RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ

THE NON-USE OF PRONOMINAL FORMS IN TERMINOLOGY AND THE CHALLENGE IT POSES TO THE NORM

KEYWORDS: defining meaning, definiteness, pronominal form, norm, emphatic meaning, marking of kind, usage, term marker.

INTRODUCTION

Formulations in normative publications concerning the use of pronominal forms (hereinafter PF) in terminology are strict: most state that an adjectival component of a term must be used only in the PF. This claim, however, differs considerably from the general normative context, which shows that there is usually a tendency merely to list the meanings that PF can express and, adding that speakers no longer know how to use them, to refrain from requiring their use to express those meanings. Such a normative context would fully accord with the findings of diachronic and synchronic language research, which reveal that PF are disappearing—receding from dialects and often being replaced by simple forms in the standard language as well.

These contradictions invite the question of what grounds the norm that requires a morphological marker to be used to designate a term, and how well-founded that norm is; they also prompt the assumption that the norm may be based on more regular usage. Nevertheless, even the examples given in studies of the terminology of particular specialized fields (e.g., Umbrasas 2002; Zemlevičiūtė 2003; Stunžinas 2005) indicate that PF are not always used in terms either. In 1973, Angelė Kaulakienė noted their non-use in terminological dictionaries and identified this inclination as a trend of the time. Yet the tendency not to use PF in terminology is mentioned later too, alongside the broader tendency not to use PF at all. In A Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian (hereinafter DLKG), it is likewise stated that PF vary in terms, although they are preferred in the standard language (DLKG 1997: 175).

The repeated observation of this tendency would already prompt a different assumption: that the strict claim concerning terminology not only diverges from the general normative context and creates a certain opposition to language research, but also receives insufficient support in usage; usage, as one might hypothesize after taking into account the recurrence of this tendency, is more inclined to follow the general direction of PF development and norms that better reflect it by not stipulating their obligatory use

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 2

—norms. Of course, these assumptions and hypotheses can be tested only by examining the norm and usage. However, no such studies exist, unless we count one paper reporting that PF are not used in works on welding science (Gedzevičienė, Gedzevičius 2011), and the aforementioned article by A. Kaulakienė (1973), which examines the norm less than it prescribes it. Adelė Valeckienė (1957) conducted a significant study of usage, but its direct subject is not terms, and 60 years have passed since its publication. There are several publications that touch indirectly on the question of usage in terminology—by examining the meanings of PF (Valeckienė 1961), cases of their incorrect use in administrative language (Oginskienė 1993), passive-voice participles (Ambrazas 1964), or adjectives with the suffix -inis, -ė (Kniūkšta 2001). Opinions on the use of PF are also rarely expressed in terminological studies (Gaivenis 1975; Keinys 2004), though in some cases they can be inferred indirectly (Gaivenis 1995; Keinys 2005).

As neither the norm nor usage is examined, the inconsistency of the latter increases. This alone would prompt the question of the use of PF in terminology. The irregular marking of terms by this morphological feature is clearly evident in the language of economics. Nevertheless, some more regular tendencies can also be discerned there. Examining them would make it possible to determine how these tendencies relate to the norm and to assess whether they are well-founded. However, the normative contradictions identified suggest that an analysis of usage alone would not suffice to assess their validity. For if it is not sufficiently clear whether the norm itself is characterized by certain irregularities, it would be illogical to infer from a divergence in usage that its tendencies are unjustified. It may be that usage simply pays greater heed to the tendency toward the disappearance of PF revealed by diachronic language research, a tendency that normative works do not reject either. Thus, the validity of usage can be assessed only after examining the norm, while one criterion for assessing the norm is the extent to which it is observed in usage. These reciprocal connections determine the aim of this article: to examine the norm governing the use of PF in terminology and the tendencies evident in usage, and, on the basis of comparative analysis, to assess both the tendency in usage and the validity of the norm.

The usage examined is represented by two types of texts: connected prose, namely articles published in economics journals, and context-free environments for term use, that is, dictionaries of economic terms and glossaries of terms (concepts) provided in legal acts. Another object of study is the claims concerning the use of PF in terminology formulated in normative, descriptive, explanatory, instructional, and research works, as well as the interpretations that emerge from explanations of the nature of PF, their assessment in relation to grammatical categories, classifications of their meanings, and the body of research as a whole.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 3

The main methods applied are comparative analysis, induction, deduction, and synthesis, which are characteristic of theoretical research. The study of the use of ĮF is based on comparing and evaluating statistical data from terminological dictionaries and legal acts.

1. GENERAL NORMATIVE CONTEXT

Marking a term is not the only function of ĮF in Lithuanian. Several other functions, most often called meanings, are distinguished as well. It is precisely these that are most often used to explain the opposition between ĮF and non-pronominal forms (hereafter NF). Nevertheless, classifications of meanings differ, and ĮF still has no defined place in the system of grammatical forms and categories. Depending on which model of their evaluation is chosen, numerous exceptions that are difficult to explain within that model are also identified. Research into language development also suggests that this linguistic phenomenon is a difficult puzzle to solve. Such studies have managed to show that ĮF is disappearing, although the reasons for this decline are not entirely clear either. This encourages an examination of the uncertainties and an assessment of the codified norms for the use of ĮF in light of them.

1.1. Problems and connections revealed by research studies

ĮF is not an object that is often chosen for study in Lithuanian linguistics, but some essential facts have been established. For example, the basis of their formation has been determined: ĮF arose when the pronoun jis, ji – *io- stem attached as an enclitic to simple forms (Rosinas 1975; Valeckienė 1986; Zinkevičius 1957, 1966, 1981, 1996).

Nevertheless, many matters remain not fully clarified. For instance, although the basis of origin is known, the meaning of the pronoun *io- is explained in different ways, and differing assessments of one of the derivational formatives also lead to differing interpretations of the meaning of the derivative itself. This connection can be discerned in A. Valeckienė’s (1986, 1990) overview of theories on the origin of that pronoun: when *io- is regarded as an anaphoric (demonstrative) pronoun, ĮF tend to be viewed as denoting a particular object or expressing determination, corresponding to the definite articles of other Indo-European languages; when the pronoun is regarded as relative, they are mostly explained in terms of emphasis—the highlighting of the denoted object or an enduring characteristic. A. Valeckienė (1957) had earlier drawn attention to the dual nature of this semantic function. Calling it an indicative function of an emphatic nature, she argued that some pronominal adjectives acquire a distinctive (determinative) meaning, while others acquire an emphatic meaning. This dual

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 4

nature of the function was explained by the specific way ĮF were formed: “Because the pronoun became inseparably joined to the adjective, the functional meanings of pronominal adjectives came to depend also on the syntactic-semantic relationship between the adjective and the word it modifies. <...>Pronominal adjectives denoting an object whose distinguishing characteristic they express form a single semantic unit with the word they modify and acquire a distinctive meaning—that is, they indicate a particular known object. Pronominal adjectives denoting an object whose characteristic they express is a familiar one do not form a close syntactic-semantic unit with the word they modify and acquire a purely emphatic meaning.” (Valeckienė 1957: 210). Although it was argued that pronominal adjectives in contemporary language have two meanings, the development of these meanings was also discerned: emphatic adjectives were considered to be declining and unlikely to develop further, while distinctive adjectives were regarded as predominant in the language of that period. The concept of the development of meanings was further elaborated in A. Valeckienė’s later articles, where the pronoun *io- was linked to constructions in Indo-Iranian and Greek. It is argued that, in those constructions, this pronoun followed the noun in the same position as the noun; it was neither purely relative nor genuinely anaphoric, but by nature had an emphatic, reiterative (“identifying”) function, while the distinctive function developed later. Moreover, in Lithuanian there is no sharp boundary between the distinctive and emphatic meanings (Valeckienė 1986: 184–185; 1990: 27–28). These insights may have provided the basis for distinguishing a category of definiteness in Lithuanian. In the chapter on the correlation between definiteness and indefiniteness in the first volume of Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos (hereafter LKG), prepared by A. Valeckienė, definiteness is only mentioned in passing; in the 1986 article, it is clearly distinguished, and later it is also distinguished in DLKG. Incidentally, the 1986 article already uses the term “definite meaning” (or “definiteness”) instead of “distinctive meaning”; to avoid confusion, this term is used throughout the present article as well, except where it is important to convey the exact terminology used in a particular work.

As early as the attempt in LKG to distinguish the opposition between definiteness and indefiniteness, the question of emphatic meaning immediately became problematic. The grammar states that emphatic pronominal adjectives stand apart from this correlation—their function is stylistically emphatic (LKG 1965: 511). However, in the most recent studies of Lithuanian grammatical structure, ĮF are examined only as a means of expressing definiteness (Holvoet, Tamulionienė 2006; Mikulskas 2006; Spraunienė 2008a, 2008b, 2011; Judžentis 2012: 99–110). Thus, the fact that in Lithuanian, unlike in languages with articles, ĮF are also used with an emphatic meaning generally goes unassessed. To be sure, the occasional attempt to address the question of emphatic meaning can be found, but these would suggest that it is intended to be incorporated into

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 5

the category of definiteness: it is argued that the emphatic meaning should be considered a pragmatic function of the definite forms (Mikulskas 2006: 64), while one doctoral dissertation states that “all definite adjectives traditionally called emphatic can justifiably be considered to have a definite function” (Spraunienė 2011: 112).

Attempts to explain Lithuanian definite forms in terms of definiteness give rise to other uncertainties as well. Definiteness and indefiniteness are already distinguished as an adjective category in DLKG, but this distinction has been criticized: because definite forms of adjectives are only one among many morphological forms that mark a property as definite, and because this opposition is visible at the levels of lexemes and grammatical forms (Paulauskienė 1994: 225); and, in developing a conception of the noun phrase different from that characteristic of traditional Lithuanian linguistics, because this is not an adjective category but a noun-phrase category (Holvoet, Tamulionienė 2006: 12). Nevertheless, works presenting this criticism do not clearly answer whether such a grammatical category is characteristic of Lithuanian at all. Axel Holvoet and Aurelija Tamulionienė’s article concludes its search for an answer with Christofer Lyons’s view that not all languages have definiteness, and the observation that Lithuanian grammatical description cannot do without this concept (Holvoet, Tamulionienė 2006: 32). Artūras Judžentis nevertheless ventures to distinguish a grammatical category of definiteness, but understands grammatical category differently from the way it is conventionally understood in traditional Lithuanian grammar—as encompassing not only the levels of morphology and syntax, but also those of semantics and pragmatics. Definiteness is associated primarily with the latter (Judžentis 2012: 99–110).

Perhaps the main uncertainty that arises when definite forms in Lithuanian are treated as a means of expressing definiteness is the marked irregularity with which the opposition is expressed: there are many examples in which definite forms are used without clear definiteness, while definiteness is also expressed without them (Spraunienė 2008b, 2011). A. Valeckienė has also discussed the irregularity of their use with emphatic meaning, but her explanation is more convincing: emphasis on a thing’s property depends on the author’s subjective view of that thing (Valeckienė 1957: 203–212). In general, researchers’ attempts to solve the riddle of the function performed by definite forms in Lithuanian resemble going around in circles: A. Valeckienė’s 1957 overview of attempts to solve it shows that neither a purely determinative nor a purely emphatic theory has succeeded in doing so; the problem was then addressed by recognizing two principal semantic functions, while studies of definiteness have once again focused on only one of them, and the result is usually the conclusion that definiteness is irregularly expressed by definite adjective forms in Lithuanian (Valeckienė 1986; Holvoet, Tamulionienė 2006; Spraunienė 2011; Judžentis 2012). On the other hand, continuing attempts to clarify the function and establish a more definite place for these forms in the system of grammatical forms

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 6

and categories encourage the assumption that this function is probably not very important to the language, since anything essential should have been clarified by now.

The assumption that the function is not essential is supported by studies of language development showing that definite forms are disappearing. Zigmas Zinkevičius (1957, 1966, 1978, 1981, 1996) identifies dialects in which they are no longer used. A. Valeckienė (1957) concludes that the emphatic meaning is disappearing, but also sees signs that the definite meaning is disappearing in dialects: definite forms are no longer used with this meaning in the western Dzūkian dialects and in the southern part of the eastern and central Aukštaitian dialects; they are used less frequently in dialects adjoining areas where definite forms are almost entirely absent, namely in the eastern part of the southern Western Aukštaitian dialects. If the definite meaning is considered the primary, most vital one in contemporary language, and the emphatic meaning found in the aforementioned dialects a disappearing one, the article concludes that all definite adjectives in those dialects are disappearing as well (Valeckienė 1957: 303). Nevertheless, no clear answer is given to the question of why they are disappearing. Having noted that the definite meaning is also expressed by simple forms in dialects that still use definite adjectives extensively, A. Valeckienė identified one cause: the particular way in which things are made definite by Lithuanian definite adjectives: “In Lithuanian, the *io- stem pronoun, which performs a determinative function, is inseparably linked to the adjective; consequently, defining a thing—distinguishing it from others—depends greatly on the adjective’s lexical meaning and its syntactic-semantic relationship with the word it modifies <...>. If the adjective itself, through its specific lexical meaning, can distinguish one thing from another, then the marker of determination—the definite ending—is no longer needed.” (Valeckienė 1957: 303). It is argued that such isolated cases of inconsistent expression of the definite meaning of adjectives may have contributed to the beginning of the decline of definite forms. LKG similarly explains the looseness of the definiteness-indefiniteness correlation (LKG 1965: 511).

In seeking reasons for the non-use of definite forms in works on contemporary Lithuanian grammatical structure, another factor is identified: a small difference in meaning. Although LKG considers meaning the main criterion distinguishing definite forms from simple forms, in 1986 it was noted that no difference in meaning is made either in written language or in dialects, and this criterion was called into question (Paulauskienė, Tarvydaitė 1986: 136). Later, the following point is made: “If there were a great (essential) difference in meaning between simple and definite adjectives, there would be no speakers of the standard language able to do without definite adjectives. Yet those who come from dialects that do not use definite adjectives manage without them even when speaking the standard language, thereby contributing to the decline of definite adjectives in general. <...> Bearing in mind the current

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 7

intermingling of the population, the urbanization of the country, and bilingualism or trilingualism, one must assume that there are now very many people who do not know how to use definite forms and can manage without them.” (Paulauskienė 1994: 222–223).

In addition to the factors mentioned, the influence of neighboring languages is also cited as a cause of the decline of definite forms (Pupkis 1980: 137; Paulauskienė, Tarvydaitė 1986: 136–137; Paulauskienė 1994: 223), but this refers mainly to Russian, and the factor is not examined in greater detail.

1.2. Reflection of contradictions in normative works

If a linguistic phenomenon is receding from usage of its own accord, it should be difficult and probably inappropriate to constrain such tendencies through language norms. The unclear function of pronominal forms (ĮF) should also pose difficulties for standardizing their use. This connection is not mentioned in discussions of norms for the use of ĮF, but certain factors are identified that should pose a considerable obstacle to asserting that ĮF must be used.

In most morphology and language-culture textbooks, as well as in LKG, the tendency not to use ĮF in the standard language is primarily linked to dialectal influence: some dialects have almost no ĮF, so speakers of those dialects find it difficult to perceive their specific character (Piročkinas 1990: 86; Šukys 2003: 113); in many places, ĮF have disappeared from the dialects or survive only in fossilized forms, and consequently they are not always used appropriately in the standard language either (Pupkis 1980: 137); speakers of dialects can manage without ĮF when speaking the standard language (Paulauskienė 1983: 212–213; 1994: 222), and they no longer have an intuitive ear for pronominal adjectives (Paulauskienė 2004: 309). Such tendencies in language development may also be determined by the small difference in meaning: “By pointing out the very small difference in meaning between pronominal and simple adjectives, one does not at all wish to claim that pronominal forms should be abandoned altogether in the standard language. The point is merely that it is easiest to abandon a form that has no very clear, specific meaning and is not safeguarded by an innate sense of language.” (Paulauskienė, Tarvydaitė 1986: 137). When attention is drawn to such factors, the possible meanings of ĮF are often merely listed, without emphasizing that they must be used.

However, the meanings being listed differ. A. Valeckienė (1957), who provided perhaps the most comprehensive classification of them, distinguished two main types—specifying and emphatic. The principal difference identified was that, with the specifying meaning, pronominal adjectives supplement the concept expressed by the modified word and make it more concrete (the old house), whereas with the emphatic meaning they merely intensify and emphasize the property expressed by the modified word (the cold spring).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 8

Two subtypes of the specifying meaning are distinguished: the selective meaning, in which pronominal adjectives define things by distinguishing them from other similar things, and the referential meaning, in which they define things by pointing to their previously mentioned, known properties (see Fig. 1).¹ The selective meaning was further divided into selective and classificatory attributes, and it is specifically the latter with which the use of ĮF in terminology is associated.

1 PAV. Įvardžiuotinių formų reikšmių klasifikacija (Valeckienė 1957: 174–210).

A similar classification was also used in LKG, except that classificatory attributes, which A. Valeckienė had treated as a unit of tertiary division, became a unit of secondary division in it (see Fig. 2).

¹ A. Valeckienė illustrates the referential meaning with examples such as the naming of the lamp as miraculous in J. Biliūnas’s short story: On a high, steep hill appeared a miraculous lamp. It shone like a star, encircled by a bright ring of golden letters. <...> But many years of sacrifice and devotion have passed, and yet not one of those climbing has reached the summit of the hill, or touched the miraculous lamp (Valeckienė 1957: 189). In recent studies of Lithuanian ĮF, this expression of definiteness is associated with the pragmatic level (Holvoet, Tamulionienė 2006).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 9

2 PAV. Įvardžiuotinių formų reikšmių klasifikacija LKG (1965: 505–510)

DLKG rūšinės ypatybės žymėjimas vėl tampa tretinės skiaidos vienetu (DLKG 1997: 174–176) (žr. 3 pav.). Tokia keliapakopė klasifikacija pateikiama ir Funkcinėje lietuvių kalbos gramatikoje (Valeckienė 1998). Užsienio kalbotyrai būdingu modeliu grindžiamuose ĮF tyrimuose skiriamos kelios apibrėžtumo rūšys: deiktinis, anaforinis, situacinis ir kt. apibrėžtumas (Holvoet, Tamulionienė 2006; Spraunienė 2008b, 2011; Judžentis 2012: 103–105).

3 PAV. Įvardžiuotinių formų reikšmių klasifikacija DLKG (1997: 174–175)

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 10

The lack of clarity regarding meaning and function is compounded by the fact that various instances of meaning are also mentioned as equivalent. For example, one textbook on professional language lists the use of ĮF to denote a type, distinguish an object from other objects, and emphasize a property, alongside their use in naming institutions, establishments, and positions, indicating a notable date, and addressing someone in formal-style speech (Brūzgienė et al. 2013: 150), although the latter three distributional units are probably merely instances of the meanings being listed. Once instances are distinguished from meanings, considerable disagreement emerges over how they should be evaluated. Only the first part, the second part, the first chapter, the second chapter are recommended (Paulauskienė 2004: 307), although if these instances were regarded as expressions of the emphatic meaning and linked to A. Valeckienė’s study, one would be left simply to assume that there is a right to choose according to one’s desire to emphasize. The ever-growing number of instances and differences in their evaluation may also contribute to a general lack of sensitivity to ĮF. The extent of uncertainty in both usage and the norm is illustrated by the statistics on recommendations for using ĮF presented by Rita Miliūnaitė: two thirds of the recommendations discuss cases in which ĮF should be used instead of NF, while one third of the authors suggest using NF instead of ĮF (Miliūnaitė 2003: 81–82).

An overview of the normative context reveals that it depends on how thoroughly the linguistic phenomenon has been studied, while research is considerably hampered by uncertainties whose origins lie in the very basis for the formation of ĮF—the meaning of the pronoun *io-. Once this pronoun merged with the adjective, its original meaning could no longer be established, and the conception of ĮF and their function—and, correspondingly, their place in the system of grammatical categories—depends on how they are interpreted. Admittedly, such scholarly interpretations have made it possible to establish a certain basis for classifying the meanings of ĮF, but normative reference works also reveal various other combinations of meanings. In turn, fluctuations in the norm are also determined by the perceived tendency of ĮF to recede from usage.

2. USAGE NORMS IN TERMINOLOGY

Observing the tendency for definite forms (DF) to be replaced by non-definite forms and recognizing the considerable number of reasons for it, one is reluctant to assert that DF must be used in all their various meanings. Views on DF in terminology, however, are different: most studies repeat the claim that DF must be used in terms. The claim is clearly formulated, but its normative basis is not indicated, and the formulation itself leaves much unsaid.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 11

2.1. Formulation of the norm

Būtinybę terminuose vartoti ĮF nurodo A. Kaulakienė (1973), atkreipusi dėmesį į tai, kad vartosena terminijoje² ir terminų žodynuose dar nėra iki galo sutvarkyta. Ši norma teikiama ir Kalbos patarimuose, NF vartojimą rūšiai ir išskiriamajai daikto ypatybei reikšti sudėtiniuose terminuose ir pavadinimuose įvertinant nuoroda neteiktina (KP 2002: 26). Vadovėlyje aukštųjų mokyklų studentams teigiama: „Įvardžiuotinės formos yra būtinas sudėtinių terminų rodiklis (išskyrus tuos žodžius, kurie negali būti įvardžiuotiniai, pvz., priešagos -inis būdvardžiai). Net ir tada, kai būdvardinio žodžio forma pati rodo išskyrimą, terminas turi būti įvardžiuotinis. Antai žymėtieji būdvardžių laipsniai jau išskiria ypatybę iš kitų, bet terminuose turėsim tik vyresnysis inžinierius, aukščiausiasis teismas ir kt.“ (Pupkis 1980: 136). Teikiant administracinės kalbos normas pritariama: „Taigi įvardžiuotinės formos būtinai vartotinos terminuose. Neįvardžiuotinė forma čia pažeidžia lietuvių kalbos dėsnius, ją niveluoja. Kas sako raudoni, geltoni, juodi serbentai, užuot sakęs raudonieji, geltonieji, juodieji serbentai, jau daro kalbos klaidą“ (Piročkinas 1990: 86); „Rūšiai nusakyti ir terminams sudaryti netinka paprastosios formos.“ (KKP 1998: 123). Visuomenei skirtame kalbos kultūros vadovėlyje irgi formuluojamas griežtas principas: „Įvardžiuotinės formos būtinos, kai pasakoma daiktų rūšis, tam tikras tipas ir sudaromas sudėtinis terminas.“ (Šukys 2003: 113).

These claims suggest that DF are considered an indicator of a term, which distinguishes it from an ordinary word combination. In one instance, they are explicitly called a necessary marker of multi-word terms (Pupkis 1980: 136). However, it is not specified what this marker should denote or distinguish, or in what kind of usage. After all, using a marker to indicate terms in particular terminological collections (dictionaries, databases, glossaries) would seem pointless—the status of a term can be recognized simply from its presentation in a terminological collection. The only article by A. Kaulakienė to state this explicitly says that definite adjectives must be used both in compiling terminological dictionaries, registers, reference works, bulletins, and terminology projects, and in texts (Kaulakienė 1973: 30–31). Elsewhere, the discussion is rather abstract—about the necessity of DF in terms and when forming terms. That the norm was intended for both connected and unconnected texts can be inferred indirectly from corrections (Keinys 2006: 299).

²Terminology is generally understood as the totality of terms, but A. Kaulakienė’s article makes clear that the word is used there to refer instead to connected texts.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 12

The relationship between the prescribed norm and functional style can also be established only indirectly. Clearly, the main domain of term usage is scholarly texts. Nevertheless, the claim is also formulated in publications for specialists in administrative language and for lawyers (Piročkinas 1990; KKP 1998; Paulauskienė 2004; AKA 2014), which shows that the norm also applies to administrative language. One publication corrects terms in which non-definite forms (NDF) are used in journalistic writing (Paulauskienė, Tarvydaitė 1986: 138); thus, journalistic style, which also includes elements of informal style, falls within the scope of this norm. Finally, one source states directly that DF should be used in scholarly and everyday speech, as well as in fiction and journalism (Paulauskienė 2004: 308). Nevertheless, Language Advice notes that in spoken language and other informal styles, terms may also be used in NDF (KP 2002: 26).

A. Valeckienės (1957) tyrimas atliktas ir ĮF klasifikacija pateikta remiantis tik būdvardžio vartosena, A. Kaulakienė irgi mini tik būdvardžių vartojimą, DLKG apibrėžtumas siejamas tik su būdvardžiu. Tačiau iš pateiktųjų citatų matyti, kad termino visuotinio žymėjimo principas taikomas ir kitomis kalbos dalimis, būtent dalyviams, įvardžiams ir skaitvardžiams. Viename straipsnyje pateikiama rišlaus teksto pavyzdžių, kur esamojo laiko neveikiamieji dalyviai vartojami tiek ĮF, tiek NF, tačiau terminų pavyzdžių pateikiama tik tokių, kurių būdvardinis dėmuo yra pavartotas ĮF (Ambrazas 1964). Kanceliarinės kalbos patarimuose tiesiogiai nurodoma, kad daiktų rūšiai nusakyti vartojamos ir dalyvių ĮF (KKP 1998: 123). Įvardžių ĮF terminijai neturėtų būti būdingos, nes jas gali turėti tik parodomieji, keli savybiniai įvardžiai ir asmeninis įvardis jis, ji. Kiek labiau joje galimi terminai, į kurių sudėtį įeina skaitvardžių formos, tačiau morfologijos ir kalbos kultūros vadovėliuose šis galimybių klausimas nesvarstomas – ĮF aptariamos ir su terminija susiejamos būdvardžio skyriuje, o kitų kalbos dalių skyriuose tik užsimenama, kad šios kalbos dalys irgi gali turėti ĮF (Jakaitienė ir kt. 1976; Paulauskienė 1983, 1994). Tiesa, A. Valeckienė rašė, kad apibrėžtumo ir neapibrėžtumo kategorija būdinga atributiniams dalyviams, tačiau tokios kategorijos visai negalima išskirti įvardžių ir skaitvardžių klasėse (Valeckienė 1986: 176).

When prescribing the obligatory marking of a term with DF, normative publications provide no exceptions—not for functional styles or parts of speech, nor for individual cases. Only Language Advice states that NDF may be used when they have become established by tradition, and gives examples such as black bread, black coffee, hard work, fatty meat, skim milk, whole milk, dry wine, dry ration, milk ice cream, barbed wire (KP 2002:

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 13

26–28). Even so, Kazimieras Gaivenis had already questioned whether these word combinations were terms: discussing the claim in the 1994 edition of DLKG based on them—that the opposition between definite and ordinary adjectives is not very clear-cut or consistent—he noted that DF are unnecessary for naming both fresh and sour milk because the characteristic of the concept being named is temporary, whereas DF indicate a permanent characteristic of kind (Gaivenis 1995: 8). A. Valeckienė discussed this case only as one of the possible instances of neutralization of the definiteness–indefiniteness opposition characteristic of the designation of kinds of things, and did not directly connect it with terminology (Valeckienė 1986: 172). Nevertheless, the 1997 edition of DLKG also states, on the basis of these examples, that the ordinary forms of certain adjectives have become established in term formation as well (DLKG 1997: 175). In any case, DLKG does not prescribe a mandatory exception, but merely notes a usage tendency.

The statement in DLKG that DF vary in terms (DLKG 1997: 175) should likewise be regarded merely as a note of a tendency. The example illustrating this statement, chief editor, was already given in 1986, along with another possible reason for usage tendencies—the length and inconvenience of using DF (Paulauskienė, Taryvdaitė 1986: 138). Attention was also drawn to the irregular use of DF in words borrowed from other languages (Paulauskienė, Taryvdaitė 1986: 139). The use of ordinary forms to designate kinds of things is also mentioned as an exception, with the suffix –iškas, –a: it is claimed that this suffix, like –inis, –ė, can itself denote a kind of thing, making the definite formant unnecessary (Valeckienė 1986: 172; DLKG 1997: 175). Thus, exceptions in actual terminology usage are mentioned, but are not directly prescribed as a norm. Language Advice corrects a usage case—the use in multi-word terms of adjectives with the suffix –(ut)inis, –ė; –(urinis), –ė to express a distinguishing characteristic (KP 2002: 26–27). Nevertheless, DLKG is a normative publication, so the exceptions it mentions may also be understood in ways other than merely as cases occurring in usage.

In discussing general tendencies in the use of DF, many more exceptions are already mentioned, even though they are not directly linked to terminology. LKG first emphasizes that, in general, the opposition between defining meaning and ordinary adjectives is not consistently established, and adds that from the very beginning of its formation it was influenced by various generalizing developmental tendencies arising from the specific nature of DF in defining things. First, the importance of an adjective’s lexical meaning is indicated: a definite adjective distinguishes or identifies an object by supplementing the meaning of the noun it modifies with its own lexical meaning, while the pronominal particle merely indicates that the distinguished or identified object is known; consequently, there are cases in which an adjective alone, without the pronominal particle, can sufficiently characterize an object,

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 14

to make it known—then simple forms appear instead of definite forms. As a second manifestation of weakened correlation, it is noted that in dialects the pronominal particle is not added to superlative adjectives, since their functional meaning is very close to that of definite adjectives, which distinguish objects by a comparatively greater degree of the indicated characteristic (eldest son, cf. chief editor). Third, it is mentioned separately that in some dialects definite forms (ĮF) tend not to express highly specific meanings of distinguishing and classifying modifiers, since these can distinguish objects through their lexical meaning alone, e.g., black fallow, hemp-speckled hen (LKG 1965: 511). A. Valeckienė (1986), moreover, illustrated this exception with the examples white and black bread, sweet and sour milk. As a fourth exception, LKG mentions the fact that relative pronouns do not have definite forms. The fifth concerns figurative meanings of adjectives that have become detached from the adjective’s primary meaning (terrible patience, living father). It is also noted that adjectives with the suffix -inis, -ė are not used in definite forms (LKG 1965: 511). Since LKG is prescriptive in nature, these exceptions may be understood not only as evidence from dialects or current usage, but also as matters of the norm.

DLKG also mentions that an adjective can identify an object as known through its lexical meaning alone, and states that the opposition between simple forms and definite forms (ĮF) is neither pronounced nor consistent, citing instances of neutralization (DLKG 1997: 175). A. Valeckienė explained the neutralization of the opposition as follows: “The identification of objects by definite adjectives depends not only on their relationship with simple adjectives, but also on their syntactic and semantic connection with the noun and the broader context. Consequently, in a given context, the definiteness/indefiniteness correlation, that is, ‘general’ / ‘individual’, is neutralized, and a simple adjective is used instead of a definite one. Under syntagmatic conditions of neutralization, the opposition between definite and simple adjectives is weakened, and the use of simple forms broadens.” (Valeckienė 1986: 171).

Thus, grammars and other works do not directly specify exceptions for terminology; however, they list various cases of neutralization characteristic of the use of definite forms (ĮF) in general, as well as significant factors that may lead to their replacement by simple forms. As becomes clear, these exceptions and factors in terminology should depend on the anticipated relationship between marking a kind and using definite forms, and especially on the relationship between marking a kind and marking a term.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 15

2.2. Direct and indirect argumentation

Prescriptive works do not explicitly state what the norm requiring definite forms in terminology is based on. Of course, arguing for it is not the purpose of works of this kind; however, hardly any arguments are offered even when linguistic norms are explained.

Some works attempt to draw on the opposition between simple forms (NF) and definite forms (ĮF), which is often described as a difference in meaning. More than one meaning is posited, and the difference is therefore explained in terms of several meanings or combinations thereof (LKG 1965: 505). Under the definiteness approach, the difference is based on the opposition of definiteness: definite forms indicate an object's characteristic while also showing that the object is known, whereas simple forms merely indicate the object's characteristic (DLKG 1997: 174). However, this opposition can describe only the difference between simple and definite forms, not serve as a criterion for using definite forms in terminology. For example, the phrase the great river identifies an object as known, but the phrase is not a term. Arnoldas Piročkinas attempted to draw on a narrower semantic subgroup—the distinguishing meaning: indefinite adjectives state an object's characteristic in general, simply asserting that the object has that characteristic (e.g., a fast train, a red berry), whereas definite forms not only assert the characteristic but also distinguish it from the object's other characteristics, e.g., the fast train, the red berry (Piročkinas 1990: 86). This explanation is still too broad, however, since the berry is distinguished by the definite form, yet the phrase the red berry is not a term. A. Valeckienė, too, distinguished two markers of distinguishing meaning—distinguishing and classifying modifiers—but saw little difference between them. As their distinguishing features, she cited only the closer connection of classifying modifiers with the modified word, greater generalization, more precise identification of objects (the expression of their names), and the fact that understanding the objects denoted by definite classifying adjectives does not require a particular context: they are understood by everyone in any context (Valeckienė 1957: 184). Perhaps for this reason, A. Piročkinas’s work introduces another opposition, this time linking definite forms with terminology: “In the first case, the characteristic may be incidental and temporary, whereas in the second it will be permanent and essential. Therefore, definite forms should be used in forming terms, by adding to their base noun a modifier expressing an essential characteristic, as in the phrase the express train.” (Piročkinas 1990: 86). K. Gaivenis also regarded the opposition between temporary and permanent characteristics as a criterion, illustrating it with the following additional example: a residential building may be unoccupied at a given time but is still called a residential building; no one may be drinking drinking water at present, but it will nevertheless remain drinking water, that is, water of a particular quality (Gaivenis 1995: 8).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 16

One language-culture textbook justifies the obligatory use of definite forms (ĮF) in terms as a means of avoiding possible ambiguity: simple forms (NF) can also indicate a kind, but their meaning would be ambiguous, so only the definite form of an adjective or another word should be used in terminology (Paulauskienė 2001: 24).

However, attempts to explain the norm, even to some extent, are rare. A different pattern is much more common: the possible meanings of definite forms (ĮF) are listed or classified, and, after one subgroup—namely, the marking of a kind—has been discussed, it is stated that definite forms are used in terminology. The causal connection, or the relationship between marking a kind and use in terminology, is generally not mentioned. Moreover, the subgroup of meanings is given different names: in some works, classifying modifiers (Valeckienė 1957); in others, the marking of the kind of objects (LKG 1965) or of an object (Jakaitienė et al. 1976), the expression of the kind of objects (DLKG 1997), the marking of an object's classifying characteristic (Paulauskienė, Tarvydaitė 1986: 137), or the indication of an object's kind (Paulauskienė 1994).

After discussing classifying modifiers, A. Valeckienė concludes: “Since classifying modifiers most often indicate certain individual characteristics generalized for a group of objects, and together with the modified word denote the name of that group, terms—such as linguistic terms—are very often formed with definite adjectives of this kind.” (Valeckienė 1957: 186). This statement is repeated in LKG, preceded only by the observation that definite adjectives with certain modifiers can express the name of a kind of object (LKG 1965: 507). DLKG, too, mentions neither a causal connection nor a relationship; it merely states that distinguishing definite adjectives with certain modified words can also denote a kind of object, and notes that terms in various fields of science are often formed with such adjectives (DLKG 1997: 174). Unlike the prescriptive works cited in section 2.1, these formulations suggest that neither the universal marking of kinds nor the obligatory marking of terms is prescribed. On the other hand, treating the marking of a kind as a subgroup within a multilevel classification indirectly implies that a kind may go unmarked. After all, if the classifying meaning is treated as a subgroup of the identifying meaning (or of its subgroup, the distinguishing meaning), then the subgroup should also be subject to the rules governing the larger group. In discussing that group, various exceptions, neutralization, and cases where simple forms (NF) compete with definite forms (ĮF) are anticipated. Even neutralization directly related to the marking of kinds is mentioned: the non-use of definite forms of adjectives with specific meanings. Since marking a kind is also one of the general uses of definite forms (ĮF), it should likewise be subject to the general tendencies against using them. These are grounded in significant factors, such as the decline of definite forms in dialects and their disuse in the standard language, and the slight difference in meaning from simple forms (NF), hence the limited importance of the opposition. It would therefore remain to hypothesize that the further use of definite forms…

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 17

the development of use to denote a type, like the tendency to use them with other meanings, should be one of decline.

Nevertheless, when applying a multilevel classification, an intermediate category is also distinguished, situated between the defining meaning and the indication of kind, namely the distinguishing meaning. A. Valeckienė (1957), noting that distinguishing modifiers distinguish objects according to the lexical meaning of the adjective, distinguishes distinguishing modifiers from kind-denoting modifiers. Admittedly, the ways of distinguishing are envisaged as the same for both these subgroups of modifiers: 1) singling out one or several objects from many other similar objects by a comparatively greater degree of the attribute being denoted (The mother with the older girl was washing; The new neighbor turned out to be sharp-tongued); 2) distinguishing an object from another similar object by some single attribute that is opposite to the other object's attribute (The right shoulder somewhat lower; The new chairman prefers the old one); 3) one object standing out from many other objects of the same kind by some specific, individual attribute that is generally not characteristic of all objects of that kind (Once this was a sacred place, an altar stood here and the eternal flame The striped sacks leave for the grain, and pour turnips into the plain ones). More precisely, the ways of distinguishing objects are listed and illustrated with examples in the subsection on distinguishing modifiers, while the subsection on kind-denoting modifiers merely states that they define objects in the same ways as distinguishing modifiers, except that kind is less often indicated by the first method and most often by the third, and provides examples of kind-denoting modifiers: 1) To run across a few furrows, she would soon plant early potatoes; Gailius has been coughing since the slanktas, since a nasty cough; 2) Big chamomile flowers are no good, the small ones (chamomile) smell fragrant; One needs a rounded nopielnykas; 3) Sweet onions; Red potatoes do not rot; Red clover. As can be seen, the difference between the examples illustrating distinguishing modifiers and kind-denoting modifiers is small; as just mentioned, A. Valeckienė also points this out. If the difference is indeed slight, then this classification would lead to the assumption that both subtypes of intermediate meaning—distinguishing modifiers and kind-denoting modifiers—should exhibit the same tendencies. Nevertheless, other works draw a distinction between distinguishing and indicating kind: in the former case, the difference between ĮF and NF is small and can be eliminated through intonation and contextual elements, so in many cases the forms can be freely chosen to convey the same information; in terminology, however, ĮF are something else—they serve the specific purpose of indicating an object's kind-defining attribute (Paulauskienė, Tarvydaitė 1986: 137). It would follow that indicating kind is more essential than the distinguishing meaning carried by definite forms, although A. Valeckienė identifies the same ways of distinguishing objects by an attribute for both distinguishing and kind-denoting modifiers.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 18

Tokio skirtumo darymo priežasčių irgi galima ieškoti A. Valeckienės (1957) atliktame vartosenos tyrime. Remdamasi senaisiais raštais kalbininkė galiausiai padarė išvadą, kad rūšiniai pažyminiai yra tolesnės išskiriamųjų pažyminių raidos rezultatas – išskiriamoji reikšmė rutuliojosi apibendrinimo ir kartu stipresnės determinacijos linkme. Padaryta ir tokia išvada, kad apibrėžiamoji reikšmė dabartinėje kalboje tampa pagrindinė, o pabrėžiamoji nyksta. Nebent tai leistų paaiškinti rūšinės ypatybės žymėjimui teikiamą didesnę svarbą, o ir spėti, kad rūšies žymėjimas ĮF turbūt laikomas perspektyviu kalbos raidos polinkiu, todėl, šiaip jau ĮF funkcijoms dylant, jį kaip visuotinį principą linkstama perkelti į terminiją.

This assumption would seem to be confirmed by the changes in the recommendations for using ĮF in terminology discernible in Aldona Paulauskienė’s works. In a work she prepared with a co-author in 1986, the conclusion regarding terminology is still expressed with some hesitation: “In cases where a word’s terminological function is clear, it might perhaps be better to use the pronominal form, but in other cases free competition between forms should probably be recognized.” (Paulauskienė, Taryvdaitė 1986: 138). It is true that in a 1994 publication, after listing the meanings assigned to pronominal adjectives by traditional grammar, adjectives expressing a type in the terminological sense are singled out as least likely to follow the general tendency not to use ĮF; however, it is also added: “one need not be a terminologist to notice the tendency to use the simple form instead of the pronominal form” (Paulauskienė 1994: 224). The necessity of using ĮF in terminology is not defined. By 2001, however, a rule allowing no exceptions is formulated: when forming two-word terms, “the rule must be followed: if an adjective or some other word can have a pronominal form, then only the pronominal form is appropriate in terminology, without any exceptions.” (Paulauskienė 2001: 204). The attempt to substantiate the rule would suggest that ĮF are now recommended in terminology not because of their inherent ability to mark a type, but because they can convey all possible meanings: “The main purpose of forming the pronominal form is to emphasize, define, and distinguish. Therefore, pronominal adjectives or adjectivized participles are very suitable for terminology, which is characterized by definiteness and distinction from other analogous things.” (Paulauskienė 2001: 204). This statement would also confirm that it is probably in terminology that the potential of an opposition otherwise tending toward neutralization is discerned. At the same time, however, another criterion is mentioned—the norm-setting tradition: “This kind of term formation is already traditional, established, and codified, even though a non-pronominal form can also indicate a type.” (Paulauskienė 2001: 204). Of course, the attempt presented here to determine the basis of the norm is merely the author of this article’s interpretation, since the norm is usually not argued for directly.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 19

Direct arguments can be found in perhaps the only article by A. Kaulakienė. It states that consistent use of ĮF “would help make terminology systematic, which usually reflects the relationship between the corresponding concepts. On the other hand, it would make it possible to avoid variation, which is undesirable in terminological dictionaries” (Kaulakienė 1973: 30–31). It would follow that the basis for the norm requiring obligatory marking in a term is the pursuit of systematicity. The validity of the other argument—that not using ĮF in terminological dictionaries runs counter to the already established use of pronominal adjectives—could be assessed only by examining usage at that time (around 1973). In A. Kaulakienė’s article, the principle is proposed for universal application: that is, terms with an adjective as a dependent constituent must obligatorily be marked with ĮF both in texts and in collections of terms. Thus, it would follow that in the studies examined, type marking, perceived mainly as a strong tendency in usage and directly and indirectly associated with cases of neutralization, should become a universal principle in terminology, as envisaged by terminological motivations, namely the principle of terminological systematicity. Nevertheless, works on terminology also express certain reservations about the necessity of ĮF. For instance, K. Gaivenis (1975), who first undertook a more systematic discussion of complex two-word terms, mentioned among their possible grammatical configurations not only pronominal forms but also simple forms (“

(a disturbing factor, a falling source). In another article, he considered that it is often difficult in practice to determine whether a term requires ĮF, although these forms are generally needed in terminology (Gaivenis 1995: 8). And Stasys Keinys, noting that under the influence of terminology pronominal forms spread very rapidly, pushing simple forms out of usage, also stated explicitly that they are not needed, much less necessary, in all cases in terminology (Keinys 2004: 81). Nevertheless, the question of whether ĮF are necessary or unnecessary is not discussed separately in works on terminology.

The review presented suggests that the norm, seemingly stated clearly, is ambivalent. On the one hand, the use of ĮF in terminology is established as mandatory; however, even if this claim is based on the pursuit of systematicity, a tendency in the development of ĮF toward stronger determination, or other compelling arguments not discernible to the author of this article, such a norm is contradicted not only by descriptive but also by normative works’ classification of meanings. The fact that type marking is considered a subgroup of the distinguishing or defining meaning suggests that this subgroup should share the tendencies of its semantic group, for which various exceptions and cases of neutralization are envisaged, and factors are generally presented that constitute sufficiently compelling reasons not to use ĮF. On the other hand, the possibility of not using ĮF is envisaged by an exception directly associated with type marking (black and white bread), and most of the briefly

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 20

The formulations presented when discussing this semantic subgroup would suggest that the definite form (ĮF), as a species marker, should be quite optional. Therefore, a twofold norm can be discerned: one that asserts the obligatory marking of a term with the ĮF and one that treats such marking as essentially optional.

Tokių neaiškumų nekiltų, jei norminamuosiuose darbuose būtų aiškiai apibrėžiamas rūšies žymėjimo ir terminės vartosenos santykis, tačiau taip nėra. Iš kai kurių darbų galima spręsti, kad rūšies žymėjimas ĮF ir terminas yra tapatinami. Kalbos praktikos patarimuose (1976) tarp įvardžiuotinių žodžių vartojimo atvejų buvo minimas rūšinės daikto ypatybės žymėjimas, bet jis iliustruotas tokiais pavyzdžiais kaip valgomoji druska, trumposios bangos, siuvamoji, kuliamoji, kertamoji mašina, kombinuotieji pašarai ir kt. (KPP 1976: 114). Viename mokomajame leidinyje iš pradžių pasakoma, kad su įvardžiuotiniais būdvardžiais sudaromi įvairių mokslo sričių terminai (atviroji vagystė, viešoji tvarka, bendroji ieškinio tvarka, laisvoji ekonominė zona), o skiriant būdingiausius įvardžiuotinių būdvardžių vartojimo atvejus minimas jau tik ĮF vartojimas rūšinei daikto ypatybei reikšti ir pateikiama analogiškų pavyzdžių, pvz.: atskiroji nutartis, radioaktyviosios medžiagos, smulkusis verslas, viešasis administravimas (Kunevičienė 2003: 146). Tiesa, dabartinės morfologijos normas teikiančiuose Kalbos patarimuose skirtumą būtų galima įžvelgti: juose kaip taisyklė teikiamas būtinasis rūšies reiškimas terminuose, o kaip išimtis (juoda duona ir pan.) nurodoma šiaip rūšies reiškimui būdinga išimtis (KP 2002: 26). Tačiau DLKG, kuri irgi yra dabartinės morfologijos normas teikiantis leidinys, remiantis tokia išimtimi daroma išvada, kad tam tikrų būdvardžių paprastosios formos įsigalėjusios ir sudarant terminus. Jei iš tikrųjų ĮF prigimtinė galimybė žymėti rūšį pasitelkiama tik kaip terminams teikiamos normos pagrindas, terminijoje dėl jos keliamų sistemiškumo reikalavimų principą darant visuotinį, tai rūšies žymėjimo išimtys terminijai neturėtų būti taikomos.

Thus, if the norm requiring the use of the ĮF in terminology is based on anything at all, that basis is not sufficiently clear and is even confused in normative works. The lack of clarity about the basis, the failure to explain it, or the use of differing criteria in explanations, together with the possibility of interpretation arising from the classification of ĮF meanings, would make it difficult to assess whether usage conforms to a norm that might be based on any particular principle.

3. TRENDS IN USAGE IN COHERENT TEXTS

Any economics journal published online would suffice to establish the discrepancy between usage and the norm that treats the ĮF as an obligatory marker of terms. However, immediately

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 21

one must also mention a decisive limitation of this usage: language norms are clearly observed insufficiently, or not observed at all. Yet the linguistic quality of articles published in the same journal, or even in the same issue, varies. This suggests that the publications are not edited by language editors, that authors themselves are entrusted with arranging editing, and that they either enlist language editors of varying qualifications at their discretion or rely on their own language knowledge. The language of many economics journals also falls short, to varying degrees, of language norms; consequently, there is no ideal usage to select from. On the other hand, such actual usage also has one advantage: it better reveals the uncertainties faced by language users. In view of all these circumstances, a selection of texts is made: scientific articles that disregard the most basic language norms are excluded, while patterns in the non-use of the ĮF that emerge in the remaining articles are examined. In total, 60 publications printed between 2006 and 2016 were selected.

3.1. Uncertainties concerning the criterion and semantic boundary

It would be unjustified to regard every instance of variation in the form of a dependent element in a word combination used in a text as a disregard of the norm, since this is provided for in normative works. A general opposition between NF and ĮF can be realized on the basis of a single word combination; in grammars, this opposition is associated with the characteristic defining meaning of the ĮF or with the category of definiteness. DLKG states that the category of definiteness is formed by definite adjective forms in contrast with simple forms in the following way: the ĮF denotes a property of an object while also indicating that the object is known, whereas simple forms denote only a property of the object (DLKG 1997: 174). It is true that, as has already become clear from A. Valeckienė’s works and the classifications of meanings presented in LKG and DLKG, this opposition allows a known object to be indicated in different ways: by distinguishing it (the distinguishing meaning), by indicating a property of it known from before (the indicative meaning), and by marking its species. Thus, this opposition assumes that when species is expressed, the object will also be presented as known; however, it does not preclude presenting an object in the same text as unknown, simply as having one property or another.

Scientific texts provide a favorable environment for realizing an opposition anticipated not only by normative works but also by the grammatical system of the language. After all, concepts are often defined and explained in them, and defining or explaining a concept is an indication that the object is known. However, in defining or explaining those concepts, properties may also be mentioned that became the basis for forming the term denoting the concept. This is also evident in one scientific article

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 22

general overviews of the history of the market are provided: European integration is primarily associated with the creation and development of the market (Miniokas, 2003); therefore, the 1986 Single European Act discussed the creation of the common market. At that time, the need to create a common market, in which national borders would not impede economic activity, became even more apparent. The common market is defined as a form of economic integration between states characterized by the free movement of goods, capital, and people (Vilpišauskas, 2003)³ (EVAP 2007 1(8): 101). In the first two instances of the phrase common market, precisely such a shared characteristic is indicated which, as becomes clear from the third instance, then becomes the basis of the term denoting the concept. Describing this case using the norm formulations discussed above, one could argue that the characteristic expressed by the phrase common market is mentioned twice as a simple characteristic, and the third time as one that distinguishes the object. Applying other formulations found in normative works, the characteristic denoted by ĮF could be described not as accidental or temporary, but as permanent and essential. Applying the criterion for classifying the meanings of ĮF, the phrase common market would have to be regarded as an instance of indicating a type. Thus, whichever criterion mentioned in normative works for distinguishing ĮF from NF is applied in this case, all of them would prescribe the use of ĮF in the third instance, and all would agree.

In other cases, however, the question of the criterion becomes difficult. First, the context in which objects or phenomena are classified, or their types are simply mentioned, gives rise to such uncertainties. When distinguishing or mentioning types of things, the methods of distinguishing things associated with marking a type-specific characteristic would require things to be distinguished by characteristics that contrast with those of other things or are distinguished by their specificity; therefore, ĮF should be used. Such examples occur in usage, for instance: Pledged property may be divided into immovable and movable (T 2005 3(32): 17); According to the economic classification, government expenditure is divided into ordinary and extraordinary expenditure (EVAP 2015 2(37): 7); Learning is examined broadly in this context, encompassing both formal and informal as well as self-directed learning (VPA 2011 4(10): 634); Voluntary migration includes the following types of migration: temporary, circular, permanent, tourist, and seasonal (VPA 2014 1(13): 154). However, instances of NF use also occur quite often, for example: These measures are used to harmonize the visions of stakeholders at two levels: the local level (so-called “horizontal coordination”) and the governmental level (“vertical coordination”) (VPA 2013 4(12): 596). The names of the concepts denoted by the bolded phrases in the sentence are formed on the basis of the contrast between the characteristics of things; therefore, according to the criterion of expressing a type, their adjectival components should be used

³ The language of the illustrative sentences has not been edited.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 23

ĮF. The criterion of expressing a type would also encourage the use of ĮF in sentences such as The aim of regional policy is to develop the material and immaterial assets and potential (VPA 2013 1(12): 65), This includes formal and informal entrepreneurship education, training, as well as other business management training programs (VPA 2012 2(11): 223), the bolded adjectives, and especially in the sentence Migration is also differentiated by organizational nature into organized and institutionalized, independent, etc. (VPA 2014 1(13): 153), since the verb differentiate is used here, which allows types to be enumerated. However, if the criterion applied is specifically that of marking a type, rather than the unconditional use of ĮF in terms, then this may well be a case of neutralization associated with marking a type or with the use of ĮF generally: ĮF is not used because the objects are sufficiently distinguished by the specific meanings of the words being modified, the contrasts between types, and, finally, the semantic context and syntactic circumstances, which prevent ambiguity between marking a simple and a distinguishing characteristic.

If another criterion mentioned in normative works is applied—the contrast between a temporary conceptual characteristic and a permanent type-specific characteristic—then NF, too, would probably be entirely justifiable in these cases. After all, conceptual characteristics may be understood as temporary rather than permanent type-specific ones. Indeed, usage shows a tendency to use ĮF more consistently when classifying objects into already familiar, established types of things, such as movable and immovable property, and to show greater variation when distinguishing new types presented in just one article or another. There is often a tendency toward NF, and even the verbs distinguish, divide, differentiate, classify, group, as the examples show, do not deter speakers from choosing it. In sentences such as Thus, all residents can be treated as human resources, but they can be divided into actual (of working age, economically active) and potential (below working age, unemployed, pensioners who may be involved in various kinds of work) (T 2008 3(44): 2), Therefore, it is appropriate to divide all investors into three groups: conservative, rational, and aggressive (EVAP 2007 1(8) 52), another contributing factor is that such phrases, whose head word is omitted, are difficult to regard as terms. Thus, the uncertainties under discussion may arise from a lack of clarity about the criterion applicable in terminology or from the indirect presupposition of several criteria; however, even when following the criterion of unconditional term marking proposed in A. Kaulakienė’s article and adopted in many normative works, according to which terms must always be marked by ĮF in a text, such uncertainties would arise in these cases.

In other cases, too, texts contain circumstances that give rise to uncertainties, raise the question of the criterion, and even reveal a certain conflict between criteria. For example, in a text about

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 24

The discussion of sustainable development begins with the concept of sustainable development, and the adjectival component of the term denoting it is consistently used in the definite form (DF), e.g.: But if sustainable development is considered a policy, its implementation depends on the importance and significance of institutions and their competence; it is evident that sustainable development is related to democracy, human rights, and good governance practices (Dumitrache 2013) (MLA 2015 2(7): 190). However, this consistency is not maintained in certain sentences, e.g.: Sustainable development cannot be achieved without involving companies in this activity; Companies sustainable development can pursue it by using several models (MLA 2015 2(7): 192). In these instances, the use of the DF is probably precluded by the meaning of the verb functioning as the semantic component of the compound predicate ⁴—the object being sought is not definite. According to the classification presented in grammar studies, marking a generic property should in itself also entail definiteness, whereas something being created is not definite; perhaps this is why, even when the DF is chosen for a term and the principle is followed fairly consistently, an exception is made in such cases and the indefinite form (IF) is used. These exceptions, partly determined by the connection between the head of the word combination and verbs such as to create, to come into being, to emerge, to arise, to implement, to pursue, and the like, are also made in other publications, e.g.: The essential question is: how can we create a sustainable society or sustainable development? (TE 2008 1(2): 37); Globalists (hyperglobalists) define globalization as a new epoch in human history in which there emerges a single global market with global competition as the engine of progress (VSE 2011 3(12): 205); The administrative man <...>, although he cannot achieve absolute rationality, nevertheless strives for it (VPA 2012 2(11): 324). The choice of the IF is probably also encouraged by the verbs to use, to measure, since what is used with them is not a fixed word combination but one denoting an object characterized by a certain property, e.g.: Sets of indicators of this kind <...> are difficult to apply when measuring sustainable development in a company (MLA 2015 2(7): 193); In other words, the use of intangible assets does not reduce the quantity or size of the assets themselves (VSE 2014 2(4): 214).

Nevertheless, the adjectival components of word combinations in the IF are used not only in such exceptional cases but also when they can only constitute a component of a term, because the word combination names a concept or is directly related to a notion, e.g.: This leads to the conclusion that the concept of sustainable development is multifaceted and complex (MLA 2015 2(7): 190); The concept of a sustainable company is closely related to the concept of sustainable development as a notion (MLA 2015 2(7): 192). The IF in word combinations naming classifiable objects could also be explained as resulting from the application of the criterion of the transience or permanence of a concept’s property; some cases might even be regarded as assertions of properties, but when classified

⁴ DLKG tokie tariniai laikomi prijungiamaisiais žodžių junginiais (DLKG 1997: 508–509).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 25

objects are defined, it is already evident that the property is attributed to them as permanent, essential, and distinguishing them from other things; that the item denoted is known; that a particular class is being denoted; and that the word combination names a concept, and is therefore a term. Thus, whichever criterion is applied, they would all coincide, and the DF should be used. Nevertheless, this form is not always chosen, e.g.: Depending on their activities, funds are divided into open- and closed-ended funds. Open-ended investment funds have no fixed operating term. <...> Closed-ended investment funds have a fixed operating term (VSE 2011 1(1): 118); Active investment management is a management approach in which investment decisions are made based on forecasts of future trends. Passive investment management is a management approach that seeks to ensure that investment return and risk characteristics correspond to the return and risk of a particular market segment or index (VSE 2011 1(1): 118); In the scholarly literature, contemporary business groups are classified as having vertical and horizontal organizational structures. Vertical organizational structures are characteristic of business groups oriented toward supplier–manufacturer relationships, that is, “a set of companies linked by supplier–manufacturer relationships,” whereas horizontal are “related companies in different industries, similar in structure to conglomerates” (Lamin, 2007) (VSE 2012 2(2): 68).

In some cases, an attempt of sorts is made to draw a distinction: the adjectival component of a phrase naming a concept is used in ĮF, whereas NF is chosen when naming an object, especially one dependent on verbs such as measure, e.g.: To achieve the goal, the first step was to examine the concept of sustainable development, its problems, the interpretation of its dimensions, and levels of implementation, since only after clarifying the essence of the concept itself can specific sustainable developmentobjectives be set and measures for their implementation envisaged (MLA 2015 2(7): 190); When examining intangible assets, researchers encounter intangible assetidentification, measurement, and valuation problems (VSE 2014 2(4): 214–215). One might suppose here that a distinction is being made between a phrase with an object-related meaning and a term denoting a concept; however, the same texts also contain opposite cases, e.g.: The difficult-to-explain increase in productivity in the second half of the twentieth century can be considered the beginning of research into intangible assets. Nevertheless, the significant increase in productivity at that time was explained by higher-quality human resources and technological progress, without yet specifically linking it to intangible assets (VSE 2014 2(4): 214–215). Such cases would indicate not systematic exceptions, but rather that probably none of the criteria mentioned in normative works is known, or that the boundary is unclear between distinguishing and ordinary property marking, between naming permanent and temporary properties, and, especially, between marking a kind-specific property and a term. Perhaps that is why

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 26

The usage under examination also contains a considerable number of examples that could be associated not with any regularities or factors, but rather with what A. Paulauskienė described as a lack of sensitivity to sound and insensitivity to pronominal adjectives, e.g.: A transitional economy today is understood as a transition from centralized market management to a free market. Many countries seeking to move to a free economy transitioned from a free economy to a regulated one. <...> The transition to a free market begins with privatization, since privatization creates the opportunity to own property (VSE 2012 1(2): 62); In countries with primitive economies, most investment consists of real investments (investments in physical assets), whereas in the modern economic system, it consists of financial investments. Real assets measure a country's economic wealth, while financial assets represent rights to real assets (Bodie, Kane, 2008). The development of financial investment institutions has a strong effect on the growth of real investments, and these two forms generally complement rather than compete with each other (EV 2010 15: 178).

The cases discussed are mostly associated with uncertainties that may arise in usage because of an undefined criterion or the conflation of criteria. However, scholarly articles also reveal instances of pronominal-form non-use that could most readily be associated with the vagueness of the semantic boundary separating pronominal forms from non-pronominal forms and, consequently, with the difficulty of identifying that boundary. For example, the context below suggests that in many cases the adjectives material, -; immaterial, - describe an object rather than indicate a distinctive property or denote a type; in such a context, the phrase material property, which is otherwise established as a term, differs little from them, e.g.: Trade is traditionally understood as trade in tangible goods—that is, goods with a physical form—(material) goods, excluding electricity, water and gas when they have not been prepared for sale in a limited volume or specified quantity. The Council of the European Union’s Directive (2006), “On the common system of value added tax,” defines “goods” as tangible property. Under this directive, “goods means any object.” It should also be noted, however, that the United States and Japan also include goods of intangible origin in the category of goods. Goods of intangible origin (English: digital goods) began to be sold by trading companies when it became possible to sell (i.e., order and deliver) goods online. Goods in intangible form include goods that until then had a tangible form in traditional trade (examples include music, games and books) (Diorio, 2001). The main difference is that in the European Union, goods of intangible origin are nevertheless classified as services (VSE 2013 2(3): 235). The particularly frequent use of the adjectives formal, -; informal, -; legal, -; illegal, -; official, -; unofficial, - as non-pronominal forms (NF)

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 27

The use probably also reflects the blurring of the semantic boundary, which creates uncertainty in usage, for example: As relations between the state and society become more complex and less clearly defined, formal and informal forms of this interaction become more flexible and universal (VPA 2013 3(12): 381); illegal work statistical information from the institutions monitoring it reveals that the scale of illegal work has recently been increasing. In 2012 three times more cases of illegal work were recorded than during the same period in 2011; Illegal work is often referred to by different names. Terms such as “black work,” “undeclared work,” “informal employment,” “informal work,” “hidden unemployment,” and many other terms are used to describe this paradoxical phenomenon (VPA 2014 4(13): 660); B. Martinkus et al. believe that one of the reasons for the emergence of the phenomenon of illegal work is the absence of official work (VPA 2014 4(13): 661); It should also be borne in mind that migration may distort any per capita data in these countries, and is recorded in official statistics with a delay (MLA 2010 2(2) 15).

There is also little difference in meaning between the phrases open economy and open economy, common market and common market, free trade and free trade, free market and free market, mixed economy and mixed economy, perfect competition and perfect competition , and so on. Although they are usually included in economics glossaries as terms with pronominal forms, non-pronominal forms are particularly common in usage. The contexts suggest that these phrases’ pronominal forms have probably failed to become established because they are more akin to phrases denoting a simple property of an object. For example, the phrases in the following sentences could be considered instances of stating a simple property: Specialization and free exchange create conditions for innovation and for growth in efficiency and the well-being of all parties involved (ŽŪM 2009 3–4(16): 185); The process of transition to a free market was expected to fulfil the population’s aspirations to attain the standard of living of Western European countries (VSE 2016 2(1): 63); If perfect competition existed in the real world, strategies aimed at market positioning would be ineffective (MLA 2009 3(1): 35); Mitigating the effects of the five competitive forces and applying generic strategies are justified in market structures characterized by imperfect competition : open monopoly, monopolistic competition and oligopoly (MLA 2009 3(1): 36–37). Of course, in these cases, or at least in some of them, the context would allow the use of pronominal forms as well, but the difference in meaning would be slight, while the pronominal forms are longer. On the other hand, the same texts often contain contexts in which a phrase denoting a simple property might seem more appropriate, e.g.: The study voucher model introduces free competition in the higher education sector (VPA 2012 2(11): 269); Free trade is particularly important for small, open economies such as Lithuania (ŽŪM 2009 3–4(16): 185).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 28

Nevertheless, the essence of a term entails a requirement of uniformity, including in its formal expression, and it is precisely this requirement that may encourage the use of a word combination with uniform formal expression throughout the text.

All these uncertainties arising in usage, the small difference in meaning between definite forms (ĮF) and indefinite forms (NF), and the requirement for uniformity in term form may encourage the tendency opposed to formal variation—namely, formal uniformity. In the usage under consideration, there are examples in which a uniform formal expression is chosen in a text not only when denoting a simple property, but also when a concept is explicitly named by a word combination and linked to a conception, understanding, or method; specifically, the indefinite form (NF), e.g.: In scholarly works, sustainable development is understood and defined in very different ways sustainable development. <...> In various countries, theoretical and practical aspects of sustainable development are analyzed (TE 2008 1(2): 37); In summary, it can be stated that the scale effect demonstrates the potential for combining elements of a centrally planned economy and a market economy in a mixed economic system, while the analysis of the proposed competitive mixed economic system (economic) model not only confirms this, but also reveals the prerequisites for the competitive advantages of private business (EV 2009 14: 854); When revaluing an asset, its fair value must be determined on the basis of an active market. An active market is a market in which an asset meets the stated conditions (EVAP 2013 4(32): 13). The indefinite form (NF) is more versatile—it suits circumstances in which the context more strongly encourages, or at least permits, the choice to state a property. On the other hand, if a word combination names a concept that is defined, explained, or classified in the text, or if the adjective–noun combination is used to name a conception, theory, concept, or method, that alone makes it recognizable as a term. An additional morphological marker is no longer necessary. Moreover, frequent repetition in the text also signals a word combination's status as a term. Thus, there is almost no possibility of ambiguity arising in scholarly texts, especially since, as we can see, in many cases the difference in meaning between definite and indefinite forms is small.

3.2. The word-origin factor

Some examples of the usage under consideration would suggest that Lithuanian and international words are treated somewhat differently in it, although no prescriptive publication draws such a distinction. It is true that irregular use of ĮF with words of foreign origin is briefly mentioned in one place (Paulauskienė, Tarvydaitė 1986: 139).

The differing treatment of words of Lithuanian and non-Lithuanian origin is suggested above all by cases in which both words occur in a word combination linked by a syntactic relation of equal status,

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 29

but one uses the definite form, the other the indefinite form, e.g.: Unconventionally, assessments also take into account public-private partnerships principles, their content and significance in results-oriented cultural management. At the end of the 15th century, relationships based on public- and private-sector business models grew markedly stronger. However, when analyzing problematic aspects of cultural management, efforts to ensure the effectiveness of public-private partnerships (PPP) in culture can be distinguished (VPA 2010 32: 62); theories of absolute and comparative advantage challenged mercantilism (ŽŪM 2009: 3–4(16): 185); A company's liquidity can be assessed in various ways, but the most commonly used indicators are: current liquidity, critical liquidity, absolute liquidity and the company's net working capital (MLA 2016 2(8): 193). Moreover, the forms of Lithuanian and international words differ when they are not linked in a sentence by a direct syntactic relationship, e.g.: Advocates of a smaller public sector maintain that a higher share of government expenditure in gross domestic product harms the economy and its development, because the state reallocates additional resources from the efficient sector of the economy, which includes the private sector, to the public sector (EVAP 2015 2(37): 7); A country has a comparative advantage if it can produce products (goods) at a relatively lower cost, that is, with lower opportunity costs than its trading partner and trade them freely (ŽŪM 2009: 3–4(16): 185).

Apskritai tokie nelietuviškos kilmės būdvardžiai kaip absoliutus, –i; efektyvus, –i; maksimalus, –i; minimalus, –i; modernus, –i; nominalus, –i; optimalus, –i; potencialus, –i; privatus, –i; racionalus, –i, realus, –i šio tyrimo objektu pasirinktuose moksliniuose straipsniuose dažniausiai vartojami NF, pvz.: Šie svarstymai reikšmingi apskaičiuojant minimalias kapitalo sąnaudas, t. y. siekiant maksimalios įmonės vertės ir kartu racionalios kapitalo struktūros (EVAP 2011 2(22): 88); Iš visų neoklasikinių modelių, skaidomų pagal tobulos ir netobulos kapitalo rinkos veiksnius, esant tobulos kapitalo rinkos prielaidoms, labiausiai paminėtinos optimalios kapitalo struktūros tezės yra optimalaus įsiskolinimo laipsnio teorija ir kapitalo struktūros nustatymas pagal Modigliani ir Miller (1958) teoremą (EVAP 2008 4(13): 76); Krizė – tai žemiausia potencialaus nacionalinio produkto atžvilgiu ekonominio ciklo stadija (MLA 2016 2(8): 163); Lietuvos ekonomika buvo viena sparčiausiai augančių pasaulyje, nes realus BVP augimas siekė net 10,3 proc. (EVAP 2009 1(14): 169); Primityvios ekonomikos šalyse didžiąją investicijų dalį sudaro realios investicijos (investicijos į fizinį turtą), o šiuolaikinėje ekonominėje sistemoje – finansinės investicijos (EV 2010 15: 178); Čia skiriamas: realus kapitalas – mašinos, pastatai, įrengimai, nominalus kapitalas – piniginis (EVAP 2008 4(13): 72).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 30

In these cases, the factors that encourage the choice of Lithuanian adjectival NF are also highly influential: the similarity between such word combinations and combinations that denote a quality; the circumstances that often arise in a text, in which one can indicate both a thing’s quality and use a term; the small difference between ĮF and NF, or the difficulty of distinguishing this semantic boundary; and the unclear basis and criterion for using ĮF in terminology. All this had already become apparent in Section 3.1, where the usage tendencies of the words formal, informal; legal, illegal; material, immaterial; official, unofficial were mentioned. However, NF is used for all these and other international words even when they can be regarded only as constituent parts of terms, since these word combinations denote theories, methods, concepts, hypotheses, and even terms, e.g.: Modern Portfolio Theory was greatly influenced in its development by the work of H. Markowitz, which focused on finding an efficient portfolio. H. Markowitz was the first to propose the term efficient portfolio. An efficient portfolio is described as a portfolio that has the lowest risk for a given return, or the highest return for a given level of risk (EVAP 2007 1(8): 52); Another theory in the structural approach to competition—the efficient-structure hypothesis—argues that the positive relationship between profitability and market concentration arises not from market power (TE 2008 1(2): 103); Cumulative causation theory emphasizes the feedback effects of migration on both individual motivation and social and economic structures (VSE 2013 1(3): 110).

When classifying objects or phenomena and naming their types, international words used as dependent constituents of terms are also often used in the indefinite form, even when they have become fairly well established, e.g.: Quite reasonably, when assessing the economic activity of state forest enterprises, the VKC applies not nominal price, but the discounted cash flow method (ŽŪM 2016 2(23): 89); The dependence of cost levels on production volume determines the horizontal and vertical limits to a company's growth. The horizontal limit is understood in two ways: as the output volume of a single product <...> and as the variety of goods within a single company <...>. The vertical limit is associated not only with economies of scale within the company but also with external economies of scale (TE 2007 2(1): 32); According to Ferreiro et al. (2009), productive government expenditure is defined as expenditure that complements private-sector production and generates a positive external effect for private-sector firms, positively affecting the marginal productivity of capital and labor. Unproductive expenditure also generates welfare in a country, but its effects often impede economic growth (EVAP 2015 2(37): 11); P. Sanchez, J. E. Ricart (2010) presented two configurations of business models that can be applied in low-income-generating markets: 1. Isolated business models, based on an exploitation strategy, with the aim of

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 31

the firm’s own resources and capabilities to achieve efficiency. 2. Interactive business models, based on an exploration strategy (TE 2016 1(10): 179).

The choice of the ĮF forms of the words maximum, minimum, optimal may also be encouraged by a factor such as neutralization, mentioned not only in descriptive but also in prescriptive works. It is true that these works mention only a tendency to avoid the ĮF of Lithuanian adjectives in the superlative degree, and do not directly connect this with terminology; however, as shown, the classification of ĮF meanings presented in grammars, together with the uncertainty surrounding the relationship between denoting a distinguishing quality and a term, allows for the possibility of an indirect connection. In usage, this may be interpreted as an opportunity not to mark morphologically the non-Lithuanian equivalents of superlative adjectives either. In the usage under consideration, Lithuanian superlative adjectives that are part of terms are also sometimes left unmarked, e.g.: The β parameter vector is estimated using the maximum likelihood (MLA 2016 2(8): 194); The parameters of each equation (econometric model) were estimated using the least squares method (MTS 2010 2(23): 54).

ĮF are often omitted with other adjectives of non-Lithuanian origin as well, for example: Persons working with individual activity certificates pay VSD and PSD contributions 1.5 times higher (EVAP 2015 2(37): 27); The lack of managerial support and incentives for implementing innovative changes in the organization is considered the least important (EVAP 2013 3(31): 29); Global economy and international openness mean that there is not a single developed country that has not declared increasing competitiveness one of the main priorities of its economic policy (EVAP 2015 2(37): 39); This definition makes it possible to clearly understand the impact of current assets, cash flows, liquid assets on the size of a company's assets and value (MLA 2016 2(8): 194); The other two statistically significant dummy variables were intended to incorporate the 2008 financial crisis into the model (TE 2012 2(6): 183); Rational capital structure theoretical research makes it possible to distinguish in modern financing theory two elementary research areas (EVAP 2008 4(13): 73); The inaction of fundamental factors is then already observable, and understanding the causes of expectations and the behavior of future consumers becomes relevant (VSE 2012 1(2): 66).

Many international words enter economic terminology through the translation of terms from English, where ĮF is not used. This factor would first encourage the tendency, also evident in coherent texts, to omit the ĮF of international words to be associated with direct translation, that is, the influence of English. However, this factor most likely operates together with all those mentioned so far. NF is also more universal and shorter. A particularly important factor may be that, in scholarly texts, an international word is often associated with a term and may itself perform the function that

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 32

Normative works distinguish ĮF, i.e., to mark a term. On the other hand, international words usually also have a specific lexical meaning. When the difference in meaning between NF and ĮF is small, no ambiguity arises. As the cases discussed would indicate, circumstances do arise in which either an ordinary or a distinguishing feature, either a temporary or a permanent one, may be marked. And if a phrase containing such a dependent element is repeated frequently and/or the concept it denotes is defined or classified in the text, then the morphological marker established in normative works—ĮF—may simply be redundant in scholarly texts.

3.3. Non-use of pronominal forms of participles

In the usage under examination, there is a marked tendency to avoid not only adjective but also participial inflected forms, especially those formed from international words. It can be seen that they tend to be avoided when a participle, particularly a past-tense participle, denotes a feature arising from a passive action and generalized as characteristic of an object (discounted cash flows, fixed interest rate, consolidated budget, qualified work, qualified employee, qualified workforce, monopolized market, covered bonds, balanced growth, balanced budget, interested party, fixed-term contract, etc.), e.g.: Consolidated budgetstructure is presented in Figure 1 (MLA 2014 1(6): 51); the most widely used incentive measure in practice in the European Union is the fixed-tariffincentive measure (VPA 2014 2(13): 260); Another factor determining foreign direct investment is a qualified workforce (MLA 2(8): 215); The fifth aspect is the contribution of stakeholders (VPA 2007 22: 12); Research shows that even employees working under fixed-term employment contractshave greater opportunities for promotion at work if they work full time (VPA 2013 4(12): 546).

Pronominal forms are also not used for present-tense passive participles denoting properties associated with a generalized action, for example: Studies conducted showed that the capital structure of listed companies in the Baltic countries differs from the capital structure of companies in developed countries (EV 2010 15: 177); Disposable income is one of the factors that most strongly influences personal consumption (EVAP 2012 3(27): 13).

When clear contrasts in voice are expressed, pronominal forms of active participles are also sometimes avoided, for example: Orders required to ensure the effective parent company’s operations enabled the successful operation of subsidiaries meeting the needs of the parent company, while covering fixed costs of the parent

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 33

orders made it possible to provide services at competitive prices to external users (VSE 2012 2(2): 75).

ĮF neįgyja ir lietuvišką šaknį turintys dalyviai, nors toks polinkis ir retesnis, pvz.: Mokslininkų teigimu, besimokanti ekonomika – tai tokia ekonomika, kurioje individų, įmonių ir regionų sėkmę atspindi sugebėjimas mokytis (ir pamiršti senus įpročius) (VPA 2014 3(13): 635); Besimokanti organizacija sukuria tokią mokymosi aplinką, kurioje nuolat įgyjamas vis naujas supratimas tiek individų, tiek kolektyviniu lygmeniu (VPA 2014 3(13): 636); Pelno sąvoka suprantama kaip nuosavo kapitalo ir vidinės palūkanų normos sandaugos suma su skolintu kapitalu ir skirtumo tarp vidinės palūkanų normos bei skolinto kapitalo kaštų normos sandauga (EVAP 2008 4(13): 74); Pajamos yra neapmokestinamos, jei per metus jų dydis neviršija metiniam neapmokestinamam minimumui taikyti nustatytos ribos (VPA 2006 15: 48). Tik NF yra įsigalėję terminai besivystanti šalis (ekonomika, rinka) ir išsivysčiusi šalis (ekonomika, rinka), pvz.: Verslo grupių yra tiek išsivysčiusiose, tiek besivystančios ekonomikos šalyse (VSE 2012 2(2): 65); Taip pat nagrinėjama besivystančių ir išsivysčiusių kapitalo rinkų sąveika (VPA 2012 2(11): 142). Dar NF vartojami reikiamybės dalyviai, tik jų šios srities terminijoje nėra daug, pvz.: Pagrindiniai likvidumo kintamieji, turintys įtakos įmonės vertės dydžiui yra: atsargos, pinigai ir jų ekvivalentai, gautinos sumos (trumpalaikis turtas) ir atidėjimai, mokėtinos sumos bei paskolos ir kiti įsipareigojimai (trumpalaikiai įsipareigojimai) (MLA 2016 2(8): 194).

Thus, all participles used in definite forms—both Lithuanian words and words of non-Lithuanian origin—have fairly typical meanings, that is, they describe permanent, generalized properties characteristic of an object and associated with an action taking place in the present or having taken place in the past. The meanings of these forms and their definite-form counterparts differ very little; according to the norm that a term must be marked by a morphological indicator, the definite-form counterpart could primarily indicate that the phrase has the status of a term. Perhaps the indistinctness of the semantic boundary, the resulting uncertainty, and ultimately the leveling of forms explain why definite forms are used not only in the sentence Chaebol – these are family-controlled, diversified business groups, which have been both praised and criticized in the scholarly literature (VSE 2012 2(2): 72), where the syntactic context determines that a simple property is being stated, but also in the sentence In summary, like other family-controlled diversified business groups, chaebol combine the advantages and disadvantages of family ownership and control (VSE 2012 2(2): 78), where a definite form indicating a distinguishing meaning or kind could already be used. For the reasons mentioned, uniform forms are likely chosen in sentences such as Drug distribution by an organized group – this is

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 34

widespread crime, supported by economic and operational resources and very often linked to international connections and Therefore, the distribution of narcotic substances while acting as a organized group may spread to such an extent that it poses a direct threat to the peace and physical security of all residents or a large proportion of them (VPA 2013 1(12): 143–144), although in the first sentence the phrase organized group is mentioned in the text for the first time and could be a case where the definite form is denied as a statement of a characteristic, whereas in the next sentence it could already designate a known kind of thing and therefore be used in the definite form. Nevertheless, these ambiguities are apparently not the only factor. The participial form itself can indicate a characteristic feature of an object, and the word often has a specific lexical meaning; thus, the definite form as an indicator becomes unnecessary, especially since it makes the word longer and less convenient to use, while essentially adding no distinction in meaning. Not only as an indicator of a kind but also as a term marker, such a form often becomes nonfunctional in scholarly texts, since, as shown, the status of a term in this type of text is also indicated by many other means, such as the phrase’s association with a definition, its frequent repetition, and its specific meaning. When the participle is a word of non-Lithuanian origin, that too serves as a term marker; this is probably why definite forms of active or passive participles of non-Lithuanian origin are particularly uncommon. The characteristics of the usage under examination may also contribute considerably: it is especially rich in terms whose dependent or even head constituent is a word of non-Lithuanian origin.

Of course, this tendency emerging in usage, like the other tendencies discussed, is not universal. Variation occurs across texts, within texts, and at the level of word combinations; thus, the definite form (ĮF) is also used, for example: In the first case, the distribution of market income received is analyzed <...>, whereas in the second, it is the disposable income, after taxes and social benefits (EVAP 2015 1(36): 20); The managers of these new companies were among the parent company's managers and shareholders (VSE 2012 2(2): 75); The most important aspect of the external environment in the context of a social enterprise is stakeholders. Stakeholdersare segments of society that may not be directly affected by the organization, yet its activities may affect them (VSE 2013 2(3): 217).

Nevertheless, one particular group of participles stands out in terms of usage tendencies: Lithuanian-origin participles with various atypical shades of meaning (instrument, location or time of an action, etc.) are used only in the definite form (ĮF), for example: The largest share of public expenditure (about 30 percent) consists of current expenditure (EVAP 2015 2(37): 9); Lithuania is no different from other transition economies countries (VSE 2012 2(2): 82); Pension system reforms in EU member states should promote funded supplementary voluntary pension schemes operating on this basis (VPA 2006 17: 67); To this end, it is necessary to follow a currency portfolio strategy that maximizes the portfolio's purchasing

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 35

power at a certain point in the future or allows the selection of a maximum purchasing power value over a certain period (VTP 2006 1(7): 56).

3.4. Distinguishing function

ĮF vartojimas terminuose gerokai įvairuoja, tačiau tam tikrų terminų vartojamos tik ĮF. Nagrinėjamoje vartosenoje nerasta NF pavartoto būdvardžio žodžių junginyje žmogiškasis kapitalas, nors DLKG ir nurodomas vartosenos polinkis priesagos -iškas, -a vedinių ĮF nežymėti. Iš tekstų aiškėja, kad šiam būdvardžiui tokia išimtis nedaroma, pvz.: Išryškėjo ir kiti naujųjų ir senųjų ES valstybių piliečių požiūrio į žmogiškąjį kapitalą skirtumai (T 2012 3(60): 215); Įvairiais tyrimais įrodyta, kad žmogiškasis kapitalas yra pagrindinis įvairių šalių pajamų ir gerovės svyravimo šaltinis (VSE 2014 1(4): 90). Jokio­mis sintaksinėmis aplinkybėmis NF nevartojamas ir sudėtinio termino žmogiškieji ištekliai būdvardis, pvz.: Žmogiškieji ištekliai visada buvo svarbūs valstybių ir tautų raidai (T 2011 1(54): 11); Didžiausiu barjeru inovacijų diegimo ir plėtros procese respondentai laiko finansinių ir žmogiškųjų išteklių trūkumą viešosiose organizacijose (EVAP 2013 3(31): 29).

Other derivatives with the suffixes -iškas, -a, as provided for by the exception allowing definite forms to mark kinds, are often used in the indefinite form, for example: Self-directed learning is a learning system in which many aspects of the learning process are controlled by the learner (VPA 2008 26: 100); Voluntary activity as an unpaid activity for society is an area of growing interest (OV 2012 64: 106).

Tik ĮF terminuose vartojamas būdvardis grynas, -a, pvz.: Grynųjų investicijų kitimo rodikliai parodo šalies ekonomikos būseną tam tikrame ekonomikos cikle (MLA 2016 2(8): 167); Atliekant ekonominį projektų vertinimą, jeigu įmanoma, siekiama nustatyti ekonominę vidinę grąžos normą ir grynąją dabartinę vertę (ŽŪM 2013 1(20): 65). O ir būdvardis viešas, -a beveik visada įgyja įvardžiuotinę formą, pvz.: Šiuolaikinis viešasis valdymas yra itin sudėtingas reiškinys, nulemtas globalių pokyčių, suponuojančių viešojo valdymo reformų, viešųjų institucijų modernizavimo būtinumą (EVAP 2013 3(31): 22); Laikydami komunalinių paslaugų ir viešųjų gėrybių teikimo sektorių itin saugiu, finansiniai investuotojai skolino reikalingus verslo grupių plėtrai kapitalo srautus už mažesnę nei priimta rinkoje rizikos premiją (VSE 2012 2(2): 77).

Although the adjective bendras, -a ‘gross’ is often used in the indefinite form as well, in phrases such as gross domestic product, gross national product, aggregate supply, aggregate

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 36

demand, general costs, and others were found only in the definite form in the texts examined, e.g.: The basis of these accounts is gross domestic product (GDP), which describes the country's actual annual economic indicators and shows the rate of economic growth (EVAP 2009 1(14): 167); A. Okun (1962), having analyzed data on the unemployment rate and gross national product (GNP) fluctuations in the United States during 1953–60, empirically established that there is a regular negative relationship between actual GNP and potential GNP as a percentage, and between the gap between actual and natural unemployment rates (EV 209 14: 140); Thus, the greatest influence on general costsis exerted by the interest rate (MLA 2012 3(4): 255). Only the definite form is used for the dependent constituent of the phrase third countries, e.g.: Restrictions may be applied to exports or imports in trade with third countries (T 2011 4(57): 97); This was partly influenced by the change in the trade regime with third countrieswhen Lithuania joined the EU (ŽŪM 2009 3–4 (16): 187).

In one article, only definite forms are used for the dependent components of the phrases smart economy and smart city, e.g.: In the latest scholarly and applied literature and strategic documents, the concept of smart economy (English: smart economy) is increasingly encountered, and is used in contexts of various kinds: in developing a smart city, developing the economy, carrying out strategic planning, and emphasizing (promoting) the distinctiveness of cities. The smart economy is one of the components of a smart city, so it is natural that scholarly and applied literature focuses primarily on the concept of the smart city (VPA 2014 3(13): 270). In other terms used in this article, whose principal component is also economy, the adjectival components reject definite forms, even when those terms are defined or explained, e.g.: In the scholarly literature, networked economy is most often associated with the spread of the internet and its use in economic processes and everyday life; An innovative economy is based on direct and feedback links between science, production, and staff training (VPA 2014 3(13): 473).

As the examples show, the indefinite-form counterparts of all terms used only in the definite form would have an entirely different meaning or would even be semantically meaningless. Thus, the consistency that stands out amid variable usage indicates that, contrary to what the codified norm prescribes, the definite form tends to be used to distinguish a term not from every indefinite-form counterpart, but only from one that has an obvious difference in meaning. This tendency would be understandable, since a term's status in a scholarly text is also indicated by many other markers discussed above. On the other hand, Section 2.2 noted that one of the arguments put forward in support of the norm

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 37

is the aim of avoiding ambiguity; from this perspective, then, the norm is not contradicted, but is interpreted in a particular way.

The distinguishing function could also explain the use of definite forms in relatively consistent Lithuanian expressions with passive participles that convey nuances of meaning such as instrument, manner, or time, e.g.: Distributive justice (cf. distributed justice) was the first component of justice to which researchers paid attention (OV 2012 64: 42); Therefore, the social and economic role of taxes is fulfilled by the following main functions described below: regulatory and redistributive (cf. redistributed) (MLA 2015 2(7): 247); The food and beverage manufacturing industry is one of the largest branches of manufacturing (cf. manufactured industry) in Lithuania (ŽŪM 2009 1–2(16): 77); A fixed tariff and a long incentive period (cf. incentivized period) reduces financial risk (VPA 2014 2(13): 261); The annual reports of investment fund management companies publish two indicators that are linked to comparative indices (cf. compared index) (MLA 2011 4(3): 6); As in previous periods, the relatively poorest indicators were those for the quality of the consumer loan portfolio (VSE 2012 2(2): 86). In these cases, the indefinite forms (NF) of the participles would give the phrases a strong object-related nuance, making such phrases semantically meaningless in scholarly texts. The definite forms of participles with typical meanings do not perform such an important distinguishing function, so their use varies more, and the indefinite form is often chosen as the general option. The definite forms of Lithuanian adjectives, and especially of adjectives of non-Lithuanian origin, also lack an obvious distinguishing meaning. This, together with a range of other factors, apparently also leads to freer use of the definite form and its frequent replacement by the simple form. Among this group of adjectives, common, pure, and public stand out in usage tendencies, but this too may be explained by a distinguishing function: texts in the field of economics often use phrases that directly denote amounts, such as total amount, overall indicator, total profit, total value, or the like, e.g.: It is costly and difficult to invest small sums of money, but the total amount of moneypooled by people becomes sufficiently large (VSE 2011 1(1): 116); It is important to assess not only the condition of individual factors, but also how important they are to overall competitiveness, and what effect financial resources have on each factor (VSE 2013 2(3): 268). Thus, using the same form both for a phrase denoting an amount and for a term would risk creating ambiguity. Ambiguity in this field could often also arise if the definite forms of the adjectives public and pure were not used.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 38

4. CONTEXT-FREE USAGE

It would be difficult to determine how much dictionaries of terms influence the usage under discussion, especially since there is a wide selection not only of such dictionaries but also of various terminology databases. Nevertheless, given the specific nature of the field of economics, it could be assumed that the interaction works both ways. Since the discipline of economics in Lithuania has undergone a transformation only relatively recently, a large part of its terminology had to be created anew and, as can be seen from dictionaries published during that period, the need for terms was met chiefly by terminology dictionaries translated from English. In the absence of sufficient terminology, the translated dictionaries had to serve as a guide. On the other hand, they reveal a certain change in terminology, which suggests that usage, in turn, also adjusts the terminology presented in dictionaries, especially since terms circulate widely in this field. Under contemporary conditions of terminology management, usage is also influenced by various terminology databases. A particularly important source of terms is the legislation of the European Union and the Republic of Lithuania. The following section therefore examines the tendencies emerging in sources of this kind.

4.1. The relationship between pronominal and non-pronominal forms in dictionaries of economic terms

To assess compliance with the established norm, five dictionaries of economic terms were selected: the 1994 Dictionary of Economics by Christopher Pass, Bryan Lowes and Leslie Davies (hereafter ETŽ₁); a revised and expanded edition of this dictionary, published in 1997 (hereafter ETŽ₂); the teaching dictionary Economic Terms and Concepts, published by Vilnius Pedagogical University in 1999 (hereafter ETS); Rūta Vainienė’s 2005 Dictionary of Economics (hereafter EŽ); and David W. Pearce’s 2006 Explanatory Dictionary of Economics: English–Lithuanian (hereafter AŽ). All were translated, edited or reviewed by specialists in economics, but were prepared to varying linguistic standards: some were edited by a language editor (ETŽ₁, EŽ), the language editor is not named in others (ETŽ₂, ETS), while AŽ not only names its editor but also lists the Institute of the Lithuanian Language’s Terminology Department among the dictionary’s translators, editors and consultants. However, none of the dictionaries has been approved by the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language, and therefore they represent usage rather than the norm.

Of the five dictionaries published over the past two decades, the principle of mandatory marking of a term’s pronominal form was applied in only one—EEŽ₁—and even there it contains eight two-word forms that rejected the pronominal form

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 39

terms (developing country, developing region, dear money, developed country, underdeveloped country, lender of last resort, inferior product, thrifty person) and 8 multi-word terms: economy of developing countries, most economical order quantity, young industry, discount store, optimal expenditure curve, paper tokens with a declared value, fair and impartial attitude, most-favoured-nation clause.

The other 264 terms defined in this dictionary that can take an ĮF have acquired it⁵. Understandably, this marker occurs with both adjectives (open economy, gross profit, future integration, double taxation, black market, hot money, free market, mixed economy, soft loan, hard currency), participles (taxable income, accounts payable, increasing returns, convertible bonds, invisible market, bonus shares, uncovered currency, loan capital), and a term containing a numeral (first come, first served).

No exceptions have been made for international words (absolute advantage, holding company, consolidated rent, nominal price, positive economic theory, private company, preferred share, specialty store, balanced-budget multiplier, term loan), although there are not many terms with such dependent elements in this dictionary (42 out of 264 that have acquired ĮF).

The marker is also assigned to superlative adjectives (lowest level, smallest economic effect, lowest loan interest rate) and to derivatives with the suffix -iškas, -a (rough-and-ready pricing, conditional distribution, full-employment equilibrium).

It denotes both three-word terms (open market operation, double-entry bookkeeping accounts, free trade zone, natural rate of unemployment, negative economic impact) and terms consisting of four or more words (law of diminishing marginal returns, market for issuing new securities, fixed-interest-rate securities, share of paid-up capital, transitional unemployment).

⁵ One term – market producing many goods – is among those in the Language Advice that are judged to be unacceptable.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 40

Different tendencies in the use of definite forms are also evident in the second edition of this dictionary – ETŽ₂. In this collection of terms, 24.8 percent of the terms defined in it that could take such a form do not have a definite form, i.e. 64 terms (194 have acquired one; see Table 1)⁶.

Exceptions are made for both adjectives and participles, but these are not systematic; cf.: flexible monopoly policy, but flexible exchange rate system; new branch of industry, but country of new industrialization; negative investment, negative savings, but negative income tax; additional benefit, but additional import duty; hidden reserves, hidden unemployment, hidden taxes, but hidden price reduction, hidden price increase; constant income, but permanent income hypothesis; private sector, but private expenditure, private products; short period, but average short-run costs, and so on.

There seems to be an attempt not to mark superlative adjectives with definite forms (most-favoured-nation clause, best linear unbiased estimators), yet in other terms such adjectives are given definite forms (minimum efficient scale of production, lowest level).

TABLE 1. Ratio of definite and indefinite forms in terminology dictionaries

Relationship between definite and indefinite forms in terminology dictionaries | ETŽ₁ | ETŽ₂ | ETS | EŽ | AŽ Definite dependent element: | 264 | 194 | 67 | 149 | 385 adjective | 140 | 119 | 48 | 99 | 220 participle | 123 | 75 | 18 | 46 | 160 international word | 42 | 43 | 19 | 42 | 87 Indefinite dependent element: | 16 | 64 | 49 | 66 | 114 adjective | 8 | 31 | 35 | 37 | 65 participle | 8 | 34 | 13 | 29 | 49 international word | 0 | 16 | 20 | 39 | 12

The position of the adjective's indefinite form (flexible exchange rate system, opaque exchange rate, quick liquidity ratio) does not allow it to be explained, since analogous terms in which the adjectival element in the same position takes the definite form (free trade area, flexible production budget, crawling peg exchange rate system) do not display it. The indefinite forms of 16 international words are not marked

⁶ Dictionary data include only those terms for which definitions are provided. Terms linked to the main ones by corrective or other cross-references are not counted.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 41

(discounted cash flows, efficient markets hypothesis, fixed exchange-rate system, dummy variable, licensed deposit-taking institution, listed company, etc.), however, this exception is not systematic, because international words included in other terms acquire definite adjectival forms, e.g.: absolute value, effective demand, horizontal integration, consolidated debt, tangible assets, minimum wage rate.

The use of definite participial forms is also varied, e.g.: listed company, but quoted company; redeemable security, but non-redeemable security; perpetual security, but perpetual bond (consol); disposable income, but earned income, etc. Thus, ETŽ₂ reveals no systematic exceptions, except that exceptions are made for individual terms. They may have arisen because the language of the dictionary was insufficiently standardized; however, it may also be that the dictionary simply reflects the usage tendencies of the time more closely, i.e., those individual terms in which definite forms were prevalent were included in the dictionary in that form. In fact, many new terms, compared with ETŽ₂, have not acquired definite forms, e.g.: leading indicators, paid-in capital, fixed exchange-rate system, market for unlisted securities, optimal factor combination, limit pricing, hidden reserves, hidden income.

Tačiau ETS (1999) irgi įtraukti 49 terminai, neturintys ĮF, ir jie sudaro 42,2 procento visų šiame žodyne pateikiamų ĮF galinčių įgyti terminų. ĮF neįgijo 29 lietuviški žodžiai, įskaitant tris terminus, kuriuose šios formos neįgijo vienas iš dviejų ją galėjusių įgyti žodžių (grąžintina išperkamoji nuoma, nevisiškasis matomasis darbuotojų užimtumas ir nevisiškas paslėptasis darbuotojų užimtumas), pvz.: bendra įmonė, dvigubas apmokestinimas, ilgas laikotarpis, nedirbantys asmenys, neteisėta veikla, pakankama konkurencija, papildoma mokesčių našta, užimti gyventojai. Iš tarptautinių žodžių ĮF nėra įgiję 20, pvz.: disponuojamos pajamos, elastinga paklausa, likvidus turtas, natūrali oligopolija, optimalus vartojimas; aktyvi darbo paieška, efektyvus gyventojų užimtumas, minimalus gyvenimo lygis, natūralus nedarbo lygis, racionalus gyventojų užimtumas.

However, the exception made in the dictionary is not consistent, since international words are also given in definite forms, e.g.: alternative costs, centralized economy, horizontal integration, preference shares; long-term tangible assets, categories of illegal employment, informal labor market, potential labor demand, real interest rate. There are also cases of obvious inconsistency, e.g.: absolute poverty, but absolute advantage; open economy, but open market operations; alternative costs, but alternative wages; joint venture, but

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 42

common market; individual business enterprise, but sole proprietorship (personal enterprise); lowest price, least-cost rule, but minimum-tax rule.

EŽ (2005) pateikiami 66 ĮF neigi̇ję terminai, šią formą yra įgiję 149, taigi, morfologiniu rodikliu nežymima 30,7 procento juo galimų žymėti terminų. ĮF nepažymėti 29 terminų sudėtiniai dėmenys dalyviai, pvz.: asocijuota įmonė, dolerizuota ekonomika, išskaidytas žinojimas, monopolizuota rinka, nepadengti pinigai, nelisting­uojami vertybiniai popieriai, neribota atsakomybė, riboti ištekliai, subalansuota rinka, susiję asmenys, valdomas valiutos kurso svyravimas. Išskyrus termino gautinos sumos priklausomąjį dėmenį, kuris yra reikiamybės dalyvis, visi kiti ĮF neiġiję dalyviai yra esamojo arba būtojo kartinio laiko dalyviai, pasakantys su dabartyje vykstančiu ar praeityje vykusiu veiksmu susijusias apibendrintas ypatybes. Kai kurie iš tų terminų yra perkeltinės reikšmės žodžių junginiai, pvz.: lengvi pinigai, nematoma ranka, nemokami pietūs, melžiamos karvės, užburtas ratas.

There are 46 terms in this dictionary in which the participle has acquired an ĮF; thus, overall, ĮF is not used in 40.9 percent of the terms provided by EŽ that include a participle. As the examples below show, long words acquire ĮF, which means that the criterion of economy should not be the main factor determining whether a participle is marked with ĮF, e.g.: compensatory subsidy, convertible security, qualified portion of share capital, tax-exempt income, preferred shares with cumulative dividends, term deposit. A review of the ratio of international words that have and have not acquired ĮF shows that there are 42 of the former and 39 of the latter.

Thus, as in the two dictionaries discussed above, exceptions are made not according to a word’s origin or part of speech, but for individual terms. Otherwise, it would be impossible to explain why the noun phrases absolute price, absolute advantage, ideal type are given ĮF, whereas the dependent constituent of fundamental factor is used in NF; or why paid-up capital has acquired ĮF, whereas donated capital has not. Compare also compensatory subsidy, convertible bond and listed company; syndicated loan and consolidated reporting; even holding company and controlling person; free economic zone and free entry into the market; negative income tax and negative externality; official list and official offer; public ownership and public offering.

The latest dictionary of economic terms—AŽ—stands out because the Terminology Department of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language is also listed among its compilers. Perhaps for this reason, ĮF is used more consistently in the dictionary. Most of the terms mentioned earlier, which NF tends to be used for or which dictionaries present in this

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 43

form, are presented in AŽ as having ĮF, e.g.: absolute income hypothesis, open economy, common market, disposable income, dummy variable, horizontal equity, cumulative preference shares, free trade, free market, liquid assets, tangible assets, informal sector, nominal value, potential output, private good, rational expectations, balanced budget, perfect market, sustainable development.

In this dictionary, too, the principle of marking every term as requiring ĮF is not applied universally. For instance, 114 terms explained in the dictionary have not acquired ĮF⁷. A somewhat larger number are terms in which the adjective has not acquired ĮF (65), e.g.: double replacement, infant industry, vacant jobs, new hires, underemployment, advanced sector, weak currency, elastic capital, exact matching, strong currency. There are also 49 terms in which the passive participle has not acquired ĮF, e.g.: concave function, fixed capital–labor ratio, developed countries, licensed deposit-taking institutions, diminishing marginal utility, real-time gross settlement system, contingency reserves, absentee landlord, undesirable good, discouraged worker hypothesis, desired stock of capital, supplementary benefits, currency quota retained, reliable stock, asking price, borrowed funds, immiserizing growth, concerted action, eligible products.

This dictionary makes fairly regular exceptions; for example, terms use NF forms of the words minimal; optimal: minimum-wage laws, minimum lending rate, minimum employment target, optimal plant size, optimal tariff, optimal capacity. In terms, the adjective equal takes ĮF, e.g.: equal pay, equal sacrifice theory, equal utility, equal-cost curve. There is a tendency not to use ĮF forms of adjectives with the suffix -iškas, -a, e.g.: voluntary export restraint, voluntary unemployment, complete compatibility. A similar tendency is evident in AŽ with derivatives in -ingas, -a that form part of terms, e.g.: fair-trade laws, Fair Trade Board, fair rate of return, fair wage, fair price. However, effective is used with ĮF (efficient market hypothesis, efficiency-wage theory); the terms labor force, unanimous consent rule are also included.

⁷ As when calculating data from other term dictionaries, terms that are only mentioned and not explained are not included in the count.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 44

There seems to be a tendency to avoid definite forms in figurative expressions such as dear money, “hot” money, easy money, cheap money, weak currency, elastic capital, yet they are used in the invisible hand, creeping inflation, “running” issue.

For some terms, the definite form is used in only one of two adjacent adjectival modifiers, e.g.: free floating exchange rate, regulated floating exchange rate. In other terms, however, both adjectival modifiers take the definite form, e.g.: constrained dependent variables, net material product, lottery savings bonds, inheritance tax on immovable property. Other exceptions also show that such forms are more likely to be applied to individual word combinations, e.g.: the open economy, but open-access resources; maximum possible credit, peak-load pricing, but maximum likelihood, maximum labor demand; least squares, two-stage least squares method; acquired function (acquiredness), but the acquired labor supply curve; consolidated bonds, but the consolidated fund; expected inflation, but the expected net return; the mixed market economy, but a mixed-capital company.

Thus, economic terminology dictionaries show that the principle of marking terms as definite is not applied universally, with the exception of ETŽ. Nevertheless, certain terms in which the definite form has an evident distinguishing function are presented in terminology dictionaries as having that form, if those terms are included in the dictionary, e.g.: gross domestic product and gross national product, gross profit, gross income; cash, net domestic product and net national product, net profit, net present value and net value; purchasing power; consumer goods and consumer loan; public works; human capital. However, it is difficult to explain this tendency by the influence of usage, or vice versa, since, for example, in scholarly articles there is a tendency not to use the definite form of certain adjectives (open economy, dummy variable, free trade, nominal value, perfect market, closed economy), although these word combinations are generally included in terminology dictionaries in the definite form. Moreover, in the continuous texts examined, exceptions are made more often than those dictionaries would suggest for participles and international words, especially participles with an international root. The omission of the definite form for superlative adjectives and their non-Lithuanian equivalents could be seen as a point of agreement between terminology dictionaries and usage; however, as the examples show, dictionaries also display irregularities. Some dictionaries show a stronger tendency not to mark certain participles as definite, while others include a considerable number of international words that are not marked with this indicator; overall, however, as in continuous texts, this pattern is not a universal rule.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 45

An analysis of terminology dictionaries further suggests that the use of definite forms in terms varies considerably, although, overall, the principle of making exceptions for individual terms has taken hold.

4.2. Definite forms in legal-act terminology

Legal acts constitute a distinct sphere of terminology use. In them, terms (concepts) are first defined, and thereafter only those forms are used. Thus, it is not possible to use different forms of a term within a single text. Different forms of one term may occur only in different legal acts, although, as the purpose of the Lithuanian Republic’s Terms Bank is described⁸ and the aim of the interinstitutional European Union terminology database IATE (English Inter-Active Terminology for Europe) is stated⁹, the aim is to harmonize terminology. Since a term’s formal expression does not change in its realization in a text, it remains to examine the glossaries provided in legal acts and see what the ratio of definite to indefinite forms is in them. For this assessment, 20 laws of the Republic of Lithuania regulating the fields of economics (including finance), and 20 directives and regulations of the Council of the European Union and/or the European Parliament were selected¹⁰.

Of the 192 terms defined in the Lithuanian Republic’s laws examined, in which at least one component could take the definite form, 91 terms do not take it¹¹. In 34 of the terms not marked as definite, the dependent component is a participle with a typical meaning, e.g.: associated persons, defined-benefit occupational pension fund, disclosed intermediary, central repository for regulated information, participating company, dominant position, fixed profit tax, financing entity, controlled company, seconded employee, controlling person, unpublished negotiations, parent company, supervised company, regulated market, related persons, related company, related market.

In 53 terms, the components are adjectives, e.g.: analogous entity, close associate, open competition, total amount payable by the consumer credit borrower, fictitious bank, close links, individual activity, competent authority, minimum participation period, persons of good repute, non-professional market participants, voluntary public offer, independent company, closed-end investment company, public offering of securities.

⁸ The Lithuanian Republic’s Terms Bank is available online: http://www.vlkk.lt/terminu-bankas.

⁹ IATE is available online: http://iate.europa.eu/switchLang.do?success=mainPage&lang=lt.

¹⁰ All documents are listed in the references.

¹¹ In three terms, one component takes the definite form while the other does not: holding company engaged in mixed activities, holding company for mixed-activity insurance, services of general interest.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 46

Such usage further reveals that no defined criteria are followed when choosing the form of the dependent constituent. Some cases would suggest that either no decision has been made about the form or that legal acts have not been harmonized with one another, e.g.: a controlling person, a controlled undertaking, but a controlled entity, a controlled taxable entity, a controlling investment company, a financial holding company, a mixed financial holding company; a parent undertaking, elsewhere – a parent undertaking, a subsidiary undertaking. In one place there is a regulated market, but there is also regulated third-party participation. The ĮF include participle forms that occur within relatively long terms (e.g.: persons connected with the depositary of a controlling investment company, a collective investment undertaking intended for informed investors, regulated third-party participation), which also confirms that the criterion of economy is not, at least, the main incentive for avoiding ĮF. ĮF are invariably acquired by passive participles with more specific shades of meaning, e.g.: insured event, advisory commission on financial market policy-making, redemption amount, connecting line, movable property, benchmark index. International words occur with both ĮF and NF, e.g.: fixed consumer credit interest rate, horizontal integration measure, liquid assets, non-formal investor, but fixed profit tax, fictitious bank, individual activity, competent authority, non-professional market participants.

Glossaries of terms (concepts) in European Union legal acts already reveal the predominance of NF: 80 terms with ĮF were found in 20 documents, while 105 terms are unmarked by it. Participles acquire ĮF more often than adjectives do, primarily passive participles, e.g.: consolidated basis, non-returnable deposit, criminal activity, organised trading system, covered bond, designated national macroprudential authority, designated authority, transferable securities, institution under resolution, dependent insurance undertaking, recognised exchange, adapted interface, supervised entity, regulated market, jumbo covered bonds, structured deposit. There are also active participles that do not take ĮF, e.g.: closely cooperating participating Member State, related party, related undertakings, related instruments, group of related clients. However, in other terms both active and passive participles take ĮF, e.g.: insured deposits, associated undertaking, deferred tax rate, fixed-rate coupons, floating-rate coupon, adjustment operations, designated national authority, parent financial holding company, transferable securities, host Member State, Union parent undertaking, tied credit intermediary, attracting fixed-term deposits. Such variety also prevails in

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 47

the use of adjectival ĮF, e.g.: accelerated procedure, temporary differences, intangible assets, durable medium, beneficial owner, but fictitious bank, close links, competent authority, temporary institution, liquid market, intangible form, system of intangible records, interoperable interface, unique identifier. A considerable number of terms are presented in which the adjective general does not take ĮF, e.g.: joint account, common procedures, common supervisory mechanism, common equity Tier 1 instruments, annual percentage rate of charge. The adjective important does not take it either, e.g.: important supervised group, important supervised entity, important supervised entity in a participating non-euro-area Member State.

To sum up the tendencies in the use of ĮF emerging from legal acts, it must be noted that they are increasingly being replaced by NF, although the use of both is irregular. While certain tendencies can be discerned, practice is increasingly moving towards deciding in each individual case whether to mark a term with ĮF.

5. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN USAGE AND THE STANDARD

The relationship between usage, as evident in scholarly articles in the field of economics, terminology dictionaries and legal acts, and the codified standard stipulating that a term must be marked with ĮF can be described as a mismatch: attempts are made to mark certain terms with this morphological indicator, but such marking is not universal.

Nevertheless, analysis of the codified standard reveals that it, too, is not coherent. On the one hand, it stipulates that a term must be marked with a morphological indicator; on the other, the formulation of this principle draws on the function of marking a kind, which does not provide for such non-exclusive marking. Kind marking is a unit in the secondary or tertiary division of the classification of meanings of ĮF presented in descriptive and prescriptive works: a subtype of defining or distinguishing meaning, or one of the ways of expressing definiteness. Yet, as grammars and research studies show, the use of ĮF with a defining meaning (the expression of definiteness) is not regular in Lithuanian. Both research and prescriptive works identify various cases and exceptions in which the opposition between definiteness and indefiniteness is neutralised, explaining them by such objective factors as the specific formation of pronominal adjectives, the small difference in meaning between ĮF and NF, the influence of context, and so forth. If kind marking is a subtype of defining meaning or a way of expressing definiteness, such exceptions should also apply to it. Moreover, both research and prescriptive works also directly identify an exception related to kind marking

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 48

and explain it by the same factor as the neutralisation of the opposition between definiteness and indefiniteness. The relationship between kind marking and a term, and between the use of ĮF with a kind meaning and the use of ĮF in terminology, is not indicated, nor is the distinction defined; this allows usage to be interpreted as implying that no such distinction exists. Some prescriptive works would suggest that no distinction is made at all.

As this duality in the standard takes shape, usage also varies. The usage examined—scholarly articles in economics, terminology dictionaries and legal acts—reveals a particularly high degree of variation. Attempts are made to mark terms with the mandatory marker prescribed by the codified standard, but some usage tendencies show that the exceptions to the opposition between definiteness and indefiniteness, or to the use of ĮF in general, set out in prescriptive works are applied more widely.

First, coherent usage shows a tendency not to mark with ĮF those terms whose dependent constituent is an international adjective or participle. Many international words have a specific lexical meaning, and the specificity of lexical meaning is identified in research and prescriptive literature as one factor and circumstance in which definiteness is not marked with ĮF. A particularly large number of terms formed with international words are used in economic terminology, and the mere fact that the dependent constituent is expressed by a word of non-Lithuanian origin may signal that it is a term in a scholarly text. Thus, the additional marker of a term—ĮF—becomes unimportant. In texts of this kind, a term is also marked by other indicators: providing a definition, explaining it, using a word combination to name a concept, theory, conception, method or model, classifying the object or phenomenon it denotes, and repeating the word combination frequently in the text. The function of ĮF as a term marker is especially weakened in texts such as legal acts, where a term or concept is defined and, given the nature of the text, not only semantic but also formal variation is impossible.

Second, the usage examined shows that there is often little difference in meaning between the simple form and ĮF, especially between present and past active and passive participles with typical meanings and their pronominal counterparts. Such participles on their own sufficiently characterise objects and distinguish them from other objects, so ĮF also becomes essentially redundant in this case. It merely makes the participle longer. When other indicators reveal a term’s status—specific meaning, frequent repetition of the word combination in the text, contextual circumstances showing its direct connection to a concept or conception, and definitions or explanations provided—it becomes unnecessary to mark the participle with ĮF as well. As scholarly texts reveal, a small difference in meaning also distinguishes certain

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 49

both Lithuanian and non-Lithuanian-origin adjectives and their pronominal counterparts. Thus, in most cases, the ambiguity between a phrase denoting an ordinary property and one denoting a type or a term—which is considered a potential threat and one of the grounds for supplying pronominal forms in terminology—does not arise. The semantic boundary is precisely so indistinct that it is convenient in usage to apply a universal phrase in a single form, which could generalize various shades of meaning.

An examination of connected and context-free usage reveals not only factors relating to a word’s specific lexical meaning and the small difference in meaning, which are anticipated as incentives for neutralizing the opposition between definiteness and indefiniteness, but also further possible exceptions to the use of pronominal forms. Although irregularly, usage also tends to avoid pronominal forms when a superlative adjective, a derivative with the suffix –iškas, –a, or a phrase with a figurative meaning serves as the dependent element of a term.

Thus, what is essentially reflected is not the norm asserting that a term must be marked, but the general norm for the use of pronominal forms, which allows their relatively optional use. On the other hand, usage also shows that the two normative approaches are seemingly being reconciled, giving rise to a distinctive interpretation of the codified norm: while connected text is expected to exhibit various other indicators of a term, the pronominal form is assigned the function of marking not every phrase, but only one that displays an obvious difference in meaning from its non-pronominal counterpart. This, however, results in exceptional variation that runs considerably counter to the principle of systematicity relevant to terminology. Context-free usage in particular—terminology dictionaries and glossaries included in legal acts—clearly shows that usage, contrary to the stated aim of an established norm, becomes exceptionally unsystematic, with exceptions applied to nearly every phrase individually.

At the same time, the use of pronominal forms in terminology dictionaries and legal acts reveals a development in which pronominal forms increasingly compete with non-pronominal forms (NF), and the latter even gain the upper hand. Such tendencies would accord with the tendencies in the use of pronominal forms with other meanings, recognized both in normative publications and more generally in pronominal-form usage: in standard language, pronominal forms are increasingly being replaced by NF, and pronominal forms are generally disappearing, even though the normative approach would suggest that terminology is precisely where the main prospect for the opposition between pronominal and non-pronominal forms—an opposition otherwise increasingly showing signs of leveling—can be discerned. This prospect is essentially undermined by insufficient assessment and determination of the relationship between type marking and the use of terms. In the absence of such clarity, usage essentially only reflects unresolved issues and contradictions in codification.

All this makes it necessary to clarify the codification criterion. One possible solution is to give priority, in keeping with the requirement of systematicity applied in terminology, to the criterion of obligatory marking of a term

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 50

by means of a pronominal form; the other is to take the regularities of type marking and its anticipated exceptions as the basis for the norm. The analysis of usage conducted here suggests that applying the first criterion would likely increase systematicity in the use of terms. However, when making codification decisions, the possible influence of text type should probably also be given due consideration: in scholarly or administrative texts, the function of pronominal forms as indicators of terms may be less relevant than in less formal styles, since term status in such texts is also indicated by other means. On the other hand, choosing the type-marking criterion would also mean accepting the continued irregularity in the use of pronominal forms, general tendencies in their usage, and the substantial factors involved—and, accordingly, the weakening of their function in terminology. This tendency would probably persist even if usage were left entirely to its own devices.

Of course, studies of usage in various other functional styles, not only in economics, would considerably expand the conclusions drawn here about usage tendencies and the possible future direction of pronominal-form use in terminology. Many sources of usage in economics remain to be investigated, in both scholarly and administrative styles—for example, monographs on economic theory and practice, university textbooks, various reviews and reports, and translations from other languages, especially from English, which has no pronominal forms, and so on.

CONCLUSIONS

1. Usage does not conform to the norms set out in language publications, which establish pronominal forms as an obligatory marker of a term.

2. Usage tendencies reveal insufficient clarity in codification, but bring its fundamental problems into sharper relief.

3. The issue of the criterion is raised: that is, it is shown that, while asserting that a term must be marked by a pronominal form, one is essentially guided by the type-marking criterion, which entails much more optional usage.

4. The optional nature of the criterion is determined by the classification of the meanings of pronominal forms.

5. Uncertainties in codification are also caused by the failure to specify the relationship between type marking and terms.

6. The study of usage shows that it is guided not by the function assigned to pronominal forms in terminology, but by the exceptions to their use anticipated for the defining meaning and its subgroups.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 51

7. Exceptions in terminology are interpreted in a distinctive way: an international word or a participial form often serves as an indicator of a term.

8. Context is an important factor in neutralizing the opposition between ĮF and NF in terminology: in a coherent scholarly text, a word combination can be recognized as a term even without a morphological marker.

9. Usage that attempts to reconcile the criterion is rather unsystematic; exceptions are applied to each word combination separately.

10. This situation presents codification with a choice: to formulate more clearly the principle of universal marking of terms with ĮF and to pursue consistency and systematicity in terminology, or to give priority to the criterion of expressing a species-specific feature and thereby essentially determine the further weakening of ĮF’s function as a term marker. Usage would probably move in this direction even if a decision were made to leave it to evolve on its own.

ŠALTINIAI

Mokslo žurnalai

EV – Ekonomika ir vadyba / Economics and management. Prieiga internete: http://internet.ktu.lt/en/science/journals/manage/frames1_1.html.

EVAP – Ekonomika ir vadyba: aktualijos ir perspektyvos. Prieiga internete: http://su.lt/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=599&Itemid=17344&lang=lt.

MLA – Mokslas – Lietuvos ateitis / Science – future of Lithuania. Prieiga internete: http://www.mla.vgtu.lt/index.php/mla/index.

MTS – Management theory and studies for rural business and infrastructure development / Vadybos mokslas ir studijos – kaimo verslų ir jų infrastruktūros plėtrai. Prieiga internete: http://mts.asu.lt/mtsrbid/index.

OV – Organizacijų vadyba: sisteminiai tyrimai / Management of organizations: Systematic research. Prieiga internete: https://ejournals.vdu.lt/index.php/management-organizations/index.

T – Tiltai. Prieiga internete: https://www.ku.lt/leidykla/turinys/leidiniai/moksliniai-zurnalai/tiltai.

TE – Taikomoji ekonomika: sisteminiai tyrimai / Applied economics: Systematic research. Prieiga internete: https://ejournals.vdu.lt/index.php/applied-economics/index.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 52

VPA – Viešoji politika ir administravimas / Public policy and administration. Prieiga internete: https://www.mruni.eu/lt/mokslo_darbai/vpa/apie_leidini.

VSE – Verslo sistemos ir ekonomika / Business systems & Economic. Prieiga internete: https://www.mruni.eu/lt/mokslo_darbai/vse/apie_leidini.

VTP – Verslas: teorija ir praktika / Business: theory and practice: http://www.btp.vgtu.lt/index.php/btp/index.

ŽŪM – Žemės ūkio mokslai. Prieiga internete: http://www.lmaleidykla.lt/ojs/index.php/zemesukiomokslai.

Terminų žodynai

AŽ 2006 – Aiškinamasis ekonomikos anglų–lietuvių kalbų žodynas. Sudarė D. W. Pearce, Vilnius: Tyto alba.

ETŽ₁ – Pass Ch., Lowes B., Davies L. 1994: Ekonomikos terminų žodynas. Red. A. Pupkis, ekonomikos terminijos red. konsultantas St. Vaitkevičius, Vilnius: Baltijos biznis.

ETŽ₂ – Pass Ch., Lowes B., Davies L. 1997: Ekonomikos terminų žodynas. Antrasis papildytas ir pataisytas leidimas. Redagavo ir tikslino A. V. Rutkauskas, St. Vaitkevičius, Vilnius: Baltijos biznis.

ETS 1999 – Ekonomikos terminai ir sąvokos. Mokomasis žodynas. Sud.: J. Bagdanavičius, P. Stankevičius, L. Lukoševičius. Vilnius: Vilniaus pedagoginis universitetas.

EŽ 2005: Vainienė R. Ekonomikos terminų žodynas, Vilnius: Tyto alba.

Lietuvos Respublikos teisės aktai

Draudimo įstatymas (2003 09 18, Nr. IX-1737). – Valstybės žinios, 2003 10 08, Nr. 94-4246.

Elektros energetikos įstatymas (2000 07 20, Nr. VIII-1881). – Valstybės žinios, 2000 08 04, Nr. 66-1984.

Finansinių priemonių rinkų įstatymas (2007 01 18, Nr. X-1024). – Valstybės žinios, 2007 02 08, Nr. 17-627.

Finansų įstaigų įstatymas (2002 09 10, Nr. IX-1068). – Valstybės žinios 2002 09 18, Nr. 91-3891.

Gyventojų pajamų mokesčio įstatymas (2002 07 02, Nr. IX-1077). – Valstybės žinios 2002 07 19, Nr. 73-3085.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 53

Indėlių ir įsipareigojimų investuotojams draudimo įstatymas (2002 06 20, Nr. IX-975). – Valstybės žinios, 2002, Nr. 65-2635.

Informuotiesiems vartotojams skirtų kolektyvinio investavimo subjektų įstatymas (2013 06 18, Nr. XII-376). – Valstybės žinios, 2013 06 28, Nr. 68-3410.

Įmonių, priklausančių finansų konglomeratui, papildomos priežiūros įstatymas (2004 07 15, Nr. IX-2387). – Valstybės žinios, 2004 08 03, Nr. 120-4433.

Kolektyvinio investavimo subjektų įstatymas (2003 07 04, Nr. IX-09). – Valstybės žinios, 2003 07 25, Nr.74-3424.

Konkurencijos įstatymas (1999 03 23, Nr. VIII-1099). – Valstybės žinios 1999 04 02, Nr. 30-856.

Kontroliuojančiųjų investicinių bendrovių įstatymas (2003 07 04, Nr. I-1710). – Valstybės žinios, 2003 07 25, Nr. 74-3425.

Pelno mokesčio įstatymas (2001 12 20, Nr. IX-675). – Valstybės žinios, 2001 12 29, Nr. 110-3992.

Pinigų plovimo ir teroristų finansavimo prevencijos įstatymas (1997 06 19, VIII-275).– Valstybės žinios 1997 07 04, Nr. 64-1502.

Pridėtinės vertės mokesčio įstatymas (2002 03 05, IX-751). – Valstybės žinios, 2002 04 05, Nr. 35-1271.

Profesinių pensijų kaupimo įstatymas (2006 07 04, Nr. X-745). – Valstybės žinios, 2006 07 27, Nr. 82-3248.

Smulkiojo ir vidutinio verslo plėtros įstatymas (1998 11 24 d., Nr. VIII-935). – Valstybės žinios, 1998 12 11, Nr. 109-2993.

Vartojimo kredito įstatymas (2010 12 23, Nr. XI-1253). – Valstybės žinios, 2011 01 04, Nr. 1-1.

Vertybinių popierių įstatymas (2007 01 18, Nr. X-1023). – Valstybės žinios, 2007 02-08, Nr. 17 626.

Viešojo administravimo įstatymas (2006 06 27, Nr. X-736). – Valstybės žinios, 1999 07 09, Nr. 60-1945.

Viešųjų pirkimų įstatymas (1996 08 13, Nr. I-1491). – Valstybės žinios, 1996-09-06, Nr. 84-2000.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 54

Europos Sąjungos teisės aktai

2005 m. spalio 26 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos direktyva 2005/60/EB dėl finansų sistemos apsaugos nuo jos panaudojimo pinigų plovimui ir teroristų finansavimui.

2005 m. lapkričio 16 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos direktyva 2005/68/EB dėl perdraudimo ir iš dalies keičianti Tarybos direktyvas 73/239/EEB, 92/49/EEB ir Direktyvas 98/78/EB bei 2002/83/EB.

2007 m. lapkričio 13 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos direktyva 2007/64/EB dėl mokėjimo paslaugų vidaus rinkoje, iš dalies keičianti direktyvas 97/7/EB, 2002/65/EB, 2005/60/EB ir 2006/48/EB ir panaikinanti Direktyvą 97/5/EB.

2009 m. lapkričio 25 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos direktyva 2009/138/EB dėl draudimo ir perdraudimo veiklos pradėjimo ir jos vykdymo.

2013 m. birželio 26 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos direktyva 2013/36/ES dėl galimybės verstis kredito įstaigų veikla ir dėl riziką ribojančios kredito įstaigų ir investicinių įmonių priežiūros, kuria iš dalies keičiama Direktyva 2002/87/EB ir panaikinamos direktyvos 2006/48/EB bei 2006/49/EB.

2013 m. birželio 26 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos direktyva 2013/34/ES dėl tam tikrų rūšių įmonių metinių finansinių ataskaitų, konsoliduotųjų finansinių ataskaitų ir susijusių pranešimų, kuria iš dalies keičiama Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos direktyva 2006/43/EB ir panaikinamos Tarybos direktyvos 78/660/EEB ir 83/349/EEB.

2013 m. birželio 26 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos reglamentas (ES) Nr. 575/2013 dėl prudencinių reikalavimų kredito įstaigoms ir investicinėms įmonėms ir kuriuo iš dalies keičiamas Reglamentas (ES) Nr. 648/2012.

2013 m. spalio 15 d. Tarybos reglamentas (ES) Nr. 1024/2013, kuriuo Europos Centriniam Bankui pavedami specialūs uždaviniai, susiję su rizikos ribojimu pagrįstos kredito įstaigų priežiūros politika.

2014 m. vasario 4 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos direktyva 2014/17/ES dėl vartojimo kredito sutarčių dėl gyvenamosios paskirties nekilnojamojo turto, kuria iš dalies keičiamos direktyvos 2008/48/EB ir 2013/36/ES bei Reglamentas (ES) Nr. 1093/2010.

2014 m. balandžio 16 d. Europos Centrinio Banko reglamentas (ES) Nr. 468/2014, kuriuo sukuriama Europos Centrinio Banko, nacionalinių kompetentingų institucijų ir nacionalinių paskirtųjų institucijų bendradarbiavimo Bendrame priežiūros mechanizme struktūra.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 55

2014 m. balandžio 16 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos direktyva 2014/49/ES dėl indėlių garantijų sistemų.

2014 m. balandžio 16 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos reglamentas (ES) Nr. 596/2014 dėl piktnaudžiavimo rinka (Piktnaudžiavimo rinka reglamentas) ir kuriuo panaikinama Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos direktyva 2003/6/EB ir Komisijos direktyvos 2003/124/EB, 2003/125/EB ir 2004/72/EB.

2014 m. gegužės 15 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos reglamentas (ES) Nr. 600/2014 dėl finansinių priemonių rinkų, kuriuo iš dalies keičiamas Reglamentas (ES) Nr. 648/2012.

2014 m. gegužės 15 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos direktyva 2014/59/ES, kuria nustatoma kredito įstaigų ir investicinių įmonių gaivinimo ir pertvarkymo sistema ir iš dalies keičiamas Tarybos direktyva 82/891/EEB, direktyvos 2001/24/EB, 2002/47/EB, 2004/25/EB, 2005/56/EB, 2007/36/EB, 2011/35/ES, 2012/30/ES bei 2013/36/ES ir Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos reglamentai (ES) Nr. 1093/2010 bei (ES) Nr. 648/2012.

2014 m. gegužės 15 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos direktyva 2014/65/ES dėl finansinių priemonių rinkų, kuria iš dalies keičiamos Direktyva 2002/92/EB ir Direktyva 2011/61/ES.

2014 m. liepos 15 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos reglamentas (ES) Nr. 806/2014 kuriuo nustatomos kredito įstaigų ir tam tikrų investicinių įmonių pertvarkymo, vienodos taisyklės ir vienoda procedūra, kiek tai susiję su bendru pertvarkymo mechanizmu ir Bendru pertvarkymo fondu, ir iš dalies keičiamas Reglamentas (ES) Nr. 1093/2010.

2014 m. liepos 23 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos reglamentas (ES) Nr. 909/2014 dėl atsiskaitymo už vertybinius popierius gerinimo Europos Sąjungoje ir centrinių vertybinių popierių depozitoriumų, kuriuo iš dalies keičiamos direktyvos 98/26/EB ir 2014/65/ES bei Reglamentas (ES) Nr. 236/2012.

2014 m. gruodžio 19 d. Europos Centrinio Banko gairės (ES) 2015/510 dėl Eurosistemos pinigų politikos sistemos įgyvendinimo (ECB/2014/60).

2015 m. balandžio 29 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos reglamentas (ES) 2015/760 dėl Europos ilgalaikių investicijų fondų.

2016 m. gegužės 11 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos reglamentas (ES) 2016/792 dėl suderintų vartotojų kainų indeksų ir būsto kainų indekso, kuriuo panaikinamas Tarybos reglamentas (EB) Nr. 2494/95.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 56

LITERATŪRA

AKA 2014: Administracinės kalbos aktualijos. Sudarė L. Murinienė, R. Vladarskienė. Prieiga per internetą <http://administracinekalba.lki.lt>.

Ambrazas 1964: Esamojo laiko neveikiamųjų dalyvių būdvardinė vartosena. – Kalbos kultūra 7, 30–36.

Brūzgienė R., Čekmonienė I. E., Žemienė A. 2013: Specialybės kalba. Vadovėlis psichologijos ir sociologijos krypčių programų studentams, Vilnius: Mykolo Romerio universitetas.

DLKG 1997: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika. Red. V. Ambrazas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų institutas.

Gaivenis K. 1975: Dvižodžiai sudėtiniai terminai dabartinėje lietuvių kalboje. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 16, 57–89.

Gaivenis K. 1995: Keletas minčių apie terminų standartizaciją. – Terminologija 2, 6–10.

Gedzevičienė D., Gedzevičius I. 2011: Dėl kai kurių netaisyklingos vartosenos atvejų suvirinimo srities darbuose. – Mokslas – Lietuvos ateitis 3(6), 67–70.

Holvoet A., Tamulionienė A. 2006: Apibrėžtumo kategorija. – Daiktavardinio junginio tyrimai. Red. A. Holvoet, R. Mikulskas. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 11–32.

Jakaitienė E., Laigonaitė A., Paulauskienė A. 1976: Lietuvių kalbos morfologija, Vilnius: Mokslas.

Judžentis A. 2012: Lietuvių kalbos gramatinės kategorijos, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.

Kaulakienė A. 1973: Įvardžiuotinių būdvardžių vartojimas sudėtiniuose terminuose. – Kalbos kultūra 25, 27–31.

Keinys S. 2004: Terminologijos raida, būklė, vaidmuo ir uždaviniai į XXI amžių žengus. – Lietuvių terminologijos raida, 74–88.

Keinys S. 2005: Ekonomistų diplominių darbų kalba. – Dabartinė lietuvių terminologija, 296–303.

Kniūkšta P. 1971: Įvardžiuotiniai ir priesagos -inis būdvardžiai. – Kalbos vartosena ir tvarkyba, 421–430.

Kunevičienė A., Pečkuvienė L., Žilinskienė V. 2003: Specialybės kalbos kultūra. Vadovėlis, Vilnius: Lietuvos teisės universitetas.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 57

KKP 1998: Kancelari 7nės kalbos patarimai. Parengė P. Kniūkšta, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

KP 2002: Kalbos patarimai. Kn. 1: Gramatinės formos ir jų vartojimas. Sud. R. Miliūnaitė, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

KPP 1976: Kalbos praktikos patarimai. Sud. A. Paulauskienė, Vilnius: Mokslas.

LKG 1965: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 1. Ats. red. K. Ulvydas, Vilnius: Mintis.

Mikุลskas R. 2006: Apibrėžiamųjų būdvardžių aprašo perspektyva. – Daiktavardinio junginio tyrimai. Red. A. Holvoet, R. Mikulskas, 33–66. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 33–66.

Miliūnaitė R. 2003: Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos norminimo pagrindai. Opera linguistica Lithuanica 3, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla.

Oginskienė E. 1993: Įvardžiuotinės formos kanceliarinėje kalboje. – Kalbos kultūra 64, 34–42.

Paulauskienė A. 1983: Lietuvių kalbos morfologijos apybraiža, Kaunas: Šviesa.

Paulauskienė A. 1994: Lietuvių kalbos morfologija: paskaitos lituanistams, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

Paulauskienė A. 2001: Lietuvių kalbos kultūra, Kaunas: Technologija.

Paulauskienė A. 2004: Teisininkų kalba ir bendrosios normos, Vilnius: Justitia.

Paulauskienė A., Tarvydaitė D. 1986: Gramatikos normos ir dabartinė vartosena, Kaunas: Šviesa.

Piročkinas J. 1990: Administracinės kalbos kultūra, Vilnius: Mintis.

Pupkis A. 1980: Kalbos kultūros pagrindai, Vilnius: Mokslas.

Rosinas A. 1975: Ar baltų *i-, *io- resp. *ī-, iā- kamienai buvo reliatyviniai. – Baltistica 11(2), 163–170.

Spraunienė B. 2008a: Apibrėžtumo kategorija ir jos tyrimai lietuvių kalbotyroje. – Lietuvių kalba 2.

Spraunienė B. 2008b: Paprastųjų ir įvardžiuotinių būdvardžių opozicija lietuvių kalboje kaip apibrėžtumo sistema. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 59, 109–139.

Spraunienė B. 2011: Apibrėžtumo žymėjimas lietuvių kalboje lyginant su danų ir kitomis artikelinėmis kalbomis. Daktaro disertacija. Vilnius.

Stunžinas R. 2005: Statybos terminijos sinonimija. – Terminologija 12, 7–26.

Šukys J. 2003: Kalbos kultūra visiems, Kaunas: Šviesa.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ. Įvardžiuotinių formų nevartojimas terminijoje ir jo keliamas iššūkis normai | 58

Umbrasas A. 2002: Lietuvos Respublikoje (1918–1940) veikusio Baudžiamojo statuto vertimų teisės terminijos skirtybės. – Terminologija 9, 78–94.

Valeckienė A. 1957: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos įvardžiuotinių būdvardžių vartojimas. – Literatūra ir kalba 2, 161–328.

Valeckienė A. 1961: Įvardžiuotinių būdvardžių reikšmės ir keletas įvardžiuotinių formų netikslaus vartojimo atveju. – Kalbos kultūra 1, 12–16.

Valeckienė A. 1986: Apibrėžtumo / neapibrėžtumo kategorija ir pirminė įvardžiuotinių būdvardžių reikšmė. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 25, 168–189.

Valeckienė A. 1990: Įvardžiuotinių būdvardžių kilmė. – Baltistica 26(1), 23–28.

Valeckienė A. 1998: Funkcinė lietuvių kalbos gramatika, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

Zemlevičiūtė P. 2003: Antano Vileišio (1856–1919) medicinos mokslo darbai ir jų terminija. – Terminologija 11, 70–99.

Zinkevičius Z. 1957: Lietuvių kalbos įvardžiuotinių būdvardžių istorijos bruožai, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla.

Zinkevičius Z. 1966: Lietuvių dialektologija, Vilnius: Mintis.

Zinkevičius Z. 1978: Dėl įvardžiuotinių būdvardžių raidos. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 18, 99–103.

Zinkevičius Z. 1981: Lietuvių kalbos istorinė gramatika 2, Vilnius: Mokslas.

Zinkevičius Z. 1996: Lietuvių kalbos istorija: vadovėlis aukštosioms mokykloms, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

Gauta 2016 11 11

Priimta 2017 01 20

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ

[email protected]

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204