karłowicz’s (1836–1903) contribution to the development of Polish dialectology, consisting mainly in the compilation of the “Dictionary of Polish Dialects” – a major breakthrough in the Polish dialectal lexicography and the first full dialectal dictionary in the Slavonic language area – as well as in his work as an organizer of scientific life. His organizational efforts are presented chiefly on the basis of archival materials, mainly correspondence preserved e.g. in the Lithuanian State Historical Archives and – to a lesser extent – in the Polish archives. The materials exemplify Karłowicz’s co-operation with both professional scientists and laymen (enthusiasts of folklore, dialects and of broadly understood folk culture) as far as collecting ‘folk objects’ is concerned. The paper also presents the content of the “Dictionary of Polish Dialects” with respect to the 1911 critical review by Kazimierz Nitsch.

1. THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SCHOLARLY STUDY OF THE WORK OF JAN KARŁOWICZ, A PROMOTER OF DIALECTOLOGY

Janas Karlovičius (1836–1903) daug nusipelnė puoselėdamas lenkų dialektologiją, nors šiandien jis prisimenamas tik kaip šešių Lenkų tarmių žodyno – pirmojo lenkų kalbos, ir netgi apskritai slavų kalbų, visų tarmių žodyno – tomų autorius. Karlovičius daug metų buvo nepagrįstai ir aštriai kritikuojamas kaip kalbininkas (leksikografas ir dialektologas), tačiau dabar jis atrandamas ir vertinamas iš naujo (plg. Koniusz 2001; Okoniowa 2003, 2012; Karaś 2011, 2012; Rutkowska 2012). Jau anksčiau eilinės su jo asmenybe ir veikalu susijusios metinės buvo postūmis apmąstyti jo mokslinę kūrybą ir analizuoti dialektologinius pasiekimus (Perzowa 1979). Nors Stanislovas Urbančikas (Stanisław Urbańczyk) Karlovičių nelabai vertino kaip lingvistą ir jo mokslinę veiklą aprašė labai paviršutiniškai, lenkų kalbotyros istorijai skirtoje monografijoje pabrėžė jo organizacinius gebėjimus, įvardydamas jį kaip žymų mokslinės minties skleidėją (Urbańczyk 1993: 98–99). Panašiai rašė ir Henrika Pežowa (Henryka Perzowa 1979: 426).

In 2011, the 175th anniversary of Karłowicz’s birth and the centenary of the publication of his most important work in dialectology—Dictionary of Polish Dialects (hereafter DPD)—highlighted the need for an in-depth analysis of his contribution to the development of Polish dialectology and a reassessment of prevailing opinions about his scholarly work. These anniversaries in Poland and Lithuania showed that it was necessary to study scholarly life at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries and to define Karłowicz’s role as an organizer and disseminator of the “movement of minds” of the time (Karaś 2012). He was an exceptionally important figure in Polish science and culture at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, whose broad and diverse achievements have not yet been sufficiently studied.

Straipsniai / Articles

79

HALINA KARAŚ

It is very important to recall Karłowicz as a person and to describe more fully his contribution to research in dialectology—not only to the lexicography of Polish dialects—a contribution that has already been discussed, at least in part (cf. Perzowa 1979; Koniusz 2001; Okoniowa 2003; Karaś 2011).

2. JAN KARŁOWICZ—INITIATOR AND ORGANIZER OF AREAL ETHNOGRAPHIC RESEARCH

Studies devoted to Karłowicz as a linguist and dialectologist have so far emphasized his authorship of the Dictionary of Polish Dialects, while mentioning a few minor dialectological publications that were not particularly significant for the developing field of Polish dialectology. These are Gwara kaszubska (1898), O ile należałoby uwzględniać narzecza ludowe w gramatykach (1894) (cf. Perzowa 1979: 429). However, Karłowicz is not valued as a dialectologist for these works. It should be remembered that his contribution to dialectological research is much greater than has been written to date. His work in initiating and organizing areal dialectological research has also been insufficiently highlighted and valued. His initiative in organizing areal ethnographic research is always emphasized, but this research cannot be assessed separately, without reference to dialect studies. For Karłowicz, ethnographic research, in which he enthusiastically participated and which he planned and organized, encompassed both typical ethnographic research and dialectological research. This is clearly attested by his statement in Poradnik dla zbierających rzeczy ludowe (1871), a pamphlet in which he encouraged the collection of “folk things”:

First, I shall recall which disciplines make use of collections of folk materials: linguistics (comparative philology), linguistics, mythology (the study of beliefs), and ethnology (ethnography) draw directly from and live almost exclusively on the source of folk materials [...]. Linguistics, a new branch of science, the fruit of nineteenth-century thought, [...] teaches that no language can be thoroughly studied without precise knowledge of it in time and space [...]. We urgently need the most comprehensive possible dictionary of provincialisms (local district words) [...].²

In this work, the author calls for the collection of both material that is exclusively ethnographic and material related to folk language and culture.

Translation: First, I shall recall which disciplines make use of collections of folk materials: linguistics (comparative philology), linguistics, mythology (the study of religion), and ethnography draw directly from and exist almost entirely thanks to folk materials [...]. Linguistics, a new branch of science, the fruit of nineteenth-century thought, [...] teaches that no language can be thoroughly studied without precise knowledge of it in time and space [...]. We need the most comprehensive possible dictionary of provincialisms (district words) [...].

80

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVII

Jano Karlovičiaus indėlis į dialektologijos tyrimus. Lenkų tarmių žodynas – lūžio žodynas

That his appeal did not go unheard is evidenced by the extensive correspondence, which shows his collaboration in collecting “folk materials” with both scholars and enthusiasts of dialects, folklore, and broadly understood folk culture. Most of them were contributors to the ethnographic journal Wisła, edited by Karlowicz, authors of texts devoted to folk culture, and often authors of glossaries of the dialects of villages or small regions. For example, the collection of Karlowicz’s papers in the Lithuanian State Historical Archives (F1135–10–) preserves many letters addressed to him by ethnographer-dialectologists known today only to a narrow circle of scholars³: Józef S. Ziemba, author of Słownik prowincjonalizmów powiatu będzińskiego (gubernia piotrkowska) (1891); August Wrzéśniowski, author of Spis wyrazów podhalańskich (1884); Jan Sembryczki, author of a short publication on the Masurian dialect in volume three of Wisła (1889); Józef Lepkowski, author of Wiadomości o Szląsku (1849); Ignacja Piątkowska, identified in Karlowicz’s sources list for the Polish Dialect Dictionary (PDD) as the author of a manuscript glossary of the Sieradz dialect; Melania Parczewska, author of Przyczynki do słownika gwary śląskiej, published in 1907; Joanna Aniela Milewska, mistakenly cited in Karlowicz’s PDD sources list as the author of a manuscript glossary of the Greater Poland dialect, which in fact concerns the dialects around Ciechanowiec in Mazovia (Ciechanowiec na Mazowszu) (see Karaś 2011: 95); Błażej Pawłowicz, author of the article Wyrazy gwarowe z okolic Tarnowa (1893); Stanisław Polaczek, author of Powiat chrzanowski w W. Ks. Krakowskim. Monografia historyczno-geograficzna (1914), which includes a glossary of dialect words; Karol Mátyás, author of Słowniczek gwary ludu zamieszkującego wschodnio-południową najbliższą okolicę Nowego Sącza (1891); and Szczęsny Jastrzębowski, identified in the PDD sources list as the author of a manuscript glossary of the Radomsko dialect.

Karlowicz’s activity is well illustrated by Ignacja Piątkowska’s letter of 1982-02-19, which lists the people who had agreed to collaborate with Wisła in collecting and sending ethnographic and dialectological material⁴: 1. Rev. Pruliński from Kłobucko, 2. Rev. Godorowski from Wieluń, 3. Wiśniewska from Sławencinek, 4. Leon Winer from Konin, 5. Kruszyński from Turek, 6. Zofja B. from the Sieradz voivodeship (Sieradzkie), 7. Anna L. from Piotrków

³ Visų išvardytų žodynėlių sąrašas yra straipsnio autorės darbe – Karaś 2011, jie aprašyti internetinėje publikacijoje Dialekty i gwary polskie. Kompendium językowe, red. H. Karaś, regionų puslapiuose – žr. http://www.uw.edu.pl.

⁴ The forms are given as in the original, i.e. sometimes the surname alone, without a first name or its initial, and sometimes a first name and the initial of the surname.

Straipsniai / Articles

81

HALINA KARAŚ

(Piotrkowskie) county, 8. Marja K. from the Sieradz voivodeship, 9. Rev. Drozdowski from the Sieradz voivodeship, 10. Wanda B. from the Wieluń voivodeship (Wieluńskie), 11. Stanisława K. from the Wieluń voivodeship (F1135-10-115-783). The list shows how broad the circle of contributors was, and how many people, including clergy (Catholic priests), took part in the regional surveys led by Karlowicz.

3. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE VILNIUS ARCHIVES FOR RESEARCH ON JANO KARLOVICZ’S WORK

The Lithuanian State Historical Archives are important for research on Karlowicz’s work. In addition to the letters mentioned, they also contain other interesting material. Various dialectological notes by the dictionary’s author have been preserved in the archives, for example grammatical notes—plural nominative forms of masculine personal-gender nouns: francia, kacia, organiścia, kamracia, wszyscy święcia, umarcia, rekrucia, studencia, swacia, wójcia (F1135-10-141-60-62)—or the poem “From Drohiczyn,” which makes fun of lisping (F1135-10-141-42a):

Jestem šobʼe panėnecka, né ďʼewcyna Z šadowego m‘asȝta Dro jczyna Mam što złotȳh na proceńće własnej šumy I gram šobʼe na gitarė różne dumy⁵.

The contents of the Vilnius State Historical Archives vividly reflect Karlowicz’s work as an organizer and collector, related not only to Polish but also to Lithuanian dialects. His contribution to Lithuanian studies and Lithuanian dialectology had until now been little known, but this aspect of his work has increasingly been emphasized in recent years. For example,

⁵ Written according to orthographic rules, the text would look like this:

Jestem sobie panienecka, nie dziewczyna Z szadowego miaszta Dro jczyna Mam szto złotych na procence własnej szumy I gram sobie na gitarze różne dumy.

The text is characterized by two dialectal features, namely mazuration (Pol. mazurzenie, Eng. mazuration): cz > c, ż > z (panienecka, dziewcyna, różne = words in standard Polish panieneczka, dziewczyna, różne), and the so-called replacement of the sounds presented here by one another: s > sz, z > ż (Pol. szadzenie)—these are hyperisms arising from avoidance of mazuration (miaszta, szto złotych, własnej szumy = words in standard Polish miasta, sto złotych, własnej sumy).

82

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVII

Jano Karlovičiaus indėlis į dialektologijos tyrimus. Lenkų tarmių žodynas – lūžio žodynas

The archive contains a substantial collection of letters written to Karlovičius by Lithuanian public figures and scholars: letters from Jonas Jūška (Jan Juszkiewicz), Jonas Šliūpas (Jan Szlupa), Jonas Jablonskis (Jan Jabloński), and Mečislovas Davainis-Silvestraitis (Mieczysław Dowojna-Sylwestrowicz). Karlovičius corresponded especially actively with Davainis-Silvestraitis and worked closely with him. About 100 letters written to Karlovičius by this controversial political figure, an “eminent admirer of the Lithuanian language” (cf. Sawaniewska-Mochowa 2003), have survived in the Vilnius State Historical Archives. His achievements in Lithuanian studies are examined in a separate article (Rutkowska 2012), so here we merely draw attention to this issue.

It is worth recalling this researcher’s conception of the scholarly lexicographic preparation of dialect vocabulary, set out in his 1876 work Przyczynki do projektu wielkiego słownika polskiego⁶, in which he wrote:

The description of a provincial word should differ very little from the description of the pan-Polish words proposed above. [...] In addition to the categories listed there, only the following should be added: 1) when giving the pronunciation of a word, indicate it very carefully; 2) specify precisely the locality where the given provincial word is used; 3) mention whether the corresponding pan-Polish word is also known in that province; if so, what difference there is in the use of the provincial word (p. 44)⁷.

The quotation points to Karlovičius’s approach to dialect phonetics and linguistic geography, which is quite close to modern scholarship, and presents his understanding of the interrelations between folk dialects and the literary language.

Karlovičius made a significant contribution to the study of the Polish language used in Lithuania. Many words from Lithuania appeared both in the Dictionary of Polish Dialects and in his unpublished work Podręcznik czystej polszczyzny dla litwinów i petersbur szczan.... His manuscript, found in the Vilnius archive by Ana Kaupuž (Anna Kaupuż) and prepared for publication by Elżbieta Smulkova (Elżbieta Smułkowa) (1984), was first presented by these two authors (1984), then studied in depth once more by Zofia Sawaniewska-Mochowa, who wrote the monograph Poradnik Jana Karłowicza jako źródło poznania potocznej polszczyzny północnokresowej. Słownictwo (1990).

The text of 6 Przyczynki is now freely accessible on the website of the Polish Internet Library, www.pbi.edu.pl; 90 photographs illustrate the work, which—as its title states—is a separate offprint from the reports of the Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1876 (Osobne odbicie ze sprawozdań Akademii Umiejętności 1876).

7 Translation: The description of a dialect word should differ only slightly from the description of standard Polish words proposed above. [...] In addition to the categories listed there, the following should also be included: 1) when indicating a word’s pronunciation, represent it very carefully; 2) specify precisely the locality where this dialect word is used; 3) note whether the corresponding standard Polish word is known in the province; first, explain what difference arises in the use of the dialect word.

Straipsniai / Articles

83

HALINA KARÁŠ

4. JANO KARLOVIČIAUS DICTIONARY OF POLISH DIALECTS – A LANDMARK DICTIONARY

Karlovičius’s most important work in dialectology must undoubtedly be recognized as the Dictionary of Polish Dialects (1900–1911)⁸, which ushered in a new phase in the history of Polish dialect lexicography. Despite its many connections with lexicographic work from earlier periods, it can be characterized as a landmark dictionary, bringing the second phase to a close and inaugurating the subsequent period in the history of Polish dialect lexicography. Compared with earlier dictionaries, it stands out above all for the wealth of its content and material. Second, it is the first and, to this day, the only completed dictionary to cover all Polish dialects (excluding emigrant varieties), and the first of its kind in all Slavic countries. Karlovičius’s dictionary remains a comprehensive source for dialect vocabulary, although many of its shortcomings and errors have been identified since its publication.

Karlovičius’s Dictionary of Polish Dialects has yet to receive a comprehensive monograph; individual aspects have been studied. Worth noting is Elżbieta Koniusz’s monograph Polszczyzna z historycznej Litwy w „Słowniku gwar polskich“ Jana Karłowicza (2001), as well as several of her articles on Karlovičius’s Dictionary of Polish Dialects, including studies of the expressive vocabulary of historic Lithuania (Koniusz 2008) and the legacy of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in Karlovičius’s lexicographic works (Koniusz 2005a). The Dictionary of Polish Dialects was taken into account in a monograph devoted to the history of Polish dialect lexicography (Karas 2011) and in an article on the typology of Polish dialect dictionaries (Karas 2010). The vocabulary contained in Karlovičius’s Dictionary of Polish Dialects became the source for an interesting experiment: the reconstruction of Aleksander Osipowicz’s (Aleksander Osipowicz) missing work, Słownik gwary augustowskiej (Nowowiejski, ed., 2009). This dictionary is listed among the sources for Karlovičius’s Dictionary of Polish Dialects as a manuscript dictionary, and is also quite often cited in its headword entries under the abbreviation Osip. This suggested that the reconstructed dictionary would be fairly comprehensive. In her article Jan Karłowicz jako dialektolog, published in the commemorative 1979 issue of Poradnik Językowy, Henrika Pežova made the Dictionary of Polish Dialects and its evaluation the subject of reflection and description.

Karlovičius’s Dictionary of Polish Dialects contains vocabulary from all Polish dialects that could be collected at the time, given the state of research into Polish dialect vocabulary. Karlovičius finished making excerpts from the source texts in 1896; many works published later, as well as manuscripts written subsequently, were therefore not included in the dictionary. Because the excerpts had been completed by that date, Karlovičius’s dictionary could not benefit from advances in dialectology, which became a scientific discipline in the early twentieth century thanks to Kazimierz Nitsch. Karlovičius finished making the excerpts in that year in order to

⁸After the author’s death, volume III was completed and edited by Hieronim Łopaciński and Wacław Taczanowski, while volumes IV–VI were edited by Jan Łoś. Karlovičius’s Dictionary of Polish Dialects was published at the expense of the Academy of Arts and Sciences in Kraków.

84

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVII

Jano Karlovičiaus indėlis į dialektologijos tyrimus. Lenkų tarmių žodynas – lūžio žodynas

to manage?

to process the large quantity of material collected over thirty years, or at least to carry out enough lexicographic work so that someone else could continue editing without major difficulty. He discusses this in the dictionary’s introduction (p. 1):

Foreseeing that I would not be able to make use of everything, I preferred to limit myself to incomplete resources and publish them rather than accumulate notes and leave them to the usually unfavourable fate of posthumous manuscripts⁹.

From the perspective of time, this appears to have been the right decision, although Nitsch called Karlowicz’s work premature as soon as it appeared and judged it very harshly. Yet had this dictionary not been published, Poland would still lack a dictionary of all dialects, since Nitsch’s work on a scholarly dictionary of Polish dialects, begun a century ago, has proceeded—and continues to proceed—very slowly (only a portion of the words beginning with the letters A–F has been published), while the fate of Karlowicz’s posthumous manuscript would certainly have been “unfavourable.”

The scholar therefore approached the Academy of Arts and Sciences in Kraków, proposing that it take the dictionary in preparation under its wing and publish it. It is worth emphasising that in his will he allocated a substantial sum for completing the dictionary in case the Academy lacked the funds (cf. Koniusz 2001: 26). He also charged his son Mieczysław with overseeing the completion of the work. There is quite a large body of literature on the circumstances surrounding the dictionary’s creation and the history of the work devoted to it (cf., for example, Appel 1904; Brückner 1904; Łoś 1904; Kryński 1904; Perzowa 1979; Koniusz 2001: 14–37), so the discussion here focuses primarily on the dictionary itself: its contents, sources, conception and methodological decisions, as well as opinions concerning it.

Karlowicz’s dictionary contains a twelve-page introduction presenting brief information about the material on which the dictionary was based and orthographic problems, as well as acknowledgements to those who supplied sources (especially manuscript glossaries) and to the Academy of Arts and Sciences in Kraków. In this respect, his work was criticised for its sources—the primary material—and for lacking a dictionary concept. It is known that the scholar intended to present the dictionary more fully, as indicated by the sentence in the introduction: “once I have completed the work, I will write about this in greater detail”; but death prevented him from carrying out this plan.

5. THE SOURCES OF JANO KARLOWICZ’S POLISH DIALECT DICTIONARY

The survey of the list of abbreviations in the dictionary’s final volume, where Jan Łoś deciphered many obscure abbreviations, demonstrates that Dictionary of Polish Dialects draws on a variety of sources. These include:

⁹ Translation: Foreseeing that I would not be able to make use of everything, I preferred to limit myself to incomplete resources and publish them rather than accumulate notes and condemn them to the unfavourable fate of posthumous manuscripts.

Straipsniai / Articles

85

HALINA KARAŚ

a) Various publications from the nineteenth century and earlier, covering different subjects and of different types (including ethnographic, dialectological, and folkloric publications) (various works published in Wisła, Prace Filologiczne, Biblioteka Warszawska, Rozprawy i Sprawozdania z Posiedzeń Wydziału Filologicznego Akademii Umiejętności w Krakowie, Zbiór Wiadomości do Antropologii Krajowej), the works of Oskar Kolberg, songs, tales, humorous poems, legends, and folk tales from many regions;

b) 24 manuscript glossaries of local and regional dialects, including those from:

the mountainous region of Lesser Poland (Małopolska górska) – 3,

the Subcarpathian region (Podkarpacie) – 2,

Łowicz Voivodeship (Łowickie) – 1,

Sieradz Voivodeship (Sieradzkie) – 1,

Kielce Voivodeship (Kielecczyzna) – 4,

Lublin Voivodeship (Lubelszczyzna) – 3,

Kraków Voivodeship (Krakowskie) – 1,

Radom Voivodeship (Radomskie) – 2,

Mazovia (Mazowsze) – 2,

Podlasie and Suwałki region (Suwalszczyzna) (the dialect glossary from Drohiczyn, by Ludwik Czarkowski and Aleksander Osipowicz, Słownik gwary augustowskiej) – 2,

Greater Poland (Wielkopolska) – 1; (another, by J. Milewska, incorrectly described as being from Greater Poland, is in fact associated with the area around Ciechanów in Mazovia (Ciechanów na Mazowszu),

Lithuania – 1, a fishermen’s dialect from various localities;

c) spoken material, especially from Lithuania (what the Dictionary marks as “Ust. z Litwy” – “by word of mouth from Lithuania”);

d) bilingual and general Polish-language dictionaries, including specialized ones: Mrongoviusz’s (Mrongowiusz) German–Polish and Polish–German dictionary, Samuel B. Linde’s Słownik języka polskiego, Słownik wileński, the initial volumes of Słownik warszawski, H. Łabęcki’s (H. Łabęckiego) Słownik górniczy, Erazm Majewski’s Słownik nazwisk botanicznych zoologicznych polskich, Kornel Kozłowski’s Słownik leśny, bartny, bursztyniarski i orylski, Muchliński’s Źródłosłownik wyrazów [...] z języków wschodnich, and encyclopedias (for example, Orgelbrand’s Great Encyclopedia and the Encyclopedia of Agriculture).

Besides handwritten glossaries, their number increased with the advent of printed ones. At the end of Volume VI, prepared by Jan Losius, a list of abbreviations names 22, not counting glossaries appended to dialect descriptions or other kinds of works. Biblioteka Warszawska, Wisła, Prace Filologiczne published glossaries are lexical collections from the following regions:

86

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVII

Jano Karlovičiaus indėlis į dialektologijos tyrimus. Lenkų tarmių žodynas – lūžio žodynas

• Cieszyn Silesia (Śląsk Cieszyński) – 2,

• Mountainous Lesser Poland (Małopolska górska) – 4,

• Subcarpathia (Podkarpacie) – 2,

• Western Lesser Poland (Małopolska zachodnia), Dąbrowa Basin (Zagłębie Dąbrowskie) – 1,

• Central Lesser Poland (Małopolska środkowa), Kielce Voivodeship (Kieleckie) – 2,

• Kraków Voivodeship (Krakowskie) – 1,

• Lublin Voivodeship (Lubelskie) – 1,

• Southern Borderlands (Kresy południowe) – 2,

• Mazovia (Mazowsze) – 3,

• Podlasie (Podlasie) – 2,

• Mazovia and Podlasie combined (Mazowsze i Podlasie łącznie) – 1,

• Kuyavia (Kujawy) – 1,

• Chełmno Land and Kociewie (ziemia chełmińska i Kociewie) – 1.

Taking both types of dictionary into account, handwritten and printed, it is clear that the largest numbers of dictionaries come from mountainous Lesser Poland – 7, Kielce Voivodeship – 6, Mazovia – 5, Subcarpathia – 4, Lublin Voivodeship – 4, Podlasie – 4, and the Eastern Borderlands (Kresy wschodnie) – 3.

6. THE POLISH DIALECT DICTIONARY: TERRITORIAL AND CHRONOLOGICAL LIMITS

The geographical scope of Karłowicz’s Dictionary of Polish Dialects is broad. It is a dictionary of all dialects, covering the entire territory of Polish dialects, including the east, although unevenly. The territorial unevenness of the material, which has often been discussed in descriptions of this dictionary, arose from the state of research at the time and was beyond the author’s control. As is well known, eastern dialects predominate, while western dialects are poorly represented, especially those of Greater Poland and Silesia, as well as northern Polish dialects, such as those of Warmia (Nitsch 1911 [1958]: 197, 200). In part—as Nitsch himself acknowledged in his devastating review of Karłowicz’s dictionary—this situation arose for objective reasons, namely the lack of relevant systematic research in the ethnic Polish territories in the west, as well as the fact that the dictionary’s author was unable to enter the territories under Russian occupation because of his birthplace and place of residence.

The chronological scope of the Dictionary of Polish Dialects is limited. It includes material collected before 1896, so chronologically the dictionary covers essentially the nineteenth century (primarily its second half), although words from earlier centuries, even the Middle Ages, are occasionally included. Nitsch assessed Karłowicz’s dictionary in this respect as follows:

Straipsniai / Articles

87

HALINA KARAŚ

[...] although here and there we find in the Dictionary an older dialect word, the author included such words in his work quite incidentally and without any system; therefore, what we have here is only a dictionary of contemporary Polish dialects (Nitsch 1911 [1958]: 196–197)¹⁰.

The quantitative and percentage representation of the lexicon of particular dialects and dialect regions in the dictionary is, understandably, highly uneven. The greatest gaps occur in the documentation of the lexicon of western Poland, that is, Greater Poland and Silesia. The lexicon of Mazovia and Lesser Poland predominates, along with lexicon from outside the ethnic Polish territory (the territories of present-day Lithuania, Belarus, and Ukraine). Nitsch particularly criticized the dictionary for words of “questionable Polishness” (Nitsch 1911 [1958]: 197), especially West Slavic loanwords, often incorporated by writers of the time from the eastern territories of the former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in order to lend their works local colour. This unevenness in the representation of all Polish dialects led to negative opinions about the dictionary, but it should be remembered that this resulted from the state of research at the time and the lack of relevant material from western Poland. The situation improved and material became available later, after the writing of entries for Karłowicz’s Dictionary of Polish Dialects had already been completed.

Another shortcoming often identified in assessments of Karłowicz’s work is the inconsistent localization (the use of source abbreviations instead of linguistic-geographic data, which makes the dictionary harder to use) and gaps in it. Once Losius’s decipherments of obscure source abbreviations were provided in volume VI, this was no longer such an obvious shortcoming. Karłowicz understood the importance of geography for dialect vocabulary. In the previously cited 1876 work Przyczynki do projektu wielkiego słownika polskiego, he emphasized the need to define the geographical location of every word precisely and to localize every quotation precisely, with reference to the relevant villages. Elżbieta Koniusz discussed the lexicographer’s approach to the geographical distribution of words. Having analyzed the geographical distribution of historical Lithuanian vocabulary in Karłowicz’s dictionary, she concluded that Karłowicz’s Dictionary of Polish Dialects did not depart from the era’s established view of the geographical distribution of words and its place in dialectological research; therefore, “in this respect it is a product of its time” (Koniusz 2001: 78). Scholarly literature highlights this difference between Karłowicz’s theory and practice (cf. Karaś 1961: 361; Koniusz 2001: 65; Perzowa 1979: 435). It is worth remembering, however, that the lexicographer relied primarily on nineteenth-century and earlier collections, which were generally localized only broadly, and sometimes not localized at all (only glossaries from the late nineteenth century had fairly precise localization). Second, an attempt at more precise localization would have taken a great deal of time and significantly delayed the dictionary’s preparation. Henryka Perzowa (1979: 435) rightly assessed the situation: “Karłowicz, a maximalist in his 1876 conception, proved to be a realist in practice. He prepared the dictionary that he was able to prepare.”

¹⁰ Translation: [...] although here and there we find in the dictionary some older dialect word, which the author included in his work quite incidentally and without any system, it is nevertheless a dictionary of contemporary Polish dialects.

88

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVII

Jano Karlovičiaus indėlis į dialektologijos tyrimus. Lenkų tarmių žodynas – lūžio žodynas

7. THE POLISH DIALECT DICTIONARY: CONTENT AND AIMS

Karłowicz himself stated in the Dictionary of Polish Dialects that it contained more than 50,000 words (Koniusz 2001: 27). The author of this article counted 7,688 entries in the first volume, including 5,209 full entries (67.8%) and 2,479 cross-reference entries (32.2%). On average, there are about 7,700 entries per volume (some volumes are thicker). The contents of Karłowicz’s Dictionary of Polish Dialects can be estimated approximately according to the counting principles outlined above—about 46,000–50,000 dictionary entries, including cross-reference entries. It is essentially a differential dictionary, since it contains mainly vocabulary that differs from general Polish lexicon, although—as Nitsch criticized—the lexical material belongs to “the everyday dialect of the intelligentsia.” It is difficult to call it a comprehensive dictionary.

In addition to appellative vocabulary—following the lexicographic tradition of the time of including selected personal names in glossaries of folk words—Karłowicz included in his Dictionary of Polish Dialects a selection of various proper names: anthroponyms, mostly given names (e.g. Danilo, Olek, Todora ‘Theodora’, Rozwaligóra ‘a character’s name in a folktale’), nicknames (e.g. Ruchała ‘humorous nickname’), surnames (e.g. Szumilas), ethnonyms (e.g. Rusak / Rusek ‘Russian’, Rusin, Rusnak ‘Ukrainian’, Szwab ‘German’, Szwed ‘Swede’), geographical names, mostly place names, including not only major Polish cities (e.g. Dłutów, Garwolin, Gdańsk, Gdów, Rado, Rudawa, Rzeszów, Rzym, Sambor, Stradom) and village names (e.g. Daniec, Balice), derived adjectives (e.g. rzeszowski, dłutowski) and demonyms (e.g. Gdańszczanin, Rudawianka), regional names (e.g. Ruś), and the names of rivers and peaks (e.g. Dniestr, Babia Góra). This selection was determined by the nineteenth-century material that Karłowicz used as the basis for the dictionary. The chronological scope of the vocabulary collected in Karłowicz’s Dictionary of Polish Dialects is limited, since it essentially covers the lexicon of nineteenth-century Polish dialects, although earlier words, sometimes even from the Middle Ages, also occur. Karłowicz’s dictionary can be regarded as a synchronic dialect dictionary.

According to the author’s conception, the dictionary was intended for a broad readership, not just linguists. For this reason, quotations were written according to the orthographic conventions of the time rather than the principles of phonetic transcription. The purpose of the Dictionary of Polish Dialects and its author’s conception are well reflected in one of the earliest reviews of Karłowicz’s work, by Stanisław Dobrzycki, who wrote the following in 1904 in the pages of Poradnik Językowy:

This work, from the scientific point of view, is among the best things Polish scholarship has produced in recent times; it will be useful to the scholar of the Polish language, whether he studies dialectology or the history of the language; it will be useful to the psychologist of that language; it will be useful

Straipsniai / Articles

89

HALINA KARAŚ

also an ethnographer, sociologist, etc. – and as time goes by, it will become clear how this dictionary will prove absolutely indispensable (Dobrycki 1904: 52)¹¹.

The dictionary devotes considerable space to ethnographic information, often providing detailed descriptions of various elements of folk culture; consequently, it belongs not only among linguistic dictionaries but also among ethnographic dictionaries.

8. MICROSTRUCTURE OF THE DICTIONARY OF POLISH DIALECTS

The structure of a dictionary entry is as follows:

a) the headword is distinguished by spaced type; it is usually a single word, followed by phonetic variants (for example, in the entry Adwent: Agwynt, Agwent, Jadwent, Jadwynt, Jadwint, Jadwient, and so on); parallel phonetic forms of common Polish words (often lexicalized) are rarely illustrated with quotations; compare, for example, the entry:

Cmentarz: »Centyrz« Goszcz. 132. »Polana, zwana Centyrz« Siem. 113. Rozpr. XVII, 21. »Cmentach« Aten. VI, 118. »Za cmentarzę« Hilf. 130. »Do cmąt arza« ib. »Smentarz« Kuj. I, 164. Zb. XI, 121. »Cwentarz« Zb. I, 61. »Smyntárz« Rozpr. IX, 198. «Smentárz« ib. 199. »Smińtárz« Derd. 18. »Smintárz« Kętrz 58. »Swintárz« Pr.fil. IV, 257. »Cméntárz« Wisła VIII, 147. »Smętárz« Kaspr. 111. »Cyntyrz« Cer.

b) a definition of the meaning—usually a synonym-based or descriptive definition, following the symbol =;

c) a longer quotation or merely a brief context illustrating the word’s use; if no context is provided, the location of the headword or its phonetic variant is given;

d) quotations and/or the location of the word, usually given as an abbreviated source citation, sometimes supplemented by the word’s geographical distribution, an indication of its frequency, or etymological information, for example, in the headwords:

Niewodniczy = an experienced fisherman, fisher, court official supervising the fishing. Ust. from Lithuania (a traditional word, reportedly no longer in use today—K.); Nogować = to run, to flee. Kuj. II, 273. Wisła IV, 843.;

Siurek = a rogue (German Schurke): »And I don’t want you, you rogue« Kętrz. 54. [...]

¹¹ Translation: This work is, from a scholarly point of view, the best thing Polish scholarship has published in recent times; it will be used by researchers of the Polish language studying dialectology or the history of the language, and also by psychologists of that language, as well as ethnographers, sociologists, and others—as time goes by, it will become clear how this dictionary proves absolutely indispensable.

90

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVII

Jano Karlovičiaus indėlis į dialektologijos tyrimus. Lenkų tarmių žodynas – lūžio žodynas

e) after the ‖ sign, atypical morphological forms or other meanings of polysemous units are given (B1erwa = »owca (wyraz zgrubiały; (Lith. augmentative«); ‖ »B1erwa = twarz szeroka i niekrztałtna – ‘a broad and unattractive face«), or phraseological expressions (for example, in the entry Ciepły: ‖ »’Ciepłe twoje słowo’ = jeżeli ktoś coś obiecuje, o kim wątpią, żeby dotrzymał – Lith. if someone promises something, but it is doubted that they will keep their word« Zb. I, 65), comparisons (for example, ‖ Błogi oset = »Carduus Mariae« in the entry Błogi), or other notes;

f) a cross-reference to another entry may be included.

An example of a single-meaning word entry:

Bladusia = a pale girl: »Drive the oxen out, little pale girl!« Kuj. II, 143. »(The geese) muddied the water in the pond of my little pale girl« Pozn. III, 64. Wisła VIII, 491. »Carry me, little pale girl, you have deceived me beautifully« Zb. IV, 154, n 229. Compare Bladunia.

An example of a more extensive entry for a polysemous word:

Żywnie: »Żywnie = alive, e.g., as in “I have never seen this alive”« Rozpr. VIII, 179. »Żywnie I do not know what they are cooking for the old man?« Kuj. i, 270 i 271. »I will give you a beating, and whatever you think of, I’ll beat it all out of you« Zb. VII, 18. ‖ »Żywnie = solely, only as one pleases, as desired« Święt. »These degenerates have taken to... all the directions they please« Zb. VII, 45. ‖ »żywnie = very much, a lot; e.g., she went to the wedding and cried all along the way« (mournfully) Fed. 414. »She cried mournfully« Rog. n 131. Compare Rzewnie.

Karlovičius often collected headwords that brought together entire word families or parts of them, especially certain derived words: diminutives or augmentatives, and sometimes morphologically distinct forms conditioned by region, for example nouns that differ in grammatical gender; compare, for instance, the entry for Podwórze, in which the lexicographer collected regional forms grouped by gender, as well as diminutives derived from them, e.g.:

‖ Podwórz [...] ‖ Podwórek [...] ‖ Podwóreczek [...] ‖ Podwyrek [...] ‖ Podwyreczko [...] ‖ Podwórcę [...] ‖ Podworyszek.

From an editorial standpoint, uniform rules were not followed: for example, derived words may appear after the ‖ sign (cf. wyżej Podwóreczek, Podwyreczko, Podworyszek) or at the beginning of the entry, in second position after the headword; cf.: Cierepa, Cierepka = liche naczynko (gliniane) – Lith. ‘a small (clay) vessel’. Sometimes two phonetic or morphological forms appear at the beginning of an entry, joined as parallel forms by the conjunction albo ‘or’; however, further parallel forms of the word appear after the ‖ sign in the continuation of the headword’s entry; cf.:

Bulbowiny indecl. or Bulbownik = “potato foliage” O. ‖ »Bulwicze or Bulwiny indecl. = potato foliage« Pr.fil. III, 367.

Straipsniai / Articles

91

HALINA KARAŚ

Such forms, which differ morphologically and semantically, and sometimes derived words, are given without the ‖ sign; cf.:

Bzducha or Bzdziucha = a kind of mushroom, plant O. (...) »Pãkacina or Bździuch = blackcurrants« Zb. VIII, 257. »Bzdziuszka = jendyka, jenducha, in Lithuania aksamitka = tagetes patula« Lub. I, 68. »Bzdziuch = a rounded, dust-filled mushroom« pr.fil. IV, 804. Likewise Osip.

Apart from these shortcomings, the entries for headwords are sufficiently clear and contain much important information about the collected lexis. It is difficult to determine the geographical distribution, since the bibliographic abbreviations have to be compared with the list of abbreviations provided by Losius in the final volume of the dictionary. However, the bibliographic information—which was emphasized in discussions of the dictionary (cf. Karaś 1961: 361)—is essentially complete.

Karlovičius slightly altered the spelling of source quotations and standardized their written form, since he wanted to avoid “the motley appearance that would be an obstacle to readers” (from the introduction to Karlovičius’s LŽT). He chose spelling that conformed to the orthography of literary, standard language, for the dictionary’s anticipated broad readership. He used only a few special signs for sounds other than those found throughout Poland, particularly for stressed vowels: á, é.

9. RESPONSES TO JANO KARLOVIČIUS’S

DICTIONARY OF POLISH DIALECTS

Karlovičius’s work—as Elżbieta Koniusz emphasized—became “the subject of varied evaluations, from enthusiastic to highly critical” (2001: 7). As is well known, very positive reviews appeared at first: those by Aleksander Brückner (1901, 1902, 1904), Stanisław Dobrzycki (1901, 1904), Władysław Nehring (1901, 1903), Adam Antoni Kryński (1901, 1907), and Jan Łoś (1904). They emphasized:

a) the innovative nature of Karlovičius’s work, the magnitude of his pioneering effort, and the difficulties involved (Brückner, Łoś);

b) the diversity of the material and the abundance of sources, often difficult to access (Brückner, Łoś, Dobrzycki), while recognizing that they were incomplete, since, in Łoś’s words, this material was “a veritable sea to be drunk” (quoted in: Perzowa 1979: 432);

c) the ease of finding the desired word thanks to the headword’s standard Polish spelling (Nehring);

d) the simplicity and precision of the definitions (Nehring);

e) the overview of the various meanings of the same word (Dobrzycki);

92

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVII

Jano Karlovičiaus indėlis į dialektologijos tyrimus. Lenkų tarmių žodynas – lūžio žodynas

f) indication of rare grammatical forms (Neringas);

g) overview of various word forms, their variants, and their geographical distribution (Dobrzycki);

h) numerous quotations—“accurate and carefully selected quotations”—and the possibility of verifying them against the stated locations (Dobrzycki);

i) the author’s brief notes and references (Neringas);

j) expansion of the entry for a headword with descriptions of customs, rituals, and clothing, as well as ethnographic and folkloric elements (Brückner);

k) the dictionary’s suitability for various lexical studies, more narrowly, for onomastic (Neringas) and etymological studies (Dobrzycki);

l) the development and dissemination of knowledge of dialectology (Dobrzycki).

Concluding his review of Karlowicz’s work, Losius emphasized its importance not only for linguistics but also for society at large:

Like every good thing, the “Dictionary of Polish Dialects” is a work of great utility not only to those who study language in particular, but also to a very broad readership; considering its execution, the abundance of material it contains, and the tremendous labor invested in it, it constitutes the finest laurel leaf in the wreath of Jan Karlowicz’s merits, as well as one of the cornerstones of Polish linguistics (Loś 1904: 180)¹².

The first reviews occasionally included critical opinions. For example, Neringas drew attention to missing sources, abbreviations that were not always clear, and a lack of information about certain “enigmatic” words, especially those of foreign origin (cf. Perzowa 1979: 432).

The first highly critical review was written and published by Nitsch in 1911, when Karlowicz’s dictionary appeared. To this day, this review has influenced other researchers’ opinions of the dictionary. The founder of Polish dialectology criticized the dictionary under examination for serious errors concerning the “reliability of the material” and its “scholarly treatment.” As one of the principal reasons for the shortcomings of Karlowicz’s dictionary, Nitsch cited the fact that the work had been prepared too early, without taking into account spatial or temporal boundaries, or, in its form, the methodological turning point that occurred in Polish dialectology at the beginning of the 20th century. Yet, when completing his excerpts of textual material in 1896, the lexicographer relied essentially only on pre-scientific dialectology. Among the errors and shortcomings that shaped the negative assessment of Karlowicz’s dictionary, Nitsch lists the following:

a) the unclear basis for selecting words (for example, artificial words, individual coinages, and words of “questionable Polishness” are taken into account, especially various

¹² Translation: Like every good thing, the Dictionary of Polish Dialects is a very useful work, not only for those who study language in depth but also for a broad readership; considering the treatment and abundance of the material it contains, and the immense labor invested in it, it is the finest laurel leaf in the wreath of Jan Karlowicz’s merits and one of the cornerstones of Polish linguistics.

Straipsniai / Articles

93

HALINA KARAŠ

loanwords from Rus’, often used by writers of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Ukraine to lend their texts local color, into the lexicon belonging to the “everyday dialect of the intelligentsia,” personal names, and so on);

b) the geographical unevenness of the material (eastern dialects predominate; there are too many peripheral dialects from outside Poland’s ethnic territories; western dialects, especially those of Greater Poland and Silesia, are poorly represented);

c) the lack of a comprehensive list of sources and an assessment of their linguistic value (references to studies or professional dialect texts, valuable in terms of both meaning and phonetics; unprofessional but reliable collections; works of the kind produced by Oskar Kolberg; literary and scholarly works; popular ethnographic works), resulting in the selected lexical material being of difficult-to-determine value (sometimes unclear or dubious);

d) the insufficient quality of these sources (for example, the questionable quality of material selected from songs, humorous poems, and legends, especially from the eastern territories of the former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth);

e) gaps and inconsistency in localizing the material, different ways of citing the same work, and inaccurate citations;

f) in many places, an erroneous and incomplete presentation of dialect morphology, making it impossible to form an opinion about the geographical distribution of these forms, as well as free and incomplete syntactic material;

g) the lack of an explanation of the dictionary’s structure (system) and of cross-references;

h) orthographic chaos, inconsistency in the use of simplified citation spelling, inaccurate transcription, and a failure to assess “the scholarly value of the records and the neglect of the better ones, preference being given to inferior ones”; a lack of explanations for this spelling (“the rules are applied differently in various parts of the dictionary, entirely freely and carelessly,” p. 210);

i) too many headwords (cross-reference entries), headwords in spurious forms arising from “reckless and uncritical treatment of the sources” and “disregard for phonetic rules,” p. 215);

j) an unclear system both within an individual headword entry and throughout the work as a whole;

k) failure to discuss the system for arranging meanings and failure to organize the meanings of polysemous words.

In his conclusions, Nitsch wrote:

The fact that he undertook a task beyond the capacity of one person, that even while collecting the material he failed to achieve completeness, much less subject it to the necessary critical scrutiny, and that, in general, the entire execution is defective in every respect. I had to emphasize this aspect all the more strongly because of the numerous uncritical enthusiasms over the Dictionary, so that we might clearly realize that work cannot be continued in this way, and that even fifteen years ago it was inadequate

94

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVII

Jano Karlovičiaus indėlis į dialektologijos tyrimus. Lenkų tarmių žodynas – lūžio žodynas

and would be a downright anachronism today (...). For it was precisely the complete lack of method, indeed contempt for any accurate and consistent system, that caused the dictionary’s immense imprecision, making it impossible ever to trust without consulting the sources. (...) the entire undertaking was decidedly premature. In many respects this is indeed so: without detailed systematic studies (...) one cannot think of any “construction of a code of dialects,” not merely a “splendid” one, but even a modest one. Therefore the work under discussion is not yet a “foundation” for this “construction”. And yet it is good that it exists; it is good that we have at least such an index, which at the same time reveals various shortcomings in this area and the need for a different kind of work—in the twentieth century—if we are ever to have a “Thesaurus” of Polish dialects¹³.

The reviewer acknowledged that the work had appeared too early; nevertheless, despite the fact that completing a second scholarly dictionary of all dialects is projected (at the current pace of work) to take another 40 years (Popowska-Tabor­ska 2006: 42), we should be glad that the dictionary, though unfinished, was published in its entirety. In this context, the opinion clearly loses its validity.

Over time, opinions of the Dictionary of Polish Dialects were moderated, bringing the work’s merits to light and assessing them in relation to the lexicography of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

Later assessments, made from the perspective of a longer period, showed that Karlowicz’s dictionary is a scholarly work prepared according to the lexicographical art of the nineteenth century and based on the dialectological knowledge of its time. Today, many years after Nitsch’s severe criticism of the dictionary, assessments demonstrate the significance of the work under discussion.

Mieczysław Karaś’s statement was particularly significant: while noting that Karlowicz’s dictionary offered no new methodological solutions, he nevertheless emphasized that it appropriately reflected the research foundations at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and strongly underscored its significance:

There is no doubt that the significance of the Dictionary of Polish Dialects is immense and that, despite its many frequently noted shortcomings, it represents a landmark in the development of Polish dialect lexicography

¹³ Translation: Another matter is that [Karlowicz] undertook a task beyond the capacity of one person; even in gathering material he was unable to achieve completeness, let alone present it to critics, and consequently the entire compilation was unsuccessful in every respect. I should have clearly emphasized this aspect: the abundance of uncritical opinions of the dictionary should help us understand clearly that work cannot continue in this way; it is obvious that even fifteen years ago the dictionary was incomplete, and today it would simply be an anachronism [...]. The lack of method, indeed the disregard for a more precise or consistent system, resulted in an inaccurate dictionary, one that can never be trusted without consulting the sources. [...] the entire undertaking was premature. In various respects this is important: without more detailed systematic studies [...] one cannot envisage any “structure of a dialect code,” not even a very modest one. Therefore, the work under discussion is not a “foundation” for “this structure.” Nevertheless, it is good that [it] exists; it is good that we have at least such an index, which also points to various shortcomings in this field and to the twentieth-century goal of a Polish dialect Thesaurus.

Straipsniai / Articles

95

HALINA KARAŚ

of extraordinary importance. [...] already while Karlowicz’s work was being printed, it was understood that his dictionary was only an important stage in the development of dialect research, closing merely the lexicographical achievements of the nineteenth century (Karaś 1961: 363)¹⁴.

Henrika Perzowa formulated a similar assessment in 1979, drawing attention to Karlowicz’s role as a pioneer in scholarly linguistics, his scholarly concept for compiling dialect vocabulary, and the possibilities available at the time for preparing such a dictionary (Perzowa 1979: 434–435).

10. CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH ON JANO KARLOVIČIUS’S DICTIONARY OF POLISH DIALECTS

Contemporary research on Karłowicz’s Dictionary of Polish Dialects reveals merits that have hitherto gone unmentioned, without denying its obvious shortcomings and while discussing their causes. Elżbieta Koniusz, having studied the historical vocabulary of Lithuania in Karłowicz’s Dictionary of Polish Dialects, emphasized that an objective assessment of this work must be made from the perspective of the era in which it appeared. If Karłowicz had decided to change the conception of the work, which he had previously considered and was already implementing, and to select and supplement the source material, the dictionary would never have been written. Karłowicz’s “collection”—despite certain shortcomings, particularly in terms of geographic coverage—is regarded by contemporary users as useful rather than as an “anachronistic index of words” (Koniusz 2001: 78–79).

Similarly, Joanna Okoniowa (Joanna Okoniowa), the editor-in-chief of the new Dictionary of Polish Dialects of the State Academy of Sciences, positively assesses Karłowicz’s work, noting that “generations of scholars have drawn, and continue to draw, from it not only rich material but also inspiration and ideas for interpretation.” Speaking of Nitsch’s critical review, she emphasized that the authority of the creator of Polish scholarly dialectology was so great that “the insulting and, in many places, negative assessment ‘stuck’ to Karłowicz’s dictionary for a long time.” Only recently has renewed interest been shown in the Dictionary of Polish Dialects as an undervalued source for linguistic research (Okoniowa 2003: 249).

The evaluations of Karłowicz’s Dictionary of Polish Dialects presented above show how consideration of the era in which it appeared, a longer-term perspective, and experience gained through work on a new dictionary of Polish dialects based on Nitsch’s conception, later revised by Mieczysław Karaś, editor-in-chief of the State Academy of Sciences’ Dictionary of Polish Dialects, and his

¹⁴ Translation: Undoubtedly, the significance of the Dictionary of Polish Dialects is enormous and, despite its many frequently highlighted shortcomings, it is highly important for the growing field of Polish dialect lexicography. [...] During the printing of Karłowicz’s work, it was understood that his dictionary marked an important stage in the development of dialect research, bringing to a close only the achievements of nineteenth-century lexicography.”

96

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVII

Jano Karlovičiaus indėlis į dialektologijos tyrimus. Lenkų tarmių žodynas – lūžio žodynas

of followers influenced opinions of this work. It shows how fundamentally unfair and insulting Nitsch’s review was, despite the validity of his essential observations and scholarly conclusions, presented from the perspective of a new era in science and a new concept of the dialect dictionary. In evaluating the dictionary, the reviewer did not pay sufficient attention to essential factors such as lexicographic practice at the time, the state of research into Polish folk dialects and of dialectology, the practical need to complete the dictionary as quickly as possible, the excessive volume of material for one person to edit, and so on. Today the dictionary and its author are rightly appreciated, with the recognition that Karlowicz’s dictionary remains an important, invaluable aid in studying dialect vocabulary; upon verification, it is a source for the new State Academy of Sciences’ Dictionary of Polish Dialects. Karlowicz rightly saw in it “the foundations for the magnificent structure of the code of our dialects.”

* * *

In conclusion, it is worth recalling Stefan Żeromski’s exceptionally precise and apt opinion on Karłowicz’s contribution to the development of Polish dialectology, expressed in the work Snobizm i postęp:

Jan Karłowicz rendered extraordinary service to dialectology. He not only brought about the publication of the “Dictionary of Polish Dialects”; he also knew how to find and encourage a whole series of contributors who, thanks to his initiative and guidance, began collecting materials and compiling local dictionaries. In Jan Karłowicz’s time, there was a formal intellectual movement; one could see a “current” moving toward ethnography and the collection of folk dialects (according to: Karaś 2011: 92–93)¹⁵.

LITERATŪRA

Brückner Aleksander 1904: Prace słownikowe. – Życie i prace Jana Karłowicza (1836–1903). Książka zbiorowa wydana staraniem i nakładem redakcji „Wisły”. Warszawa, 165–176.

Bystroń Jan 1926: Wstęp do ludoznawstwa polskiego. Lwów.

Cygan Stanisław 2009: Mniej znane „dawne” quasi-kwestionariusze do badań dialektów polskich. – Poradnik Językowy 9, 59–75.

¹⁵ Vertimas: Ypatingus nuopelnus dialektologijai pelnė Janas Karlovičius. Jis ne tik išleido Lenkų tarmių žodyną, bet ir sugebėjo surasti ir paskatinti daugelį darbuotojų, kurie jo iniciatyva ir jam vadovaujant pradėjo kaupti medžiagą ir sudarinėti vietinius žodynus. Jano Karlovičiaus laikais vyko akivaizdus protų judėjimas, buvo matoma etnografijos ir liaudies tarmių kaupimo „srovė“ (pagal: Karaś 2011: 92–93).

Straipsniai / Articles

97

HALINA KARAŚ

Dobrzycki Stanisław 1904: Zdobycze językoznawstwa polskiego. – Poradnik Językowy 50–52.

F1135-10-: Lietuvos valstybės istorijos archyvas, Jano Karlovičiaus fondas.

Karaś Halina 2010: Polskie słowniki gwarowe – dzieje, typologia, metody opracowania. – Poradnik Językowy 4, 72–104.

Karaś Halina 2011: Polska leksykografia gwarowa. Warszawa: Uniwersytet Warszawski.

Karaś Halina 2012: O potrzebie badań nad życiem naukowym przełomu XIX i XX wieku. Jan Karłowicz jako animator ówczesnego „ruchu umysłowego”. – Poradnik Językowy 5 (atiduotas spaudai).

Karaś Mieczysław 1961: Z historii badań nad słownictwem gwarowym. – Język Polski 41(3), 161–180; 41(5), 355–369.

Karłowicz Jan 1878: Przyczynki do projektu wielkiego słownika. – Rozprawy i Sprawozdania z Posiedzeń Wydziału Filologicznego Akademii Umiejętności IV/1876, s. XIV–XCIV.

Karłowicz Jan 1871: Poradnik dla zbierających rzeczy ludowe, napisał dr. Jan Karłowicz, Warszawa.

Kaupuž Anna, Smułkowa Elżbieta 1984: Nieznane prace Jana Karłowicza o języku polskim na Wileńszczyźnie. – Studia nad polszczyzną kresową 3, red. J. Rieger, W. Werenicz, Wrocław–Warszawa, 82–90.

Koniusz Elżbieta 1996: Polszczyzna wileńska w „Słowniku gwar polskich“ Jana Karłowicza. – Wilno i Kresy północno-wschodnie 3, Polszczyzna kresowa, red. E. Feliksiak i B. Nowowiejski, Białystok, 125–141.

Koniusz Elżbieta 2001: Polszczyzna z historycznej Litwy w „Słowniku gwar polskich“ Jana Karłowicza. Kielce: Wydawnictwo Akademii Świętokrzyskiej.

Koniusz Elżbieta 2005: Jan Karłowicz jako językoznawca, etnograf i folklorysta – w setną rocznicę śmierci (1836–1903). – Studia Filologiczne Akademii Świętokrzyskiej 18, Kielce: Wydawnictwo Akademii Świętokrzyskiej, 7–17.

Koniusz Elżbieta 2005a: Dziedzictwo kulturowe Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego w pracach leksykograficznych Jana Karłowicza. – Kultura i języki Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego, red. Maria Teresa Lizisowa. Kraków: Collegium Columbinum, 145–159.

Koniusz Elżbieta 2008: Wyrazy ekspresywne z historycznej Litwy w „Słowniku gwar polskich“ Jana Karłowicza. – Annales Academiae Paedagogicae Cracoviensis. Studia Linguistica 4, red. M. Karamańska, E. Młynarczyk, E. Stachurski. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Akademii Pedagogicznej, 179–186.

Kryński Adam Antoni 1904: Jan Karłowicz jako językoznawca. – Życie i prace Jana Karłowicza (1836–1903). Książka zbiorowa wydana staraniem i nakładem redakcji „Wisły”, Warszawa, 120–164.

98

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVII

Jano Karlovičiaus indėlis į dialektologijos tyrimus. Lenky tarmių žodynas – lūžio žodynas

Leszczyński Zenon 1998: O dziewiętnastowiecznych początkach dialektologii polskiej. – Teoretyczne, badawcze i dydaktyczne założenia dialektologii, red. S. Gala. Łódź, 69–75.

Łoś Jan 1904: Znaczenie „Słownika gwar polskich”. – Życie i prace Jana Karłowicza (1836–1903). Książka zbiorowa wydana staraniem i nakładem redakcji „Wisły”, Warszawa, 176–180.

Nehring Władysław 1901: Jan Karłowicz, „Słownik gwar polskich“. Tom pierwszy A do E. 1900, str. 455, 8-e. – Materiały i Prace Komisji Językowej Akademii Umiejętności w Krakowie 1(1), 161–164.

Nitsch Kazimierz 1911: Recenzja „Słownika gwar polskich“ J. Karłowicza. – Wybór pism polonistycznych 4. Pisma dialektologiczne. Wrocław-Kraków, 1958, 195–225.

Nowowiejski Bogusław, red., 2009: Dziewiętnastowieczne słowniczki gwarowe z Polski północno-wschodniej. Białystok.

Okoniowa Joanna 2003: Jan Karłowicz. W setną rocznicę śmierci. – Język Polski 83(4–5), 246–250.

Okoniowa Joanna 2006: Stan obecny perspektywy ogólnopolskiego słownika gwarowego. – Studia Dialektologiczne 3, red. J. Okoniowa. Kraków, 11–19.

Okoniowa Joanna 2012: Słownik gwar polskich Jana Karłowicza. Dziedzictwo. Inspiracje. Wyzwania. – Prace Filologiczne (atiduotas spaudai).

Perzowa Henryka 1979: Jan Karłowicz jako dialektolog. – Poradnik Językowy 9, 426–436.

Popowska-Taborska Hanna 2006: Obecny stan prac nad „Słownikiem gwar polskich“. – Studia Dialektologiczne 3, red. J. Okoniowa. Kraków, 21–22.

Rutkowska Krystyna 2012: Zasługi Jana Karłowicza dla języka i folkloru litewskiego. – Poradnik Językowy (atiduotas spaudai).

Sawaniewska-Mochowa Zofia 2003: Polscy miłośnicy języka i folkloru litewskiego w XIX wieku. – Acta Baltico-Slavica 27, 73–95.

Sawaniewska-Mochowa Zofia 1990: Poradnik Jana Karłowicza jako źródło poznania potocznej polszczyzny północnokresowej. Słownictwo. Warszawa: Uniwersytet Warszawski.

Urbańczyk Stanisław 1993: Dwieście lat polskiego językoznawstwa (1751–1950), Kraków: Polska Akademia Umiejętności.

Woźniak Kazimierz 2000: Stan polskiej leksykografii gwarowej pod koniec XX wieku. – Słowiańskie słowniki gwarowe, red. Hanna Popowska-Taborska. Warszawa, 17–51.

ŻiPJK 1904: Życie i prace Jana Karłowicza (1836–1903). Książka zbiorowa wydana nakładem i staraniem „Wisły“, Warszawa.

Straipsniai / Articles

99

HALINA KARAŚ

Jan Karłowicz’s contribution to dialectology. Słownik gwar polskich [Dictionary of Polish Dialects] as a breakthrough project

SUMMARY

The paper discusses the contribution of Jan Karłowicz (1836–1903) to the development of Polish dialectology, and presents the “Dictionary of Polish Dialects” as a major breakthrough in the Polish dialectal lexicography. Jan Karłowicz, who has been long fiercely, though unjustly, criticized as a linguist (lexicographer and dialectologist), is currently re-discovered and esteemed as an organizer of scientific life. Karłowicz’s contribution to the research on dialects is much more serious than what it has hitherto been considered, and it involves an aspect of his work that has been scarcely emphasized and appreciated; namely, ethnographical and dialectological field studies that he initiated and organized.

His organizational work is attested in the prolific correspondence preserved e.g. in the Lithuanian State Historical Archives. It exemplifies Karłowicz’s co-operation with both professional scientists and laymen (enthusiasts of folklore, dialects and of broadly understood folk culture) as far as collecting ‘folk objects’ is concerned. The majority of his co-operators worked for the ethnographical journal “Wisła” that was edited by Karłowicz, and wrote articles devoted to folk culture, as well as compiled dialectal dictionaries of particular villages or small regions. Thus, the Vilnius archives mirror vividly Karłowicz’s work as an organizer and collector of information on both Polish and – what is important – Lithuanian dialects. His contribution to the Lithuanian studies and Lithuanian dialectology has hitherto been little acknowledged, nonetheless currently this aspect of his work is much more often pointed to.

Undoubtedly, Karłowicz’s major dialectological work is Słownik gwar polskich (1900–1911) [Dictionary of Polish Dialects] which has begun a new era in the history of the Polish dialectal lexicography. Though it still draws on previously published dictionaries, it can be described as a breakthrough project that marks the ending of the second period of the Polish dialectal lexicography and opens a new one. This conclusion is based on two features of Karłowicz’s dictionary. Firstly, as compared to previously complied dictionaries, its content and source data are immense. Secondly, it’s the first complete Slavonic dictionary (and actually the only one) covering all the dialects (except for the emigrant ones), although with a variable degree of precision. While many shortcomings of the dictionary have been pointed to from the day of its publication, it remains a valuable source of information on dialectal vocabulary. The paper discusses mainly the content of the dictionary, its sources, concept, methodology applied, as well as various opinions on the dictionary.

Įteikta 2012 m. rugsėjo 26 d.

HALINA KARAŚ

Varšuvos universitetas, Lenkų kalbos institutas

Krakowskie Przedmieście g. 26/28, 00-927 Warszawa, Polska

[email protected]

100

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVII