Nesusipratimai dėl dažninio žodyno

NOTES | 129 STEPANOV, Ju. 1972. pp. 22. "About Us". bbc.co.uk. Baltistica, appendix 1, 169-183. STEPANOV, Ju. S. 1997 a: HenapaaurmarHueckue repejiBHXeHHS VJIADEHHS B HHJIOeBponelicKoM. (HexojiHbIe MIOJIOXEeHHs.) Becmnux Mockosckoeo ynueepcumema. Cepusi 9. @uaoaoeus Ne 5, 63-80. STEPANOV, Ju. S. 1997 b: HenapaaurmariecKue TepejiBHXeHHSA VIIADEHHS B HHIOEBpOoriiiHicKOM. (I. Bokpyr 3akoHOB BakkepHaressi H Jleckuna- .) Bonpocbi szbikosnanus, 1997, Ne 4, 5-26. STUNDZIA, B. 1980: Place of the so-called common genus in the morphological system of Lithuanian language. Linguistics 31 (1), 79-87. TRUBECKOIJ, N. S. 1960: Ocrosst horosoeuu, Mocksa: U3naTebCTBO HHOCTPAHHOM JIMTEPATYPhbI. TRUBECKOIJ, N. S. 2000: Ocrosvt ghonoroeuu, Mocksa: Acniexr Ipecc. ULvyDpas, K., red. 1965: Lithuanian Grammar 1. Phonetics and Morphology, Vilnius: Mintis. VAITKEVIČIŪTĖ, V. 1961: Vowel and diphthong phonemes of Lithuanian literary language. Lithuanian Linguistics Questions 4, 19-47. VALECKIENE, A. 1998: Functional grammar of the Lithuanian language, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopedia Publishing. ZALIZNJAK, A. A. 1967: Pycckoe umennoe crosousmenenue, Mocksa: Hayka. (= Zaliznjak 2002: 1-370.) ZALIZNJAK, A. A. 2002: « Pycckoe umennoe cro80u3MeHeHue» ¢ NPUIONCeHUEM U3OPAHHbLIX pabom no co6pemMenHOMY PYCCKOMY A3bIKY U 00Uemy a3siko3nanuto, MocKBa: 513bIKH CIaBSHCKOMN KVIIbTYDbI. ZINKEVICIUS, Z. 1966: Lithuanian dialectology, Vilnius: Mintis. Aleksejus Andronovas Gauta 2002 12 05 St. Petersburg State University Department of General Linguistics Universitetskaya nab. Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XLVI tome Artūras JudzZentis, reviewing Vito Labutis’s research [email protected] activities (p. 230-248), recounts some statements from his review of our two dictionaries — the Frequency Dictionary of the Present Written Lithuanian Language (in decreasing order of frequency) (1997) and another dictionary with the same title, but arranged in alphabetical order (1998) (although he has confused our names and surnames, see p. 245). We decided to publicly reply to the author about the statements made not by him but by Labutis because, since Judžentis did not use the possibilities of participative language, we can only assume that the opinions of both the author of the review and Labutis coincide: it is possible to prepare frequency dictionaries without complying with the requirements of linguistic statistics (cf. Labutis’ statement: “Based on text samples based on statistical principles and having made sure that some eel or stingray is constantly slipping through their net, the text sample should probably be adjusted.” (Kalbos kultūra 72, 1999, p. 113.) Judžentis, without any comment, repeated not only Labutis’s, but also others’, who had not sufficiently delved into the principles of compiling linguistic statistical lists of words and dictionaries, reproach for the absence of some words in that list (... “there is a lack of (...) words related to everyday realities, names of plants and animals, the sphere of culture and words related to intellectual activity...- ”). ), and reminded that common dictionaries cannot be supplemented with one or another word, however desirable it may be. This is just the nature of linguistic-- statistical methods: nothing can be added or discarded —a statistically described, real-existent 130 | NOTE The text or a collection of such texts, without any additions. It can happen, and it happens, that not all words of the same class or group are included in such a frequent list (for example, some uncle is introduced in the group of kinship terms), but this is the specificity of linguistic statistical works: not to fill in, no matter how hard it may seem. Judžentis's support for Labutis's criticisms is also shown by stylistic means, for example: "It is noted with concern that the dictionary is full of non-normative words (...)". It seems that both linguists together simply do not understand an elementary thing: no matter how much the linguists would like, the photograph of the usage should not be decorated, if they do not want to distort reality by old habit, to present the aspiration as reality. Some of the other things mentioned in the review should be argued not with Judžentis, but with Labutis, but after all the author of the review owns the sentence just published: “The criteria for determining the parts of speech are unclear, so the statistical tables of the parts of speech do not inspire confidence”. This sounds like a verdict, because in our dictionaries, each word is accompanied by a reference to the part of the language (therefore, by the way, it is not the table that is important, but those references). Judžentis repeats this statement, which means that he firmly believes in Labutis’s conclusion that “the dictionary and its supporting points, unfortunately, disappoint more often than delight”. Perhaps it would not be so important to argue with one or another linguist if the perspective of linguistic statistical work was not seen. All the more so because we already have a well-known trail, tools and certain skills. Common dictionaries of some languages, similar in nature to ours, were prepared 50 or even 100 years ago (see Laima Grumadiene’s article in the same ALL 46 volume). Now we are going further — the large dictionaries of common or current languages usually already have references to the most common words, which means that it is time for Lithuanian language (or Lithuanian lexicography) to fill that gap. Thus, the frequency of words may soon have to be determined not on individual occasions, but constantly. This would reveal an elementary truth: the most common words change because they depend on many ever-changing circumstances of life. There is no doubt that the words themselves would be both beautiful and not very beautiful, because they would be counted from real texts of real life, rather than deliberately chosen only to illustrate the beauty of the language. Laima Grumadienė Received 2002 12 23 Lithuanian Language Institute P. Vileišio g. 5, 2055 Vilnius, [email protected] Lithuania Vida Žilinskienė Lithuanian Law University Ateities g. 20, 2057 Vilnius, Lithuania [email protected]