Stilistinis žodžių apibūdinimas „Lietuvių kalbos žodyne“

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI XXXV (1995) LIETUVIŲ LEKSIKOLOGIJOS TYRINĖJIMAI Klementina VOSYLYTĖ STYLISTIC CHARACTERIZATION OF WORDS IN THE “DICTIONARY OF THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE” §1. In dictionaries, the stylistic classification of the lexicon is usually indicated by certain stylistic labels. A stylistic label defines the stylistic quality of a word or its meaning. However, these means do not always make it possible to convey a word’s stylistic modality precisely. This is a problem for all dictionaries. The compilers and editors of the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language (LKŽ) face it as well. J. Pikčilingis (1975:10—11) has pointed out that the basis for classifying stylistically connoted vocabulary in the LKŽ varies considerably, that only some words receive stylistic characterization, and that the stylistic labels used by lexicographers are highly scattered and inconsistent. The aim of this article is to review the system of stylistic labels in the LKŽ and to identify its shortcomings and inconsistencies in the use of labels. There is no complete consensus on issues of the stylistic classification of the lexicon, either in theoretical works on linguistic stylistics or in lexicographic works. E. Petriščeva discusses the reasons for these disagreements in her book on the stylistic analysis of Russian words (Петрищева 1984:3—14). There are generally no fundamental disagreements on the broadest issues of the stylistic classification of the lexicon. The author of this article draws primarily on the stylistic differentiation of the dictionary proposed by the Lithuanian stylist J. Pikčilingis (Pikčilingis 1975:8—22). All stylists acknowledge that some words are stylistically neutral, while others are stylistically connoted (marked). Stylistically neutral words are those that have none of the emotional, figurative, or other stylistic nuances characteristic of colloquial or literary language. Stylistically connoted vocabulary not only names objects, phenomena, or qualities, but also characterizes them and provides additional stylistic information. A stylistically connoted word is called a connotatum and forms an opposition to a denotatum, that is, a word without any stylistic nuance. A word’s stylistic connotation consists of functional, emotional, and expressive connotations. Depending on the sphere in which a word is used and the conditions of its functioning, dictionaries usually mark words with a colloquial nuance and words with a literary nuance. §2. First, let us consider how the LKŽ presents words connoted as colloquial. The label šnek. is explained in the LKŽ instructions as follows: “a colloquial word, meaning, or expression with a marked flavor of free, unconstrained, sometimes mocking or somewhat coarse speech” (LKŽ instrukcija 1980:35). First of all, it is unclear whether words of colloquial language are understood to mean folk (dialect) words, words of standard colloquial language, or both. Moreover, the indisputable claim that colloquial words are more characteristic than literary vocabulary for expressiveness, emotionality, vividness, and an evaluative element does not seem sufficient as a criterion for defining the colloquial style. 180 Expressiveness, emotionality, and a mocking or coarse nuance belong to the sphere of words’ emotional and expressive connotations. The LKŽ instructions give the following examples to illustrate the label šnek.: išverstambis, -ė, bebekas and knabė, the second meaning being ‘nose’. Unfortunately, in the dictionary itself this label is attached only to the second meaning of the word knabė; išverstambis, -ė and bebekas are given without any stylistic labels. The same paragraph of the instructions contains a note that wholly contradicts what was said above in the instructions and quoted here. The note reads: “Since most of the Dictionary consists of folk colloquial words, their meanings and expressions, many of which have a certain nuance of freedom in relation to the norms of literary language, and since we do not wish to overload the Dictionary with the label šnek., that label is used only for words characteristic of the style of literary colloquial language” (LKŽ instrukcija 1980:35). Thus, folk colloquial words and words of standard colloquial language are now distinguished. The position that only words characteristic of the style of standard colloquial language should be marked šnek. would be appropriate only for a dictionary of standard language. The examples provided give an idea of how the label šnek. is applied in the LKŽ itself. It is used to mark, for example, the following words: rabantuoti, atsirabantuoti, įsirabantuoti, nusirabantuoti, užsirabantuoti, rabanuotis, įsirabanuoti, rabazdinti, rabazduotis, parsirabazduoti, susirabazduoti, rabždintis, rabiza, but it is absent from words with the same or similar meanings and spheres of use: išsirabantinti, rabeti, rabinti, rabuotis, atsirabuzdinti. The following are considered colloquial words: raira, raireti, rairone, rairuoti, rairūnas, -ė, 1 rairuoti, whereas words from analogous spheres of use, such as 2 rairokas, -ė, 2 rairuoti, rarokas, rareti, rarinti, raruoti, are not considered colloquial. The adverb repečkomis and the verbs repečkoti, repečkuoti, riūtinti carry the label šnek.; the verbs rėplioti, rėplinėti carry it only for their third meaning; the verbs roblinėti, roblinti, robloti and the adverb roblomis have no stylistic label, while rioglinti, rioglioti, roglinti, roglinėti are marked only menk. (derogatory), and thus receive stylistic characterization along an entirely different dimension. The words ryžintis, ryžtauti, ryžius, ryžutis are marked šnek., whereas ryzmenė, 1 ir 2 ryzuoti are unmarked. The verbs rumžti, runtinti, runtyti are listed in the LKŽ with the label šnek., while the similarly meaning and used verb ruobti and the noun runtulis have no stylistic labels. The following verbs, or their meanings, are also treated as colloquial: ruopštinėtis, riūtėti, riūtinti, riūtuoti, sliūkinėti, sliūkinti (sliūkoti — unmarked for colloquial), smurgsoti, 2 smurgti (with the same meaning, smursti — without a stylistic label), snapinėti, snarpsoti, snopsoti, sominėti, 1 sominti (2 sominti, somti — unmarked), stenėti, meanings 3, 4, and 5, stybinti, stybrinti, stimpluoti, stingčioti, 1 styrinti, striūginti, striūblinėti, striūlinti, sygnuoti, šamantinėti, šamatyti, šamatuoti, šanatyti, 2 šapuoti, 1 šarpuoti (šapenti, šapėti — unmarked for colloquial), šlamšnoti, šlamšti, meanings 4 and 5 (why not the others?), šlapakčioti, šlerkinėti (šlepsėti, šlepšinėti — unmarked for colloquial), šlerkuoti, šlerpinti, šlerpoti, šlerpti, šlerpinti, šlervoti, šlevedrineti, šlevedruoti, šlevendroti (šliominti — marked only menk., ‘derogatory’), as well as the nouns: 1 šešpėlis, meaning 7 (why are the others unmarked for colloquial?), 1 šakaras, šakarna, 181 šakarnudel is, -ė, šlerkius (šlernius — colloq., and šlerva — only vulgar), šlerkos, šlervokas, šlevendra. Are these words of standard colloquial language? The sources and locality labels show that they are generally words of folk colloquial speech (dialects). Let us compare words that are given in LKŽ without any stylistic labels: sniaukroti, snūstinė­ti, spogčioti, sryguoti, stab arinti, stiրմoti, stripuliuoti, striubuliuoti, stulpčiuoti, stupuliuoti, stursinėti, suinitys, susikuitėlis, -ė, susikumpėlis, -ė, susilaižėlis, -ė, susineržėlis, -ė, susisukėlis, -ė, susitupėlis, -ė, sutrius, -ė, sužlibėlis, -ė, svaimėti, šalameikis, šalataika, šapnagis meanings 1, 2, and 3, šatragonas, šemeklinėti, šemeklis, šemelioti, šemeliotis, šemerioti, šemintinėti, šemšioti, šinkyti, škabalda, škabarda, škervinti, škiobrinti, šlaitinėti, šlamštauti, šlamštokas, -ė, šlapad r aila, šleivakojis, -ė, šleivioti, šleivoti, šleivys, -ė, šleketuoti, šlepenti, šlepsėti, šlioti, šlitiniuoti, šlytinti, šliudrinėti, šliūkštinti and so on. In terms of functional connotation, these words do not seem to differ from those labeled colloq. Both groups have pronounced emotional and expressive or figurative overtones (unfortunately, often not marked in LKŽ). Most of them, however, are used in folk colloquial speech, rather than in standard colloquial speech. Thus, the conclusion suggests itself that the labeling of words or their meanings in LKŽ with the label colloq. is highly subjective and inconsistent, and should therefore be revised both in the instructions and in the practical work of compiling the dictionary. In addition to the label colloq., LKŽ also uses the labels dial., dz., r., suv., and ž. The instructions prescribe their use for marking irregular phonetic and morphological dialect forms, as well as certain dialect meanings (LKŽ instructions 1980:29—30), in other words, for marking phonetic, derivational, and semantic dialectisms. As the instructions state, dialect words are not marked with these labels; the sources of usage or locality labels indicate which dialect they are used in. The instructions also provide several examples of the use of the labels mentioned: kap (dial.), gydrus, -i (ž.), gamin kla (ž.), antjoti (ž.), prigauti meaning 3 (dial.). In LKŽ, however, the words gydrus, -i and gaminkla are labeled dial., not ž. A closer look through LKŽ also reveals a few more words marked with dial., dz., r., suv., or ž. For example, the label dial. is given for the words klėbys, lėzas and for the second meaning of the verb esti, but for some reason it is absent for the words skinstas, šaltenis, šašėlis, šešėli, šiulma, surusvas, -a, sužalias, -ia and many other derivational, phonetic, and semantic dialectisms. Moreover, these labels should indicate not the origin of words but their functional style. The label dial. (or the label of a specific dialect) could also be considered an origin label for dialectisms included in dictionaries of the standard language. The labels colloq. and dial., dz., r., suv., ž. should be viewed in terms of the relation between the center and periphery of connotation (or genus and species). Thus, the definitions of the terms represented by the labels colloq. and dial. need to be refined, since such inconsistencies in the instructions are reflected in the practical work on LKŽ. LKŽ also uses other labels indicating colloquial language style: flk. (in addition to gavėnas and 2 kanapinis, meaning 3, given with this label in the instructions, it also marks the words rait ojėlis, suvedėlis, etc.), indicating that a word or its meaning is used only in folklore; there are also labels that specifically indicate 182 the folklore genre in which a word or its meaning is used, e.g., d. (used to mark, for example, rultupis, spurgouėlis, spurgonėlis), ms. (used to mark riddle words, for example, rangė meaning 2, šakotynas, šalbažeda, šarangė, šarankaitė, šašė), ps., etc. The use of these labels in LKŽ does not seem to warrant much criticism. Nevertheless, inconsistencies also occur here. For instance, the nouns spurgouėlis and spurgonėlis carry the label d., whereas raitulėlis, raituonėlis, raitutėlis, sūpuzė, supuonėlis, -ė are given without any label. Words from children’s language should also be considered part of the periphery of colloquial connotation; LKŽ marks them with the label vk. For some reason, the instructions list this label among those indicating the emotional and expressive overtone of a word, its meaning, or an expression (LKŽ instructions 1980: 38). §3. Words with a bookish overtone are marked in LKŽ with the label kng. The LKŽ instructions explain this label as follows: ”a bookish word, its meaning or an expression, not widely established in the language, often foreign to it in its formation or meaning” (LKŽ instructions 1980: 35). The introduction to LKŽ says much the same: ”a bookish, artificial word, its meaning, or an expression, not widely established and having equivalents in the literary language” (LKŽ I, XIII). On the basis of these explanations, the words raštynyčia, rykė ‘state, kingdom’, rykys, -ė ‘king, ruler’, saupažintė, saupažintis, slygiūnas and slykūnas ‘dragon’, šalaujis, -ė ‘foreigner’, širdgilingas, -a, širdgilus, -i, and so on, seem to merit the label kng., since they are all bookish, not widely established, and have equivalents in the standard language. It is not easy to find a word marked kng. in LKŽ, since there are only one or two in an entire volume. In linguistic stylistics, bookish vocabulary is generally taken to include formal words, bureaucratic expressions, specialized words and terms commonly used in official documents, journalism, newspaper reports, and specialized literature on science, art, technology, and the like—that is, words that are bookish in origin and sphere of use. The label kng. and labels such as agr., anat., astr., biol., bot., chem., and so on, also relate as the center and periphery of connotation. The LKŽ instructions do not take this relationship into account: the label kng. is listed among those indicating a word’s membership in a particular stylistic stratum of the language’s vocabulary, while labels for scientific terms appear separately in another paragraph. Apparently, terms are not considered bookish vocabulary. In general, despite the inconsistency of the instructions, labels for scientific terms are used relatively consistently and systematically. §4. The stylistic characterization of words in dictionaries should depend on the specific type of dictionary and its aims. For example, I. Šmelėva believes that a dictionary defining the literary language need not mark bookish vocabulary, since it is neutral in the context of bookish styles; however, labels are necessary for words from the colloquial stratum, which are generally used as stylistic devices in bookish style and fiction (Шмелева 1974:182—186). LKŽ covers words used in all functional styles of language, that is, words collected from dialects, works of fiction, scientific and political writing and other literature, periodicals, folklore collections, all the more significant Lithuanian dictionaries, and the more important old writings. Since colloquial and bookish vocabulary make up the largest part of LKŽ and, as stated in the instructions and introduction, 183 If one does not wish to overload the dictionary with labels, would it not be worth abandoning the labels šnek. and kng. for the center of colloquial and bookish connotations, and marking only words at their periphery, whose stylistic character raises the fewest doubts and uncertainties? §5. To indicate emotional and expressive connotation, the LKŽ list of abbreviations and instructions provide the following labels: euf., fam., iron., juok., keik., malon., menk., niek., vlg. (we have already mentioned that the label vk. is also included among these in the instructions). On consulting the LKŽ, what first catches the eye is that stylistically connoted words are usually described in terms of just one kind of connotation—either functional or emotional and expressive—even though two kinds of connotation often intersect in a single word. It has already been noted that emotional and expressive nuances are more characteristic of colloquial-style words. Thus, a word could have both the label šnek. and menk., niek., or another label. The LKŽ usually marks a word as either colloquial or derogatory, contemptuous, vulgar, etc. What also catches the eye is that words with very similar or completely identical emotional and expressive nuances are labelled menk. in some cases, niek. in others, and quite often have no label at all, for example: rukšna is labelled menk., whereas rukata, rukena, rukna, and the 4th meaning of rukšla have no stylistic label; rukšmyžoti is labelled niek., whereas rukšmyžė and rukšpūžė have no label; the 2nd meaning of rupėčka and the 2nd meaning of rupkė are labelled niek., whereas the 2nd meaning of rupūžė (about a person) has no label; šašius, -ė has the label menk., šašna has no stylistic label at all, while the 1st meaning of šašnys is labelled menk. and its 3rd meaning niek.; šatrakojis, -ė and šatramazgis, -ė are labelled menk., whereas šatrausis has no label; šavalką is labelled menk., whereas šavedrala is not stylistically evaluated; suburbėlis, -ė, subuvėlis, -ė, sučiūrėlis, -ė, surūkėlis, -ė, susiunkelnis, -ė, and sušutėlis, -ė are labelled menk., susidrėbėlis, -ė is labelled niek., while sudrebtuvos, sudribėlis, -ė, sudriskėlis, -ė, sudubėlis, -ė, sudžiūtrietis, -ė, sugniaužėlis, -ė, sugrubnagis, -ė, sugrubelėlis, -ė, suverukšlis, -ė, suirelis, -ė, sukepėlis, -ė, sukliopklyvis, -ė, sukriošėlis, -ė, surūgėlis, -ė, suskretėlis, -ė, and susuktanosis, -ė have no stylistic labels; šunadvokatauti, šunadvokatis, šunagalys, -ė and šungalis, -ė, 1 šunakis, -ė, šunalakis, -ė, šunapentis, -ė, šunbalis, šunbernis, šunbranktis, šunbrolis, šunburniauti, 1 šunburnis, -ė (2nd and 3rd meanings), šundaktaris, -ė, šundvaris, šuneika, šuniamalkė, šunmilčiauti, šunmokslis, and šunpalaikis (1st meaning) are labelled menk.; šunagarys, -ė, 2 šunakaklis, -ė, šunaponis and šunponis, 1 šunbiza, 3 šungalvis, -ė (2nd meaning), šunmeistris, šunmurza, šunpalaikis (2nd meaning), šunpautis, -ė, šunprūšis, -ė, šunrajys, -ė, šunskumpis, -ė, šunsnukis, -ė (2nd meaning), šunsparnis, -ė, šunšaipa, šunuodegiauti, šunuodegiautojas, -a, and šunuodegis, -ė (2nd and 3rd meanings) are labelled niek., whereas 2 šunakis, -ė, šunbajoris, -ė, šunbarzdė, 3 šungalvis, -ė (3rd meaning), šuniadantis, -ė, šuniašlektis, -ė, šunmilčiai, šunpranašis, -ė, and šunsnukiuoti are presented as stylistically neutral words, that is, without any stylistic labels. The examples given here show that the LKŽ describes words or meanings with derogatory or contemptuous nuances stylistically inconsistently, and that the labels menk. and niek. are used without clearer criteria. To avoid confusion and inconsistencies, it would seem advisable to mark these words and their meanings with only one label, menk., and to dispense with the label niek. altogether. 184 The explanations of the stylistic labels iron. and juok. in the LKŽ instructions are almost indistinguishable, although they are phrased differently. The label iron. is explained as follows: “a word, its meaning, or an expression that is ironic, contains irony, or has a mocking nuance” (LKŽ instrukcija 1980: 37), while the label juok. is explained as “a word, its meaning, or an expression that is laughable or said mockingly” (LKŽ instrukcija 1980:38). The LKŽ list of abbreviations explains the label juok. similarly: “a laughable word, its meaning, or an expression,” said in a mocking manner. Thus, both labels are proposed for marking words, their meanings, or expressions with a laughable or mocking nuance. Moreover, both the LKŽ and the “Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas” (1993) provide only the verb juoktis, i.e. without a prefix, this verb is given only in its reflexive form. Thus, it would be inappropriate to explain the label juok. with the words “laughing, in a laughable manner.” It seems that the explanation of the label juok. would be more precise and clearer if phrased, for example, as follows: a word, its meaning, or an expression said in jest or jokingly. The LKŽ list of abbreviations and the LKŽ instructions (1980: 37) propose using the label fam. for words, their meanings, or expressions that are familiar or used familiarly. Nevertheless, this label is not easy to find in the LKŽ. Thus, the label should either be abandoned or, if introduced, used. This label could be applied, for example, to such word meanings or nuances as mama “wife, spouse (what a man calls his wife when they have children),” tėvas “a woman’s spouse, husband,” and so on. Figurative vocabulary is also classed as emotional and expressive connotation, but the LKŽ has no special label for it; for example, stypčioti, stypinėti, stupinti, styplinėti, styplinti (1 styrinti—has the label šnek.). The figurative information and figurative nuances of such words are conveyed through a synonym with analogous stylistic connotation or by an appropriate descriptive explanation. Other examples of figurative vocabulary might include, for instance, the verbs šlepen­ti, šlepsėti, šlitiniuoti, šlytynti, as well as onomatopoeic verbs and others. Interjections and sound-symbolic words, which serve solely an emotional and expressive function, are likewise not marked with a special stylistic label. LITERATŪRA LKŽ — Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 3—15, Vilnius, 1956—1991; II leid. 1—2, 1968—1969. LKŽ instrukcija — Lietuvių kalbos žodyno instrukcija, Vilnius: Lietuvos TSR MA Centrinės bibliotekos rotaprintas, 1980. P i k č i l i n g i s J. 1975: Lietuvių kalbos stilistika 2, Vilnius: Mokslas. П е т р и щ е в а Е.Ф. 1984: Стилистически окрашенная лексика русского языка, Москва: Наука. Ш м е л е в а И.Н. 1974: Принципы стилистической характеристики слова в общем словаре литературного языка (на русском материале). — Всесоюзная научная конференция по теоретическим вопросам языкознания (11—16 ноября 1974 г.). Тезисы докладов секционных заседаний, Москва, 182—186. STILISTISCHE KENNZEICHNUNG DES WORTSCHATZES IM ”WÖRTERBUCH DER LITAUISCHEN SPRACHE” Zusammenfassung Im Aufsatz wird das System der Angaben zum Stil im ”Wörterbuch der litauischen Sprache” untersucht. Abgesondert wird die Kennzeichnung des Wortschatzes 185 vom Standpunkt der funktionellen stilistischen und expressiven emotionellen Konnotation aus betrachtet. Manche funktionellen Angaben zum Stil (z. B. šnek. ”umgangssprachlich”) und die Angaben zur Kennzeichnung des Wortschatzes mit einer emotionellen Färbung (z. B. menk. ”abwertend” und niek. ”verächtlich” werden im ”Wörterbuch der litauischen Sprache” sehr subjektiv und inkonsequent verwendet. 186