RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ

Bank of Lithuania

COSTS – AN UNDESIRABLE FOREIGNISM OR AN INEVITABILITY OF ECONOMIC THEORY?

KEYWORDS: loanword, undesirable foreignism, word meaning, norm, usage, term, concept.

INTRODUCTION

The circumstances in which the Lithuanian language has had to function over the past couple of decades are the reason that language standardizers’ attention has focused mostly on one layer of borrowed vocabulary, namely, new foreign words. These circumstances are well known and understandable: the country that uses the language has expanded its political, economic, cultural, and almost all other kinds of ties, maintains them mainly in English, is a member of a group of countries in which English also predominates, and is subject to integration, convergence, globalization, and other processes that further enhance the status of that language.

With most attention focused on new foreign words and the principles for standardizing them, words that entered or sought to enter Lithuanian earlier receive somewhat less attention. Of course, their problematic status in relation to the norm is less pronounced. Such words undergo a lengthy trial in usage, and those that prove necessary are usually accepted as standard. Conversely, foreign-origin words that are not relevant to usage and can readily be replaced by native equivalents are generally left outside the codified norm. The diachronic criterion of relevance to usage, determined by the time elapsed between a foreign word’s entry into the language and the present, greatly simplifies the distinction between norm and non-norm among older foreign words. It is relied on with confidence not only in standardization publications but also in works of lexicology. In the latter, words that entered Lithuanian in earlier periods are divided into loanwords established in the standard language and words that are not relevant to usage (Jakaitienė 2010: 233). In standardization publications or publications related to standardization, the former tend to be called loanwords or true loanwords, while the latter, emphasizing their inadmissibility

R. VASKELAITĖ. Kaštai – vengtina svetimybė ar ekonomikos teorijos neišvengiamybė?

265

in the standard language, are called foreignisms (inadmissible, undesirable), with a further distinction made from inadmissible words entering the language in the present period: older foreignisms (KPP₁ 1976; KPP₂ 1985; Girčienė 2004; KP4 2005, 2013; Vaicekauskienė 2007). Those loanwords that are not relevant to usage most often have suitable Lithuanian substitutes that fully convey the foreign word’s meaning.

The diachronic criterion of relevance to usage would seem to imply absolute harmony between usage and the norm, but can such harmony always be affirmed? At least one noun assigned to the group of foreign vocabulary—kaštas—does not exhibit such harmony in the relationship between usage and the norm. In the 1976 edition of Kalbos praktikos patarimų (hereafter KPP₁), this word is identified as an inadmissible foreignism (KPP₁ 1976: 122). The booklet Kalbos patarimų (hereafter KP4), which sets out the current norm for loanwords, also evaluates it quite strictly—as a foreignism whose use is undesirable (KP4₁ 2005: 64). The same level of disapproval is retained in the booklet’s newly published edition (KP4₂ 2013: 37), yet in an important area of standard-language use such as economic theory, kaštai is widely used. Almost no economics textbook, including school textbooks, can do without this word and the entire group of terms formed with it; they are also included in terminology dictionaries. This immediately suggests that the use of this word is not an accidental violation of the codified norm, but a divergence in usage grounded in certain arguments.

Zofija Babickienė (2012) has noted that economists and linguists disagree over kaštai, but she did not examine the gap between the norm and usage in greater detail. The question of kaštai as an economic term was raised at the third conference organized by the Terminology Forum of the institutions and agencies of the European Union and Lithuania on 7 June 2013¹, but a single afternoon discussion is too short a time for an in-depth analysis of the phenomenon. That discussion was precisely what prompted the author of this article to examine this exceptional case of a mismatch between the norm and usage in greater detail. The phenomenon is indeed remarkable: a word that began to be corrected almost forty years ago has not disappeared from usage, which means that there may be compelling factors driving its use. The aim in analyzing usage in the field of economics is to identify these factors, or at least to discern them to the extent permitted by a linguist’s expertise. After all, this involves undertaking the study of a complex field—economic theory and economics as a discipline. Linguists who have not completed studies in that field cannot grasp its subtleties

¹ Information about the conference and discussions concerning the question of kaštai is available on the forum’s website, accessible online at <http://ec.europa.eu/translation/lithuanian/ltf/index_lt.htm>.

266

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

those in the field of study do not have the same opportunities as economic theorists; consequently, some factors may remain undetected. On the other hand, representatives of economics, who have generally not studied linguistics, are unable to grasp all the subtleties of the language system, its functioning, and its norms. This mutual lack of expertise is probably why no one has yet ventured to examine the linguistic aspects of the kaštų problem, while the absence of a more thorough analysis may in turn have led to a gap between the codified norm and actual usage, or at least to an established and uneasy relationship between them.

Texts such as textbooks and dictionaries are particularly useful for determining how well-founded a departure from the codified norm is. After all, they not only use terms but also explain them and define the concepts they denote, thereby revealing every semantic aspect of the word in question. Since they present a set of terms, the relationships between those terms also become clear. Most importantly, however, textbooks and dictionaries are not outside or on the margins of the standard language. They constitute a particularly important domain of standard-language use and have a profound influence on usage throughout that domain and beyond².

THE SPREAD AND AMBIGUITIES OF THE EXISTING WRITTEN NORM

An assessment of the noun kaštas should first be sought in publications that establish Lithuanian lexical norms. There are three such publications, or four with certain reservations. These are the Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian (hereafter DŽ), KP4₁, and KP4₂, while the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language (hereafter LKŽ) belongs in this group only with reservations, since language standardization is not its primary aim. The assessments of the word kaštas in the electronic versions of DŽ_e and LKŽ_e available online are the same as in the printed editions³.

The assessment of the noun under discussion differs across all the publications. LKŽ imposes no negative evaluative label on kaštui; it merely indicates the word’s

² By the time this article had gone to press, practical steps had been taken to address the issue: the term was considered by VLKK and, drawing on arguments from economics and accounting specialists, it was decided that the term could be recommended for use with certain meanings as a term in economics and management accounting. Thus, the gap between the norm and usage has been narrowed; however, as can be seen from the definitions that have been officially adopted (see http://www.vlkk.lt/lit/104940),), some questions remain unresolved. This article could contribute to further narrowing the gap.

³ The online versions of LKŽ_e and DŽ_e are used below, so page numbers are not given. Where there are any differences between the online and printed editions, the printed edition is cited.

R. VASKELAITĖ. Kaštai – vengtina svetimybė ar ekonomikos teorijos neišvengiamybė? 267

The source of the borrowing is the Polish noun koszt, and the localities where the borrowing has been recorded are listed. These alone reveal its broad geographical distribution, encompassing all regions of Lithuania: Léipalingis, Seirijai, Sìmnas, Liškiavà, Rozalìmas, Dùsetos, Joniškėlis, Pasvalỹs, Skìršnemunė, Viekšniai, Mažeikiai, Plùngė. Usage examples are provided from Taurágnai, Daukšiai, Bagótsilis, Alytus, Geistarai (Didvyžiai), Veiviržėnai, Alsėdžiai, Rietavas, Kùktiškės. The fact that kaštas was also used in written language is confirmed by the 1747 Lithuanian–German and German–Lithuanian Dictionary by Pilypas Ruigys, cited in LKŽ_e (whose material was also collected from Lithuanian books), and his Research on the Lithuanian Language; the writings of Jurgis Pabrėža (1771–1849), published somewhat later; Mykolas Miežinis’s Lithuanian–Latvian–Polish–Russian Dictionary (1894) and Lithuanian Grammar (1886); and examples from Antanas Juškevičius (Juška)’s Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language (1897–1922). Examples of written usage have also been included from the writings of Simonas Daukantas (1793–1864), as well as from lesser-known written sources from the former East Prussia and the Klaipėda region.

Although LKŽ_e reveals that the word has a broad area of distribution and a long history of use, this alone would not be grounds for using it in contemporary standard language. The structure of LKŽ_e suggests that listing the places where the word was recorded is rather an indication of its regional character, while older writings inevitably contain foreign vocabulary. On the other hand, standardization is not the primary aim of LKŽ_e. This dictionary is first and foremost explanatory and scholarly. Nevertheless, it does include standardizing features: foreign words are marked with ×, while loanwords are followed immediately after the headword by a parenthetical equivalent in the language from which the word was borrowed. For kaštas, a Polish equivalent is given, but there is no × mark; this means that LKŽ_e classifies it only as a loanword. Nor is it marked with the stylistic label psn. (obsolete), which this dictionary applies to words that are rarely used. It is true that × is placed next to some words with the root kašt- (kaštaunas, kaštaunus, kaštaunai, kaštaunumas and others), but it is clear that they are marked because their word-formation features are unacceptable in Lithuanian. The verb kaštuoti, like its base word, is left unmarked in LKŽ as a foreignism, with only its Polish origin indicated (from kosztować). No such mark is used for the derivatives kaštavimas, kaštytis (and įsikaštyti, išsikaštyti), kaštuodintis (įsikaštuodinti, išsikaštuodinti); whereas the mark and the indicated correct form kaštuoti alongside the verb kaštavoti would show that this word is unacceptable because of its non-Lithuanian suffix.

Costs inevitably have to be assessed for relevance to usage on the basis of DŽ, since its introduction states that it is also a normative dictionary. From the second

268

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

From the edition published in 1972 through the latest one, both ⁴ and kaštas and kaštuoti are marked with the cross-reference see (=look). The meaning of this cross-reference is not entirely clear. The 1972 edition states that it “directs the reader from a word not considered a language error to a more frequent, more usual word” (DŽ 1972: III), whereas newer editions say that it “directs less widely used, dialectal, obsolete, borrowed, and other similar words or derivational variants to words more widely used in the standard language” (DŽ 2000: XII). Thus, this cross-reference may indicate not only less frequent usage but also the word’s status as a borrowing. If only the latter is indicated, it follows that kaštas is not corrected in DŽ, especially since the introduction states that the dictionary includes old borrowings that have become established in the standard language or lack established Lithuanian equivalents (DŽ 2000: VII). Admittedly, DŽ also includes foreign words deemed unacceptable in the standard language, but their status as foreign words is shown by the abbreviation ntk. and an equals sign (unacceptable=). Whatever the reason for marking kaštas with the cross-reference see—less widespread usage, dialectal status, borrowing status, or several of these reasons—it is probably not considered a word widely established in today’s standard language.

The decision to direct kaštas to more widely used words could be taken to mean that usage itself is being given the opportunity to decide how much it needs this word. However, such freedom of choice is considerably constrained by another publication prescribing borrowing norms—the aforementioned KP4 booklet. Here kaštai (given in the plural rather than the singular) are identified as a foreign word to be avoided: svet. vngt. (KP4₁ 2005: 64). Words to be avoided here are evaluative phenomena that have not been sanctioned as standard-language norms: they are already nonstandard and have no future prospects, or are not yet standard, insufficiently studied, and so on (KP4₁ 2005: 11). It is clear that kaštai is considered a word that is already nonstandard and has no future prospects, but the basis for this decision is unclear.

The publication’s preface states that two kinds of sources are considered when borrowings are included in the list: earlier or current written corrections (the 1976 and 1985 editions of KPP, the “List of Major Language Errors” approved by VLKK, corrections published by Pranas Skardžius and Juozas Vaišnys, online language-consultation databases, etc.) and public spoken-language usage (KP4₁ 2005: 5–6). The cross-reference fin., indicating that the equivalent sąnaudos is recommended for financial texts, would prompt doubts that the latter source was relied upon. The “List of Major Language

⁴ DŽ editions: I – 1954, II – 1972, III – 1993, IV – 2000, V – 2003, VI – 2006, VII – 2012. The 2006 edition is available online.

R. VASKELAITĖ. Kaštai – vengtina svetimybė ar ekonomikos teorijos neišvengiamybė?

269

klaidų sąraše“ (LKK 1998: 127–177) nei daiktavardžio kaštai, nei veiksmažodžio kaštuoti nėra. Šie žodžiai taisyti tik 1976 m. KPP₁ leidime, tikriausiai ir pasiremta juo, nes į antrąjį leidimą – KPP₂, išėjusį 1985 m., žodis kaštai neįtrauktas. DŽ_e pratarmėje neminimas, bet jei būtų remtasi juo, nebūtų pateikiamas palyginti griežtas žodžio vertinimas. Be to, KP4₁ teikiamas ir kitoks nei DŽ pakaitas – sąnaudos. Tai, kad vengtina svetimybe laikomas daugiskaita pavartotas daiktavardis ir jis taisomas kaip finansų srities terminas, leistų daryti prielaidą, kad žodis vertinamas kaip leksikalizavęsis, t. y. terminijoje įgijęs kitą reikšmę.

However, the credibility of this assumption is reduced by KP4₂. In the List of Lexical Borrowings presented here, kaštai is likewise assessed as a foreign word to be avoided in the financial domain (KP4₂ 2013: 37), but three substitutes are provided, two of which—išlaidos, lėšos—coincide with those given in DŽ_e and LKŽ_e, which were compiled primarily on the basis of general usage. This raises the question of whether differences between domains of usage are given sufficient consideration when evaluating the term. Providing three substitutes is also more characteristic of general usage than of terminology. There are various views on terminological synonymy, but it is generally regarded as a feature of the initial formation of terminology (Zemlevičiūtė 2001; Umbrasas 2004; Stunžinas 2005; Rimkutė 2007). If three words are offered as distinct substitutes, this too would indicate a problem with the evaluation (or with the phenomenon being evaluated)—most likely, the meaning of the word being corrected is not adequately conveyed.

An overview of the codified norm would suggest that it is considerably inconsistent and unclear: in LKŽ_e the word is considered a borrowing, probably also a dialectal word, but is not corrected; in KP4₁ and KP4 it is a foreign word and is corrected. It is difficult to determine what kaštas is considered to be in DŽ_e, on the basis of the cross-reference see given there, but it is clear that it is not assigned the status of an unacceptable foreign word. Another inconsistency in the norm is that KP4₁ and KP4₂ consider the term a foreign word to be avoided, while none of the dictionaries contains a label indicating that the noun kaštas has terminological status. Since these dictionaries do not fundamentally reject the word’s acceptability in general standard usage, it is unlikely that a word which may be used could be considered a term to be avoided in a specialized domain. Nevertheless, the absence from the dictionaries of a label indicating terminological status does not mean that kaštas is not considered a term in them. This will be investigated below; but if it turns out that no distinction is made between the noun and the term, the inconsistency in the norm still remains: KP4₁ and KP4₂ assess that term much more strictly.

270

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

EQUIVALENTS AND MEANINGS IN GENERAL-PURPOSE DICTIONARIES

LKŽ and DŽ are not terminological inventories, but they do include words from specialized domains. For example, LKŽ identifies dialects as its principal lexical source, but written sources from the first Lithuanian book to the present day are considered another important source. LKŽ_e states that vocabulary for the dictionary was collected not only from the most significant works of belles lettres and journalism and from texts in other fields, but also from scholarly literature; moreover, all the more important printed or manuscript dictionaries were used. DŽ lists scientific terms found in popular-science literature, the press, and general-education textbooks among its lexical sources (DŽ 2000: VII). Scientific terminology should have been given particular consideration in DŽ_e, since “in selecting words for inclusion in the dictionary and explaining them, use was made of all Lithuanian explanatory dictionaries published in the 20th and early 21st centuries, as well as Lithuanian encyclopedias. Lithuanian terminological dictionaries and some general bilingual dictionaries were important sources for searching for and selecting words. In compiling the dictionary, the editors drew on Lithuanian-language scholarly research and language-practice publications <...>. Where necessary, explanatory dictionaries and encyclopedias in other languages were consulted to explain certain terms and other words.”

This description of word selection, of course, does not make it possible to determine whether general usage or terminology was the basis for including the noun kaštas in the dictionaries, but this can be established from the examples provided, the explanations of meanings, and, ultimately, the structure of the dictionaries.

The fact that LKŽ_e lists Lithuanian towns and villages alongside the word kaštas would suggest that its main source is the old vernacular, where the word could not have been used as a specialized term. That it was not is borne out by the examples: You can’t do anything without expense (Tauragnai); He will go at his own expense (Daukšiai); He had a lot of expense (Bagotoji); That work is worth a great deal of expense (Alytus); I have no means—what will you make it from (Geistarai); His expenses were lost; he got only the sum (Geistarai); I incurred the greatest expense, just to get a cow settled in (Veiviržėnai); Nothing but expenses, expenses (Alsėdžiai); Without expense, there is no writing (Rietavas); How much expense I laid out for you (Kuktiškės). Written language also reveals usage similar to spoken language—for example, in S. Daukantas’s writings (The expense was great), and in the lesser-known written literature of former East Prussia and the Klaipėda region (They published three little books at their own expense).

As already discussed, LKŽ_e does not evaluate kaštas negatively in terms of the norm; it merely gives equivalents, which may also be regarded as an explanation of the meaning.

R. VASKELAITĖ. Kaštai – vengtina svetimybė ar ekonomikos teorijos neišvengiamybė?

271

Kaštas is explained as expenses, funds, while the difference between expenses and funds is expressed by defining funds as monetary resources, money, credit, and expenses as money spent, funds. This relationship between the words is also established in DŽ. The words expenses and funds are defined in DŽ in the same way, and, as noted, since 1972 kaštas has been cross-referenced to them. Since in this edition the reference see marks a rarer, less common word, it follows that in 1972 it was decided that the noun kaštas was falling out of use and could be replaced by expenses and funds.

Without conducting etymological research, these dictionaries alone might suggest that both equivalents appeared, or at least became widespread, later than costs. In LKŽ_e, examples illustrating the noun funds are given only beginning with the writings of Jonas Jablonskis (His funds are not enough; He lives on his funds—he has plenty of everything). DŽ_e is also cited (Means of subsistence; Working capital), while the abbreviation (Sov.) press is given for the sentence The people's government allocates huge funds to protect the health of working people, educate them, and develop culture, indicating that this is a word from the press reflecting Soviet realities, which would suggest that it was popular during the Soviet period. The section on folk speech gives only an example from Léna in Ukmergė district (Their funds didn't educate their son), but it too may come from later usage. The sentence illustrating expenses, Growth in the country's industrial profits will make it possible to increase spending on capital construction (press), as well as the examples given in DŽ_e and the note that the word means the opposite of income (I had many expenses in the city; Matching expenses with income), would encourage the belief that expenses, too, became widespread later than cost⁵. Such examples represent the official business style far more than those illustrating cost, and the combinations means of subsistence, working capital are terms. Since DŽcost refers to words illustrated by sentences of this kind, while LKŽcost is explained using them, it may be assumed that the dictionaries do not distinguish between cost as a word in general usage and costs as a technical term.

Although kaštas is linked in dictionaries only with expenses, funds, the examples in LKŽ_e do not show such an overlap in meaning. In general, it is difficult to determine its meaning from them, especially since the sentences contain almost no words that could help clarify it. In the examples There would be that one kaštas, He had a lot of kaštas, Nothing but kaštai and kaštai, The kaštas was great, the noun used could be associated with either expenses or some kind of loss, not necessarily monetary. Perhaps a somewhat more obvious—

⁵ Of course, more reliable conclusions about the emergence and establishment of the words išlaidos and lėšos could be drawn only by examining earlier usage, but that is not the subject of this article.

272

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

bly stronger association with money spent is found only in the sentences Titis incurred a great kaštas for his daughter's wedding feast, They published three booklets at their own expense. The verb kaštuoti, derivationally related to kaštas, does indeed suggest that an association with money need not be present. In the examples given in LKŽ_e, Every little thing costs money (Žemaitė), This hat costs two rubles (J. Jablonskis), It costs a lot of money to hold a wedding (Leipalingis), Such an outfit, though, costs a thousand gold pieces (Jurkšaitis), the association is obvious, but it is indicated not by the verb, but by dependent words expressing an object or circumstance: costs money, costs a lot of money, costs two rubles, costs a thousand gold pieces. In the examples Those reins and saddle cost him a good horse (A. Vienuolis), That cost me a lot of money, a lot of work (Kursaitis), the dependent constituents (cost him a good horse, cost a lot of work) show that no monetary association is present. When this is not indicated by dependent constituents, the verb alone does not reveal it, e.g.: Oh, maiden, lily-flower, what does the lavender cost? (Rudamina); And what did the green wreath cost? (V. Kalvaitis's collected Songs of the Prussian Lithuanians). It would follow that the quality is not characterized in monetary terms by the verb. This is also confirmed by the equivalents given, kainuoti and atsieiti. The equivalent kainuoti is associated with money; LKŽ_e also indicates that its primary meaning is “to have a monetary value.” However, the other equivalent, atsieiti, need not be associated with money. In the sentences It is cheaper to buy expensive clothes when they are cheap (Kairiai), Keeping a donkey costs very little (J. Balvočius–Gerutis), such an association can be discerned, but it, too, is indicated by dependent constituents. In the sentence It cost him a great deal of health (K. Boruta), however, such a constituent shows that there is no monetary association.

Thus, the meanings of the verbs kainuoti and atsieiti can be distinguished on a monetary basis, but dictionaries do not allow for this possibility with the word kaštas—its meaning is linked only to expenses, funds, in other words, money. However, further analysis of derivational relationships as a whole prompts doubts as to whether the derivational relationship linking the words kaštas and kaštuoti is adequately conveyed by the explanation of their meanings. After all, one of the given equivalents of kaštuoti—kainuoti—links it to kaina, so there should also be semantic relationships between these words. Indeed, both dictionaries define kainuoti as “to have a monetary value,” and kaina as “monetary value.” If the equivalent of kaštuoti is kainuoti, then kaštas should also be related to kaina, and since price is monetary value, probably to value as well. One of the meanings of vertė given in LKŽ_e—“the quantity of something for which one thing is exchanged for another”—would mean that the nouns kaina and vertė,

R. VASKELAITĖ. Kaštai – veng tina svetimybė ar ekonomikos teorijos neišvengiamybė?

273

Like the verbs kainuoti and atsieiti, it differentiates an object on a monetary basis—value differs from price in that it is not expressed in money. However, this explanation of the meaning is supplemented by “price, purchasing power (of money),” which indicates that the meanings may be synonymous. This is also supported by the explanation of one of the meanings of vertės given in DŽ_e: “the monetary expression of an object, price.” Taking into account the derivational relationship between kaštuoti and kašto, it may be assumed that kaštas can have the meanings of the words kaina, vertė.

Indeed, connections with verte had been discerned, but only after the publication of a volume of LKŽ (1959), which included kaštas. In 1962, in Gimtojoje kalboje, Pranas Skardžius discussed the noun mitas used alongside koszt in Konstantinas Sirvydas’s Polish–Latin–Lithuanian dictionary, Dictionarium trium linguarum, and claimed that kaštas was originally borrowed from the Polish koszt, which in turn derives via Czech košt from German Kosten (Skardžius 1998: 292). It is also noted that the Germans had received their Kosten, “expenses, costs,” through the Romance languages from Latin costus (costa), “expenses, cost”; both the Old High German word kosta and the Middle High German koste, kost, “expenses, price, value,” are cited. The dictionary by Viktoras Gailius is also mentioned: it translates German Anschaffungskosten as įsigijimo išlaidomis, Auslage as kaštu, and Kosten as išlaidomis, iškaščiais, kaštais, which would also suggest that kaštas was not equated solely with expenses.

Having also discerned connections between kašto and kaina, verte in LKŽ_e, one may ask why both dictionaries, and later KP4, associate this word with išlaidomis, lėšomis. After all, the derivational relationship links išlaidas with išleisti. An analysis of derivatives also helps answer this question. LKŽ directly associates some words with the root kašt- with expenses. For example, the verb kaštuotis is defined as “to incur expenses,” and the examples Kvailas daiktas te[p] kaštuotis dėl mirusio (Skirsnemunė), Todėl tėvai daug dėl to kaštuovos (K. Donelaitis) would suggest that it is better rendered by the derivative išlaidauti of the word išlaidos. The prefixed verb įsikaštuoti (Nepirk, tik be reikalo įsikaštuosi (Vilkaviškis); Jis gerokai įsikaštavo (Skirsnemunė)) is defined as “to incur expenses,” išsikaštuoti as “to have expenses” (Su tais svečiais kiek anas išsikaštāvo (Kuktiškės); Kiek išsikaštāvo! (Rumšiškės); Tiek an jo tėvai išsikaštavo (Seinai)), the verb kaštuodintis as “to incur expenses, to kaštuotis” (Jis, šitą česnį keldams, daug kaštuodinos (Kuršaitis); Vienok gal nenorėsi kaštuodinties?! (“Aušra”); Kiti taip daug nenorėjo kaštuodytis (K. Donelaitis)); kaštytis as “to incur expenses, costs, to kaštuotis” (Be reikalo, Petrai, kaštijys (Žygaičiai); Nekaštykis daug ant iškilmės sodvos, t. y. neišleisk

274

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

daug pinigų ir zoposto valgių (A. Juškos žodynas))⁶. As can be seen, only reflexive verbs have a meaning associated with expenses. It follows that LKŽ_e indicates semantic relationships only between the word kaštas and reflexive verbs, while the meaning of kašto as the base word of kaštuoti was left unrecorded. It is possible that in older usage—that is, in dialects and old writings—kaštas was used only in the meaning given in LKŽ_e. It is difficult to determine this meaning from the examples provided in the dictionary. However, the non-reflexive verb kaštuoti is clearly derivationally related to kaštu, and therefore kaštas should also have semantic relationships with it.

Cost when associated with equivalents not mentioned in dictionaries, price, value, one can further assume that this word could be polysemous, since both price and value have several meanings. In addition to the literal meaning, defined as monetary value, the DŽ_e also gives the figurative meaning of price: “a loss, the forfeiture of something in pursuit of a goal” (The enemy had to be held back at any cost). The LKŽ_e defines it as “the value of a loss; expenses incurred in stubbornly pursuing something” and illustrates it with examples from translations and other writings: The enemy must be held back at any cost! The victories of war were achieved only at the cost of great losses. The LKŽ_e also gives price the meaning “benefit, profit.” Dictionaries also list several meanings for the noun value, one of which is characteristic of the field of economics. The DŽ_e defines it as “econ. the quality or preciousness of an object,” while the LKŽ_e gives “econ. a property of an object that makes it useful; usefulness, utility, quality”⁷.

For general use of the standard language and its informal styles, polysemy is acceptable, as is synonymy. When kaštą can be conveyed by the words kaina or vertė, perhaps also lėšos, išlaidos; the verb kaštuoti by kainuoti, atsieiti; and the reflexive verbs kaštytis, kaštuotis by prisidaryti išlaidų or išsileisti, išlaidauti, it is possible to manage without words formed from the root kašt-. If the Corpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language provided by the Centre of Computational Linguistics at Vytautas Magnus University adequately represents general usage, it can be said that the singular noun kaštas is almost never used. No plural forms are recorded in spoken language, few are recorded in fiction, while examples occur in nonfiction and journalism: for instance, the nominative form occurs 738 times among 397,377 words in nonfiction sources, and 402 times among 763,798 words in journalistic texts,

⁶ By the way, the verb kaštytis is marked in LKŽ_e with the label sl., indicating that it is a loanword from a Slavic language, though the particular language has not been identified.

⁷ LKŽ_e also gives “quantity, capacity, volume,” as well as meanings in which vertė is used as a term in physics (fiz. “numerical expression”) or linguistics (lingv. “significance”).

R. VASKE-LAITĖ. Kaštai – vengtina svetimybė ar ekonomikos teorijos neišvengiamybė?

275

the genitive — 582 (360,525 words) and 549 (775,994 words), respectively; the frequency of use of other cases is similar (VDU 2013). More frequent use in nonfiction and journalism, as well as the plural form, would suggest that most instances are terms. The verb kaštuoja occurs only once in 19,496 words of administrative literature (kaštavo is not recorded); in nonfiction, it occurs three times in 92,134 words (kaštavo is not recorded); and no instances of its use are recorded in spoken language (kaštavo occurs just once in 962 words). The fact that the derived word and the base word do not have matching usage frequencies would also confirm that the base word is current only as a term. General usage should nevertheless be investigated separately, since journalism accounts for 63.8 percent of all corpus material, whereas spoken language accounts for only 0.3 percent.

A far more difficult issue is synonymy and polysemy in specialized domains of standard-language use—academic and administrative styles. Many words in these styles serve as terms and therefore must be used with a clearly defined meaning. Thus, the possibility of using synonyms should not be a solution for terminology; nor could the solution be to assign multiple meanings to words išlaidos, lėšos, which, as can be seen, do not adequately convey the meaning of kašto. KP₄ introduced sąnaudos. In LKŽ_e, this word is defined as resources, labor, materials, etc. used for some purpose, and illustrated with examples from the press (Labor costs have fallen several times over, and how much time has been saved! Labor-time costs) and from specialist dictionaries published in 1971 (Material costs, Feed costs). P. Skardžius’s 1962 response in Gimtoji kalba to the question of whether the Lithuanian neologisms prievaisa and sąnauda were suitable would suggest that this word entered Lithuanian under the influence of Russian terminology. It is argued that the Russian word zatrata, used alongside zatratit’., is translated by sąnauda, a word formed from sunaudoti, which in turn derives from naudo (hence the meaning of sąnaudos should be “consumption, what has been consumed, that is, turned into benefit”). The verb means “to spend (money) in expectation of certain results,” and figuratively, “to expend labor or effort in expectation of certain results, izraschodovat’, upotrebít’ trud, usilija.” According to P. Skardžius, translating the latter meaning as sunaudoti may also have led to the creation of sąnauda (Skardžius 1998: 450).

Nevertheless, KP₄ shows that sąnaudos is not sufficient to convey the loanword kaštai; lėšos, išlaidos are also listed. A more detailed analysis of terminology dictionaries would better reveal the meaning of kaštų as a term and how it relates to the proposed equivalents.

276

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE TERM AND ITS MEANING IN ECONOMICS TERM DICTIONARIES

The term kaštai has long been included in economics term dictionaries. In the Russian-Lithuanian Dictionary of Economics Terms, published in 1966 (hereafter RLŽ), издержки in Russian is given the equivalent kaštai, and 24 compound terms are listed: military costs, regressive costs, supplementary costs, dependent costs, independent costs, direct costs, indirect costs, productive costs, unproductive costs, circulation costs, general costs, costs of storing goods, additional processing, transportation and packaging costs, production costs, social production costs, capitalist production costs, trade costs, transport costs, net costs., etc. (RLŽ 1966: 64). In this dictionary, Išlaidomis is consistently used to translate the Russian расходы, and 100 terms containing this word are listed (RLŽ 1966: 187–189). It can be seen that terms formed with išlaidomis designate more specific, subordinate concepts (expenses for preparing and mastering new types of output, expenses for developing and implementing new technology, expenses for selling finished products, equipment maintenance and operating expenses, production service and management expenses, storage expenses, customs duties, procurement expenses, postal and telegraph expenses, cash expenses, utility expenses, labor expenses, travel expenses, advertising expenses, merchandise expenses, organizational expenses, etc.), although there are also more general ones (future expenses, actual expenses, extraordinary expenses, temporary expenses, fixed expenses, variable expenses, proportional expenses, non-proportional expenses, working-capital expenses, etc.). A certain degree of duplication is also apparent: not only are unproductive costs, productive costs listed, but also unproductive expenses, productive expenses; such duplication occurs with military expenses, regressive expenses, indirect expenses, direct expenses, general expenses, trade expenses, transport expenses, production expenses. Alongside these dependent modifiers, several terms are also listed whose head is sąnaudos (Russian затраты): indirect costs, direct costs, productive costs, unproductive costs, labor costs, actual costs, production costs, temporary costs (RLŽ 1966: 60–61).

Since RLŽ is not an explanatory dictionary, it is impossible to establish meanings from it. One can only hypothesize that use of the term kaštai is longstanding; that išlaidos was widespread in the economic terminology of the Soviet period, while sąnaudos was only emerging or less frequently used; and that the Russian word издержки has no phonetic similarity to the word kaštas. Russian terminology, which undoubtedly must have influenced Lithuanian terminology of that period, used издержки, расходы ir затраты, and had not adopted the loanword from Polish (koszt).

At the time RLŽ was being published, there were no standardization works in which kaštai would be strictly corrected. In 1935, in Gimtoji kalba, as a foreign-

R. VASKELAITĖ. Kaštai – vengtina svetimybė ar ekonomikos teorijos neišvengiamybė?

277

mybė įvardytas tik veiksmažodis kaštuoti (Skardžius 1998: 42–43). 1962 m. P. Skardžius teigė, kad mitas to meto žmonių kalboje visiškai nežinomas ir jau nuo pradžios neturėjo didesnio pasisekimo kaip terminas, vietoj jo vartotas kaštas. Kartu atkreiptas dėmesys, kad vietoj kaštuoti vartojami savi pakaitai apsieiti, atsieiti, mokėti, bet kaštui neturima vieno pakaito, tinkančio visais atvejais, tik tam tikrais atvejais tinka lėšos, išlaidos. Taigi, primygtinai nebuvo siūlyta kaštą keisti (Skardžius 1998: 293).

Moreover, RLŽ had been reviewed by the Terminology Commission of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature of the then Lithuanian SSR Academy of Sciences, which means the terminologists approved of kaštams. For a long time this dictionary was the only reference book economists and editors had at hand, and thus it continued to influence usage. A full decade passed between the publication of RKŽ and that of KPP₁, in which kaštas was judged a foreignism not to be accepted in standard language (KPP₁ 1976: 122). This dictionary continued to be used after KPP₁ was published, especially since kaštas was not included in KPP₂. It was not until almost 30 years after RLŽ was published that people were urged to avoid the loanword—in the sixth issue of Gimtoji kalba in 1995. It was stated there that kaštuoti was almost never used in the language of the time, so there was no need to preserve the noun kaštas either, especially as there were suitable replacements (Pupkis 1995). Išlaidos was given as the broadest equivalent, with lėšos ir sąnaudos also suggested; it was further noted that in the press kaštas is sometimes used with the less common meanings “value” or “price.” The long tradition of usage was one reason the proposal to replace the word met with opposition. In the tenth issue of the journal that same year, a reader’s letter was published, stating that kaštai was an economics term with a long tradition of use, merely forgotten during the Soviet period, and that the word was international. Citing economic works of the time—the VDU textbook Mikroekonomika and two dictionaries published in 1994—it was argued that the concept kaštai, in turn, branches into specialized subfields, whereas the cited synonyms are too general (Banaitis 1995: 26).

kaštai were indeed included in the economics term dictionaries published during that period, which would indicate that the term was becoming more current. These dictionaries were published as the economic system was changing and the study of economics, previously developed in Lithuania, was turning toward the West—in other words, as many new concepts were emerging. Older concepts had to be displaced from usage or reorganized. The fact that the number of terms formed with kaštais increased would suggest that they were also supported by the new economic theory and its terminological structure.

Published in 1991, Encyclopedic Dictionary of Modern Economic Terms in Lithuanian, English, German, and Russian (hereafter ŠET) was perhaps the first to-

278

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

This brings Lithuanian economic terminology into contact with the development of economics worldwide. As stated in the “Preface,” most of the terms “have been adopted from English-language economic literature, which for a long time has supplied the majority of neologisms” (ŠET 1991: 9). The dictionary itself is quadrilingual; consequently, the terms inevitably had to be compared with their German and Russian equivalents as well, and this may have revealed that the word kaštai, which is very similar phonetically, resembles not only the Polish koszt, but also the English cost and German Kosten. Such a resemblance may have been taken as a sign of an international word, particularly by non-linguists; the fact that the term is used in many languages is a factor that strongly reinforces it. ŠET includes a whole group of theoretical-level economic concepts absent from RLŽ, and the English equivalents of all terms containing kaštai have the component cost, while the German ones have Kosten: cost–benefit analysis (English cost–benefit analysis, German Kosten-Nutzen-Analyse), cost deflation (English cost-pull deflation, German Kosten deflation), cost inflation (English cost-push inflation, German Kosten inflation), cost function (English cost function, German Kosten funktion), cost control (English cost control, German Kosten kontrolle), cost inefficiency (English cost inefficiency, German Ineffektivität der Kosten), and so on. Translating the dictionaries must also have revealed that in such compound terms, where kaštai, išlaidos and sąnaudos were used variably, English uses only cost. This system probably also led to an expansion in the scope of the Lithuanian term kaštai, while that of išlaidos narrowed. The definition in ŠET (1991: 90) shows that *išlaidos* refers only to monetary funds spent on purchases (of goods or services), tax payments, and the like.

Kaštai’s growing popularity as a term is also indicated by another lexicographic work from the period of economic transition—the Biznio, bankų, biržos terminų žodynas, published in 1994 (hereafter BBB). It too was reviewed by terminologists: the terms were examined by Kazimieras Gaivenis. The term eksploatacinės išlaidos, found in RLŽ, is presented here as eksploatacijos/naudojimo kaštai (operating/running costs); normatyvinės i. becomes normatyviniai k. (standard c.), pastovios i. becomes pastovieji k. (fixed c.), and kintamosios i. becomes kintamieji k. (variable c.). Of the terms duplicated in RLŽ, gamybos kaštai, gamybos išlaidos ir sąnaudos gamybai, only gamybos kaštai remained; of the terms bendrieji kaštai and bendrosios išlaidos, only bendrieji kaštai (total c.) remained; faktinės išlaidos and faktinės sąnaudos gave way to just faktiniai kaštai (real c.); and cirkuliacijos kaštai and cirkuliacijos išlaidos gave way to just cirkuliacijos kaštai, and so on (BBB 1994: 105–107). Compared with RLŽ, the number of terms whose head component is išlaidos was cut in half, to 48, including verbal phrases containing this word. BBB

R. VASKELAITĖ. Kaštai – vengtina svetimybė ar ekonomikos teorijos neišvengiamybė?

279

shows this pattern of terminological grouping: terms containing the component cost are mostly matched with terms using kaštai, whereas the English equivalent of išlaidų is mostly expenses (administracinės i. – office e., iš anksto apmokėtos i. – prepaid e., kanceliarinės i. – office e., komandiruotės i. – travelling e. and so on); charges also occur (grįžtamosios i. – back c., pervedimo i. – remittance c. and so on), as do spending (visuminės i. – agregate s., deficitinės i. – deficit s.) and expenditures (nebalansinės biudžeto i. – e. below line). Just four terms containing sąnaudos are listed: iš anksto apmokėtosios s. (prepaid expenses), kapitalo s. (capital expenditures), laiko s. (time costs) and s. padengimas (cost recovery); the word sąnaudos itself is associated with input and expenditure(s).

In the first translation of the Ekonomikos terminų žodynas, published the same year (hereafter ETŽ₁), there are no instances of sąnaudos at all; however, this is the first dictionary to omit kaštai altogether as well. Almost all English terms containing cost are translated here using Lithuanian terms corresponding to išlaidos. Thus bendrieji k. (total c.) becomes bendrosiomis i., ribiniai k. (marginal c.) becomes ribinėmis i., gamybos k. (production c., factor c.) becomes gamybos i., kaštai (costs) becomes išlaidomis, and entries appear such as i. funkcija (c. function), išlaidų ir pelno analizė (c.-benefit analysis), i. mažinimas (c. minimization), sandorių i. (transaction c.), visuomeninės i. (social c.), sandorių i. (transaction c.), ekonominės i. (economic c.), and others. Occasionally cost is translated as kaina (c. of capital – kapitalo k.), gamyba (c. price – g. kaina, average c. price – vidutinė g. kaina), and so on. Since the dictionaries published in 1991 and 1994 show no tendency for the term kaštai to lose relevance—in fact, they show that it was spreading—the ETŽ₁ decision to dispense with kaštai cannot be explained by the term’s lack of relevance. It might be explained only by an effort to replace a loanword with a Lithuanian equivalent, or to standardize the varying concepts kaštai and išlaidos. It is difficult to determine how well-founded the latter assumption is, but the aim of avoiding international terms and Anglicisms is indeed explicitly stated (ETŽ₁ 1994: 5). Nevertheless, the word kaštai could not have been regarded as an Anglicism, and at the time it was hardly likely to have been considered an international word.

Inaccurately translated Lithuanian equivalents could not take hold. For example, opportunity cost (economic cost) could not become established in usage as tinkamiausios išlaidos. The ETŽ₁ proposal to translate cost as išlaidos in every case was also rejected fairly quickly: the dictionary was reissued three years later, in 1997. In the new edition of ETŽ₂, išlaidos was replaced throughout by sąnaudos: bendrosios s., ribinės s., gamybos s., alternatyviosios s., visuomeninės s., s. funkcija, s. efektyvumas, s. maksimizavimas, sandorių s., implicitinės (netiesioginės) s., eksplicitinės (tiesioginės) s., pridėtinės s., and so on. Judging from the development of the dictionaries alone,

280

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

The equivalent *sąnaudos* (‘costs’) could be regarded as a solution in economic terminology, found when it was decided to oust kaštus. ETŽ₂ does not return to the term kaštai. Apparently, the word’s correction in 1995 in Gimtoji kalba had an effect, as did the editorial suggestion printed beneath a reader’s letter after the aforementioned objection arose: not to cling to kaštai if kaštuoti had already been rejected. However, the subsequent development of dictionaries suggests that sąnaudos was not an adequate substitute for kaštai.

The terms in Antanas Buračas’s 1997 Dictionary of Banking and Commerce Terms (hereafter BKT) were also reviewed by K. Gaivenis. The compiler cites foreign multilingual dictionaries, classification systems, and international computer databases as the dictionary’s basis (BKT 1997: V–VII), which means that foreign terminology must have significantly influenced the terms in BKT. Perhaps this explains why kaštai was included again, linked by the cross-reference see to išlaidos. Nevertheless, the compiler of BKT could not have been unaware of ETŽ₁, which proposed išlaidos, or of ETŽ₂, in which išlaidos was corrected to sąnaudos. The usage of the time also had to be taken into account. Perhaps because of these factors, terms formed with kaštai were accompanied by one synonym each: išlaidos (turnover costs/expenses, incidental costs/expenses, circulation costs/expenses, actual costs/expenses, external costs/expenses, variable costs/expenses, transaction costs/expenses, and so on), sąnaudos (deferred costs/expenses, general costs/expenses, fixed costs/expenses, net costs/expenses, acquisition costs/expenses, external costs/expenses, standard costs/expenses, marginal costs/expenses, internal costs/expenses, and so on), or even two synonyms each (indirect costs/expenses, additional costs/expenses, fixed costs/expenses, initial costs/expenses, and so on). The main element in almost all the English equivalents is costs. In all, 53 synonymous terms containing the word kaštai are listed.

Such synonymy and variety do not help determine which term to use, but this dictionary is neither standardizing nor prescriptive. It merely reflects usage and shows that išlaidos alone was not enough for users, nor was sąnaudos. Kaštai is also used. One possible reason why sąnaudos proved insufficient is revealed by the meanings of kaštai given in BKT: 1) expenses; 2) the monetary valuation of costs (BKT 1997: 165–166). Kaštai are not simply costs—they are the monetary valuation of costs. The second meaning of kaštai given in BKT could also be assigned to the word sąnaudos, were it not that for quite some time, starting with ŠET, published in 1991, sąnaudos has been defined as resources used in the production process: “Costs (input) are economic resources used in the production process (labor, materials and raw materials, equipment, capital, etc.).” (ŠET 1991: 190). Incidentally, this definition coincides with the one given in Lithuanian-language dictionaries, which means that on this point general usage

R. VASKĖLAITĖ. Kaštai – vengtina svetimybė ar ekonomikos teorijos neišvengiamybė?

281

and specialized dictionaries agree. Sąnaudos are also defined as resources used by business enterprises to manufacture goods or provide services in the 1999 dictionary Economic Terms and Concepts (ETS 1999: 148), while kaštai is used to name the monetary amount of resources consumed in producing a company’s output (ETS 1999: 77). Sąnaudos is defined solely as resources in the 2000 Explanatory Dictionary of Business Management Terms (hereafter AĮV) as well. This dictionary contains neither another word conveying a different meaning of sąnaudos nor the term kaštai, which could convey that meaning (AĮV 2000: 157). However, this is a dictionary of business management, not economics. There is no need here for kaštai as a concept in economic theory, which is probably why the terminological problem does not arise.

It appears in one of the most recent lexicographical works in the field of economics—the 2005 Economics Dictionary by Rūta Vainienė, Ekonomikos terminų žodynas. The problem is addressed by offering several equivalents. For costs (cost), marked not recommended (=neteiktina),expenses, costs, price, while cost of production is given as the English equivalent, indicating that it too is cost. The dictionary includes such terms from economic theory as cost-benefit analysis, cost-push inflation, opportunity costs, variable costs, and defines costs as “the monetary expression of the economic resources used up in producing goods and providing services” (Vainienė 2005: 242). Thus, the word is assigned a meaning associated with the value of resources. The resources themselves are described in the definition, while production resources is listed separately as a term. However, it is cross-referenced with “see” to factors of production, which are defined as “economic (scarce) resources used in the production process” (Vainienė 2005: 95). Thus, it is presumably assumed that the two-word combination factors of production can perform the function of the term costs, namely, naming the resources used in production. How realistic this possibility is should become clear from texts that use these concepts; the dictionary does not need to address that.

The economic terminology dictionaries show that the term kaštai did not simply disappear from usage on its own. Judging solely from the dictionaries, it was used less than išlaidos during the Soviet period; in the terminology of the transitional economic period, shaped by contact with Western economic theory, it spread and gained currency. Consistently replacing the term with išlaidos could not work in one of the dictionaries because the meanings did not correspond sufficiently, and dictionaries (or usage) began looking for other equivalents. Most likely, sąnaudos emerged in place of kaštai as a result of such searches, but the subsequent development of dictionaries shows that this word alone was not sufficient to convey the meaning of kaštai.

282

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

The Lithuanian translation of David W. Pearce’s 2006 The MIT Dictionary of Modern Economics (hereafter AETŽ) stands out among dictionaries in this field because it was prepared by a group of economists assisted by language specialists from the Terminology Centre of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language. Apparently, the collaboration—or perhaps the persistence of usage—led to the term kaštai making its way back after a long detour: it was chosen as the equivalent of English cost. The dictionary nevertheless gives other equivalents too: cost is translated as kaštai/sąnaudos/kaina/išlaidos (AETŽ 2006: 131–132). In AETŽ itself, cost is translated only as kaštai: cost-benefit analysis – cost and benefit analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis – cost and effectiveness analysis, cost-push inflation (cost inflation) – cost-driven inflation, cost minimization – cost minimization, cost of capital – capital costs, marginal cost – marginal costs, variable cost – variable costs, fixed cost – fixed costs, implicit cost – implicit costs, opportunity cost – replacement/alternative/imputed costs, transaction costs – transaction-processing costs, and so on. sąnaudos is not used in this group of terms, while išlaidos is associated only with expenditure (aggregate expenditure – total expenses, expenditure-switching policies – expenditure-switching policy, expenditure tax – expenditure tax, expenditure-variation controls – expenditure-variation controls) or expence (expense preference – expense priority).

The brief description of the term cost given in AETŽ essentially reveals both the reason for this choice and, probably, the reason for the abundance of equivalents. It is the meaning economists assign to the concept kaštai. As the dictionary notes, they generally identify kaštai with pakaitiniai kaštai (opportunity costs)⁸, defined as the value of everything one would have to give up, lose, or hand over to obtain something else (AETŽ 2006: 131). This definition would confirm the assumption made in the discussion of Lithuanian-language dictionaries that the word kaštai, at least as a term in economic theory, is associated not with expenses but rather with value or price; therefore, išlaidos cannot replace it. AETŽ also directly points out the difference between kaštai and išlaidos: in the economic sense, kaštai may coincide with monetary payments, but do not always do so; an accountant would record such payments as išlaidos (AETŽ 2006: 132). The description of the concept also reveals another nuance of meaning: what one would have to give up to obtain something else. The word išlaidos would not convey this either. The concept pakaitiniai kaštai is a subtype, which means that even if economists equate the concepts, a superordinate concept should also exist. The term kaštai is never defined as such in this dictionary, but some of the concepts it denotes—

⁸ The Lithuanian equivalents for opportunity costs offered in this dictionary, pakaitiniai kaštai and priskirtiniai kaštai, are not used in works of economic theory; the established term is alternatyvieji kaštai (earlier textbooks also used alternatyviniai kaštai).

R. VASKELAITĖ. Kaštai – vengtina svetimybė ar ekonomikos teorijos neišvengiamybė?

283

The nuances of the term’s meaning are revealed by the explanation of cost-benefit analysis. Defined as a system for evaluating investment projects in the public sector, this analysis is explained as differing from direct financial assessment in that “all benefits (revenues) and losses (costs) are taken into account, regardless of who bears them”; benefits are explained as an increase in utility, and costs as a decrease in it, defined by the opportunity costs of the project under consideration. It is further added that in many cases benefits are not calculated in monetary terms, while costs are determined as the project’s actual monetary expenditures (AETŽ 2006: 132). Thus, costs are identified here with loss valued in monetary terms. Both this explanation and the definition of opportunity costs show that the concept of costs is unrelated to use or consumption; therefore, the word expenditure would not be appropriate, at least in this sense. Indeed, economics textbooks show that in economic theory, the term costs is not interchangeable with expenditure, although the latter word is also used.

CONCEPTUAL SYSTEM IN TEXTBOOKS

There are almost no economics textbooks for higher education that do without costs. To be sure, these textbooks are not all alike. Two branches of economics—microeconomics and macroeconomics—have long been distinguished. In teaching macroeconomic theory, which focuses on the economy as a whole, costs are not discussed separately; the textbooks focus mainly on such core topics as unemployment, inflation, and economic growth. However, the fact that a concept is not discussed does not mean that it is not used. In analyzing various economic laws and processes, it is used as self-evident and appears in compound terms such as borrowing costs, money-holding costs, opportunity costs of consumption, labor costs, costs of unemployment, opportunity costs of job loss, menu costs, social costs, costs of inflation, costs of anticipated inflation, cost-push inflation, costs of economic growth, external costs, and so on (Wonnacott, Wonnacott 1994; Drilingas et al. 1997; Paliulytė 2005; Snieška et al. 2005; Skominas 2006; Čiegis 2012). The concept of costs is directly related to production, and production cannot be conceived of without firms—one of the main subjects of microeconomics—so it is discussed in detail in all microeconomics textbooks (Wonnacott, Wonnacott 1997; Varian 1999; Snieška et al. 2000; Skominas 2000; Rastenienė 2005; Klimašauskienė 2006; Panovas 2011).

284

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

The concept under discussion is brought into focus by textbooks that cover both microeconomics and macroeconomics. These are textbooks or teaching materials on economic theory or the fundamentals of economics, intended for higher education. The genre entails considerable repetition across texts, and many textbooks have multiple editions; therefore, when analyzing the conception of costs presented in them and the group of terms it entails, the aim will not be to cover them all, but to select typical examples. Hereafter, they are referred to collectively as economics textbooks, with their specific type indicated when necessary.

Opportunity Costs and Costs

A chapter on costs is an essential part of general economics textbooks. It is usually presented after the discussion of the market mechanism and elasticity theory, but one concept is explained at the very beginning of the textbooks.

The essence of the concept of opportunity costs is set out in discussions of the fundamental economic problem, which is described uniformly everywhere as the conflict between unlimited needs and limited resources (Kerem, Randveer 1998: 16–17; Skominas 2000: 36–38; Martinkus, Žilinskas 2001: 95–99; Jakutis et al. 2003: 14–15; Lukoševičius, Stankevičius 2003: 42; Buračas et al. 2005: 24; Rastenienė 2005: 13–16; Snieška et al. 2005: 26; Jakutis 2006: 15–16; Davulis 2009: 19–22). Human needs are unlimited, while the resources required to satisfy them are limited; consequently, every society faces the problem of resource scarcity. This problem prompts choices about how to use resources efficiently. Different economic systems address these tasks in different ways: for example, in a centrally planned (command) economy, planning institutions answer such questions, whereas under a market economy the market itself does so; a mixed economy is also commonly mentioned (Kerem, Randveer 1998: 20; Martinkus, Žilinskas 2001: 16; Lukoševičius, Stankevičius 2003: 42–47; Rastenienė 2005: 20; Snieška et al. 2005: 25; Davulis 2009: 35–39). Economics itself is often described as the study of how one of the possible ways of using scarce resources is chosen in order to produce goods (Jakutis et al. 2003: 14; Jakutis 2006: 16; Paunksnienė, Liučvaitienė 2009: 7).

The problem of choice is then linked to social production, since most economic activity is devoted to producing goods and services. Because resources are limited, each resource, once used in one way, can no longer be used to produce other products. If society decides to increase the production of one product, it has fewer resources available for producing another (Martinkus

R. VASKE-LAITĖ. Kaštai – veng­tina svetimybė ar ekonomikos teorijos neišvengiamybė?

285

tinkus, Žilinskas 2001: 96–99; Jakutis ir kt. 2003: 15–16; Lukoševičius, Stankevičius 2003: 42–47; Rastenienė 2005: 13–17). Taigi, pasirinkimas alternatyvus: pasirinkus vieną, prarandama kita. Vadovėliuose nurodomi prancūziški aptariamą reiškinį įvardijantys atitikmenys: alternatif (Lukoševičius, Stankevičius 2003: 42), alternative (Martinkus, Žilinskas 2001: 19). Su pasirinkimo alternatyva susiję kaštai ir pavadinami alternatyviaisiais kaštais, tik šis terminas, kaip matyti ir iš aptartų ekonomikos terminų žodynų, jau siejamas su anglišku atitikmeniu, t. y. opportunity costs (Martinkus, Žilinskas 2001: 20, 213). Pastarasis junginį leistų versti kaip galimybės ar alternatyvos kaštai, bet kaip terminas beveik be išimties vartojamas junginys su būdvardinio dėmens įvardžiuotine forma, retkarčiais pavartojama neįvardžiuotinė (Jakutis ir kt. 2003; Jakutis 2006).

Associated with the production of a good, opportunity costs are understood as the goods forgone—those that could have been produced using the resources consumed to produce the good in question: “The real opportunity costs of producing any good can be defined as those alternative goods that could be produced from the resources used to produce that good.” (Martinkus, Žilinskas 2001: 206). More specifically, they are defined as the quantity of goods or services that must be given up in order to obtain a certain quantity of other goods or services (Martinkus, Žilinskas 2001: 97), and, more abstractly, as the alternative use of resources that is forgone when producing a particular product (Mikučionis 2000: 46; Rastenienė 2005: 14).

However, textbooks link the problem of choice not only to society and the economic system, but also to every individual and business enterprise:

Everyone faces the need to make choices and the problem of opportunity costs—doctors and lawyers, businesspeople and teachers, public officials and consumers. Young medical professionals must decide whether to enter general practice or spend more money and continue their studies to become specialists in a narrow field. Businesspeople must choose one of the possible types of output and allocate their money to equipment, materials, and employees so that their expenditures generate the highest income. Consumers must decide how to spend their money to achieve the best results (utility): whether to buy fish or meat, bread or potatoes, a new item of clothing or new curtains, a new book or a concert ticket, and how much to buy of the goods they must purchase periodically. (Martinkus, Žilinskas 2001: 20).

So broadly understood, opportunity costs are often simply called a lost opportunity (Wonnacott, Wonnacott 1994: 32; Martinkus, Žilinskas 2001: 20; Davulis 2009: 20) or the best forgone alternative in making a cho-

286

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

rinkimą (Martinkus, Žilinskas 2001: 20). Iš sąvokos aiškinimo akivaizdžiai matyti, kad žodis išlaidos šios reikšmės neperteiktų. Juk dauguma atvejų nieko neišleidžiama – tiesiog renkantis viena prarandama kita.

The explanation of the concept of opportunity costs given in textbooks would first suggest semantic links with the figurative meaning of price given in general-purpose dictionaries, namely “the value of a loss” and “a loss, the loss of something in pursuit of something,” especially since these costs are also called a price. One textbook states this meaning explicitly: “Alternative uses of resources make us understand the simple truth that nothing comes for free. Thus arises the concept of the price of choice or the price of lost opportunities. Scientifically, this is termed opportunity value or opportunity costs. The name does not change the essence, since the point is that every choice has its price. This is a universal truth, but it is most apparent in economics.” (Mikučionis 2000: 43). A link to the figurative meaning of price is suggested by describing opportunity costs as lost benefit: “The lost benefit, comparing the chosen alternative use of resources with the rejected one, constitutes opportunity or possible costs” (Martinkus, Žilinskas 2001: 213); “Generally speaking, opportunity costs are the benefit of the best alternative use of resources that was forgone.” (Skominas 2000: 41). Elsewhere, opportunity costs are said to be “the lost benefit of the best alternative to the chosen activity,” though it is immediately specified that “in practical analysis opportunity costs are usually expressed in monetary terms” (Kerem, Randveer 1998: 35), which would also allow the term to be linked with the literal meaning of price. Indeed, the loss is sometimes associated with money; for example, the opportunity cost of a music system is equated with the price of a new computer (Martinkus, Žilinskas 2001: 20).

In definitions of the term opportunity costs, that loss is usually identified as value: “<...> opportunity costs are the value of the best alternative that has been relinquished or rejected.” (Kerem, Randveer 1998: 16); “Opportunity costs are the value of other goods that could have been produced if the resources had been used elsewhere” (Rastenienė 2005: 14). The concept of costs is also defined as value: “Costs are the value of the resources consumed in producing a company’s output” (Rastenienė 2005: 72). This, too, can be linked to monetary expression: “Costs are the value of all factors of production consumed in production, i.e., the value of expenditures at actual prices.” (Skominas 2000: 142). When costs are defined as the value of resources consumed, and opportunity costs as the value of an alternative, it might seem that loss, foregone benefit

R. VASKELAITĖ. Kaštai – vengtina svetimybė ar ekonomikos teorijos neišvengiamybė?

287

is conveyed in the two-word term by the dependent element, while the head element is associated with value or price. Nevertheless, the relationship between the concepts costs and opportunity costs is not so unambiguous and clear-cut.

On the one hand, these concepts, as already noted in the discussion of AETŽ, can be treated as identical. This is also stated in economics textbooks: “Economists treat all costs as lost opportunities; therefore, the words costs and opportunity costs mean the same thing. However, to remind us that real existing opportunities are sacrificed when making a choice, economists add the word opportunity.” (Martinkus, Žilinskas 2001: 20). Following this identification, one might think that costs need only be defined as a lost opportunity (benefit), the value or price of a loss, and that the qualifier opportunity is unnecessary. Nevertheless, the dependent element indicates a subtype; hence there should also be non-opportunity costs or some other conception of costs. This becomes apparent at the microeconomic level, more precisely, in firms engaged in production. This conception will be examined below, while the explanation of opportunity costs in economics textbooks allows us to conclude that the concept is used both in a more abstract sense—as a certain kind of loss—and more concretely—as a loss quantified in amounts of goods and services or in money.

The following words are available in Lithuanian to denote losses: nuostolis, netektis, praradimas, netekimas, nustojimas, žala. However, the conception of opportunity costs suggests that the phenomenon in question is not simply a loss or material damage. It is a loss—the benefit not received when choosing or obtaining something else—and Lithuanian lacks a word that conveys this nuance. In general usage, this semantic gap could be filled by price used figuratively (e.g., the price of life, the price of love), but in economic theory the word is used literally and as a term.

Costs and Expenditures

Although, as we have seen, costs in economics textbooks are associated with any kind of choice, they are nevertheless associated primarily with production. It is most often in a separate chapter that production costs are discussed (Kerem, Randveer 1991: 35–40; Martinkus, Žilinskas 2001: 191–222; Žutautienė 2007: 43–46; Davulis 2009: 49–71). Like opportunity costs, they too are simply called costs and are also defined as value or price, but at least in their definitions they are not associated with loss.

In Petro Šalčius’s Ekonomikos pagrindai, published in 1933, the concept of a good is used to define costs: Ekonomikos pagrinduose costs are defined as what is required to acquire a good

288

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

išleistų kitų gaminamų ir vartojamų gėrybių kiekis (Šalčius 1991: 60), tačiau pastarųjų dviejų dešimtmečių ekonomikos vadovėliuose gamybos kaštus linkstama apibrėžti vartojant gamybai naudojamų išteklių sąvoką. Tie ištekliai paprastai aptariami vadovėlių pradžioje ir nusakomi kaip visa tai, kas naudojama prekėms ir paslaugoms, t. y. gėrybėms, gaminti (Skominas 2000: 37; Lukoševičius, Stankevičius 2003: 37). Ištekliais laikoma žemė, darbas ir kapitalas, atskirai paminimas verslumas, informacija (Martinkus, Žilinskas 2001: 14; Lukoševičius, Stankevičius 2003: 37–38; Rastenienė 2005: 11–12). Nors neretai terminai ištekliai (ekonominiai ištekliai) ir gamybos veiksniai pavartojami sinonimiškai (pvz.: „Ištekliai – visa tai, kas naudojama prekių ir paslaugų gamyboje, dėl to ištekliai dažnai vadinami gamybos veiksniais“ (Lukoševičius, Stankevičius 2003: 37), kai kur pabrėžiamas terminų skirtumas: „Ekonominiai ištekliai yra tai, kas turi potencinę galimybę dalyvauti prekių ir paslaugų gamybos procese, kas yra riboti, ir kurių apimties didinimas teigiamai veikia visuomenės ūkinės veiklos rezultatus. Dėl šių savybių jie įgyja ekonominį vertingumą, t. y. turi kainą. Gamybos veiksniai yra tik ta ekonominių išteklių dalis, kuri naudojama gamybos procese.“ (Skominas 2000: 235).

Production costs are defined as the value of the resources consumed in production. At first glance, this definition of the concept does not seem to have the shade of meaning that emerged in the discussion of the concept of opportunity costs. However, definitions alone may not reveal a similarity in meaning. After all, in those same textbooks, production is explained as purposeful activity aimed at satisfying human needs by producing goods that meet them, for example: “Production is the creation of goods and services to satisfy human needs through the use of economic resources.” (Rastenienė 2005: 13). A semantic similarity could thus be discerned: in this case, the word costs also seems to denote what must be given up in order to obtain something else, that is, to produce a good—viewed from the perspective of a business enterprise, whose defining characteristic in economic theory is the pursuit of profit—in order to earn a profit. However, this shade of meaning of the concept production costs is not explicitly emphasized in textbooks.

Since resources are used in production and, moreover, utility is created through them⁹, the word expenditures would be suitable for naming them. In 1962, P. Skardžius’s

⁹ Cf.: “In other words, production is a process in which society’s economic resources are used to create utility, regardless of the forms that this utility may take. Thus, in satisfying our needs, production also creates utility.” (Martinkus, Žilinskas 2001: 162).

R. VASKELAITĖ. Kaštai – vengtina svetimybė ar ekonomikos teorijos neišvengiamybė?

289

although it was discussed as a neologism, it has taken root in contemporary economic terminology. The connections identified by P. Skardžius suggest that the meaning of that word might, in a certain respect, even repeat the meaning of the word costs: expenditures are what is consumed in pursuit of a result, while costs are what is given up in obtaining a particular result. Nevertheless, the words expenditures and costs are not used interchangeably in economics textbooks.

The word expenditures is used in textbooks in both a more abstract and a more concrete sense. In its more abstract use, it is equated with the resources used in production, or factors of production: “Expenditures are the economic resources used in the production process (labor, materials and raw materials, equipment, capital, etc.).” (Martinkus, Žilinskas 2001: 14); “The production function defines the maximum volume of production (output) that can be produced given a specific combination of resources (inputs).” (Bhaskar 2000: 97). The more concrete meaning of the word expenditures—“the quantity of resources consumed”—emerges in functions that represent economic relationships, primarily the production function. The production function, which shows the relationship between any combination of factors of production and the maximum possible output, is written as Q = f(L, K), where Q denotes the maximum volume of production attainable at a given level of technology, while L and K denote expenditures measured in physical units, for labor and capital, respectively (Davulis 2009: 189).

Nevertheless, a production function expressed in physical units is only an assumption for economic analysis, which operates with other quantities—value or monetary quantities. For the latter, the monetary expression of expenditures, their price, is important, and this is denoted by the word costs. This quantity is calculated by multiplying the amount by the price, for example: “In their simplest form, total variable costs are costs associated with the variable factor’s expenditures in the production process. Variable costs are calculated by multiplying the quantity of the variable factor’s expenditures by their price.” (Jakutis 2006: 6); “If we assume that the expenditures on one factor of production (labor) are variable, while those on the other (capital) are fixed, total variable costs equal the product of the unit price of the variable factor’s expenditures and the number of units of those expenditures: BKK = WL; here, L is the number of units of labor expenditure, and W is the price per unit of labor expenditure.” (Jakutis 2006: 63). Of the various types of costs distinguished for a firm, some are also defined as the price of expenditures: “Total costs TC are the price of the expenditures on production resources used to produce and sell all output.” (Davulis 2003: 17). Thus, the words expenditures and costs denote different quantities: expenditures denote the quantity of resources used in production, whereas costs denote the monetary expression of expenditures, or their price.

290

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

It is also impossible to call the quantity received expenses—that would cause confusion. In an economics textbook, which has tried to avoid such problems of the polysemy of the word kaštai in accordance with the language norm¹⁰, for example, the following problem arises: “Total costs include all the costs associated with the costs of producing a product.” (Jakutis et al. 2007: 66). Indeed, when the word sąnaudos is used to mean the monetary expression of costs, this textbook avoids using the same word to denote the quantity of resources consumed; instead, it uses the terms resources (quantity of resources), factors of production (quantity of factors of production). However, this would amount to a rearrangement of the system of concepts that has been developing in Lithuanian economic theory for quite some time.

A quantity in a particular function or equation could be called the price of resources used, the price of production expenditure, expenditure expressed in monetary terms, but production costs are not merely that quantity; they are also a theoretical concept classified according to various criteria, which alone would make such combinations awkward. On the other hand, both production costs and concepts naming their types are usually defined not as a price but as the value (of resources used), which suggests that the term costs acquires a specific meaning only when it denotes a particular quantity. Like the word expenditure, its meaning may be either more concrete or more abstract. In discussing society’s productive activity, one microeconomics textbook states that goods and services are produced through labour from materials and energy provided by nature, using natural resources and information, and then summarizes: “Thus, inputs are needed to obtain them (in a market economy—costs, inputs valued in money).” (Skominas 2000: 38). The association of costs with a market economy partly explains the renewed prominence of the term costs in economic dictionaries, coinciding with a period of change in the country’s economy and in the economics developed within it.

In non-specialist texts, primarily journalism and online, where there is no need to distinguish and denote the quantity of costs and their price using separate symbols, it is easier to give the word sąnaudos the meaning of the price of costs, their monetary expression. Indeed, when the concept cost-benefit analysis is used, these texts generally explain that the analysis examines costs in monetary terms, but the word sąnaudos is still used¹¹. In thi-

¹⁰ Adherence to the language norm is evidenced by the fact that earlier editions of this textbook used kaštai. This edition was probably influenced by KP₄, which evaluates the term as an avoidable foreignism.

¹¹ See Google search.

R. VASKELAITĖ. Kaštai – vengtina svetimybė ar ekonomikos teorijos neišvengiamybė?

291

The phonetic resemblance is probably what sustains its use in this collocation. These texts even use the term alternative costs¹², although, as is clear from the explanation of the concept alternative costs in economics textbooks, it is unrelated to use. Journalism and online texts do not need to teach economic theory, define concepts, let alone present them as a whole; consequently, systematic conceptual relationships or contradictions between a concept and the term denoting it are less likely to become apparent. Nevertheless, concordances from the Corpus of Contemporary Lithuanian show that most occurrences of the word sąnaudos in journalism (for example, the nominative case occurs 1,663 times among 6,980,355 words) are also associated with a quantitative expression of the resource used or a general designation of the resources used (VDU 2013).

Kaštai and Expenses. The Distinction between Accounting and Economic Costs

The costs of a business enterprise engaged in production partly overlap with its expenses. A business enterprise purchases resources, or factors of production, to produce goods or provide services, and these constitute its expenses. Once it sells its output, it receives revenue.

The concept expenses (money spent on productive activity), contrasted with receipts (money received from sales or other business activity) or revenue, is widely used in business practice. Business accounting records, classifies, analyzes, and summarizes economic transactions and events expressed in monetary terms, a large proportion of which are expenses. Thus, as economics textbooks point out, an accountant would first calculate a company’s costs as expenses. However, this calculation causes misunderstandings for the company’s economist, because for the economist kaštai are first and foremost a forgone alternative: “For economists, costs are primarily opportunity costs. Thus, economists assess not only explicit accounting, or bookkeeping, costs, but also imputed costs, such as the normal profit earned on capital invested in an alternative business.” (Martinkus, Žilinskas 2001: 214). Economics textbooks use the concepts accounting costs and economic costs to reveal differences in the understanding of these costs associated with a company’s activities; however, the explanations provided, usually rather confusing and contradictory, make clear that these terms refer less to differences in the understanding of costs than to different ways of calculating business costs.

¹² This is shown by the Google search engine.

292

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

Accounting costs are usually described as expenses recorded in accounting documents: “Accounting costs are expenses recorded in the books of account” (Rastenienė 2005: 72). Economic costs are accounting costs assessed by taking into account costs not entered in the accounting books; these consist of forgone income (e.g., interest) that an entrepreneur, as a resource owner, would earn by investing their own resources in an alternative business, renting buildings and land to another entrepreneur, and so on (Bhaskar 2000: 120–122; Martinkus, Žilinskas 2001: 214; Jakutis et al. 2003: 43; Rastenienė 2005: 72). Another compound term is proposed for these costs, one whose dependent element is also of non-Lithuanian origin, namely implicit costs. Lithuanian equivalents are usually also mentioned: presumed or putative costs (Martinkus, Žilinskas 2001: 214; Rastenienė 2005: 72), assumed or imputed costs (Kerem, Randveer 1998: 46; Skominas 2000: 142), indirect (internal) costs (Bhaskar 2000: 120; Davulis 2009: 55). Implicit costs are defined as “the benefit lost, determined by comparing the chosen alternative for using resources with the rejected one” (Rastenienė 2005: 72), and this definition coincides with the alternative-cost concept discussed above. These costs are indeed treated as synonymous: “In addition to direct costs, economists also use indirect (or alternative) costs when evaluating a problem” (Bhaskar 2000: 120). Thus, alternative costs, understood as a loss resulting from an alternative choice, are for a business owner the benefit (income) forgone that they would have earned by investing in an alternative. Implicit costs are contrasted with explicit costs, also called direct (Bhaskar 2000: 119; Skominas 2000: 142), clear (Kerem, Randveer 1998: 35–36; Rastenienė 2005: 72), or external costs (Davulis 2009: 55). Economics textbooks equate these with accounting costs; consequently, economic costs are defined not only as the sum of implicit and explicit costs (Skominas 2000: 142), but also as accounting costs assessed by adding presumed costs (Martinkus, Žilinskas 2001: 214). Thus, the concepts of implicit and explicit costs, economic and accounting costs arise in discussions of business costs and the use of owned resources.

Economics textbooks might lead one to conclude that the opposition between accounting and economic costs is prompted by the identification of a company’s costs with expenses recorded in the books of account. This once again confirms that the word expenses cannot replace the economically understood costs, although it seems to convey the accounting concept. The term expenses is indeed widely used in contemporary Lithuanian accounting. It is true that for some time now that accounting in Li

R. VASKELAITĖ. Kaštai – veng tina svetimybė ar ekonomikos teorijos neišvengiamybė?

293

thuania has distinguished two types—financial and management accounting¹³. Various differences between them are noted, but the distinction most often rests on the criteria of who uses the information provided: financial accounting data are intended for external users (government authorities, shareholders, depositors, suppliers, customers, etc.), whereas management accounting data are intended for company and departmental managers and executives (Kalčinskas, Černius 1997; Mackevičius 2003; Kalčinskas 2007; Lakis et al. 2010). Cost accounting is identified as the area that connects management and financial accounting (Lakis et al. 2010: 16).

It would seem that if the accounting and economic concepts of costs are distinguished by the main elements of the phrase (expenses and costs), there would be no need to differentiate them by means of modifiers. In fact, the need to distinguish accounting costs from economic costs may have arisen from English terminology, where cost is used in both cases: accounting cost and economic cost, respectively. Since economic theory is developed mainly in English, and Lithuanian textbooks are prepared with reference to English-language ones or translated from English, this distinction between concepts may be a consequence of applying economic theory developed in English. Nevertheless, the same word, cost, is probably not used coincidentally in English to convey both the accounting and the economic concept of costs. This is indicated by even a brief review of the concept of the central term in management accounting, rendered in Lithuanian as expenses, as presented in one Lithuanian work on management accounting:

A wide variety of terms, arguments, evidence, and examples are used to describe expenses. It is very often asserted that expenses are everything that reduces profit or increases a loss. This definition leaves unclear what is meant by the concept everything. We would suggest that everything primarily means the consumption or loss of resources. In the literature, the loss of certain resources is often explained as a kind of sacrifice, using the English word sacrifice. However, describing expenses as a sacrifice, a loss of something cannot be viewed in a purely negative sense. After all, a company uses resources to achieve a particular objective. Thus, the loss of those resources benefits the company, because it has achieved its objective (for example, produced goods) (Mackevičius 2003: 132).

Not only this overview, but also the definition by Robert N. Anthony and James S. Reese, mentioned below and frequently cited, would point to connections with the previously discussed meaning of costs, which is often cited—

¹³ This type of accounting is currently referred to by a wide variety of names: management, management-accounting, business, managerial, cost, and so on. Since the English name is management accounting, the most accurate translation would be management accounting. Of course, established Lithuanian usage may also be taken into account. This term should be discussed separately; one of the competing names is offered here.

294

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

d in the works of Western authors, expenses are defined as the monetary expression of resources consumed to achieve a particular objective. This definition highlights three important points: 1) expenses are determined by the consumption of resources in producing goods or providing services; 2) the quantity of resources consumed is expressed in monetary terms; and 3) expenses are incurred to achieve specific objectives. These characteristics, after all, are also typical of the concept of costs discussed in economics textbooks. The semantic connection is further confirmed by the cited definition by Alicja Jaruga, according to which, from an accounting perspective, expenses can be defined as a complex of resources consumed in the production process and transformed into useful goods and services, and especially by David Myddleton’s definition that expenses are what you have to give up to obtain what you want (Mackevičius 2003: 133).

The development of Lithuanian accounting terminology has led to the English costs being rendered in it by three words: expenses, expenditures, and cost price. In the 11th Business Accounting Standard regulating company accounting, expenses are linked to the consumption of assets and decreases in their value: they are defined as the consumption of assets or services and the decrease in the value of assets during a reporting period. Expenses that will generate income in the future are classified as assets, while those incurred to earn income in the reporting period are treated as expenses of the relevant period (VAS 2013). Work on management accounting indicates that expenses may be classified according to 27 characteristics: as fixed, variable, and mixed; direct and indirect; production and non-production; long-term and short-term; and so on (Mackevičius 2003: 135–137). Nevertheless, Lithuanian accounting terminology, too, shows a need for a “generic” concept that would allow expenses, expenditures, and cost price to be named with a single word (in English, all these are called cost); such a concept is indeed used—costs¹⁴ (Kalčinskas, Černius 1997; Kalčinskas 2007). The fact that the need for this concept arises primarily in management accounting also points to a certain semantic commonality with costs as a concept in economic theory. Management accounting data are provided to company managers for analysis and strategic decision-making; what matters to them is not expenses viewed retrospectively, but the perspective of forecasting them and considering alternatives.

On the other hand, the term expenses is used not only in accounting. It is also used in economics textbooks. Some types of costs—

¹⁴ Cf.: “The generic concept costs expresses the three most important indicators in management accounting: expenses, expenditures, and cost price. All these terms are equally important. Costs are used to express general concepts, but they should not replace specific terms when discussing specific indicators.” (Kalčinskas 2007: 781) (There is no period after the parenthesis here)

R. VASKE LAITĖ. Kaštai – veng tina svetimybė ar ekonomikos teorijos neišvengiamybė?

295

Costs are even defined as expenses: for example, fixed costs are described as “expenses that do not change when the quantity of output (services) produced changes (increases or decreases),” while variable costs are described as “expenses that vary depending on the quantity of output (services) produced” (Martinkus, Žilinskas 2001: 190). In a school economics textbook, definitions are combined: for example, production costs are defined both as the value of all factors of production used in production and as the expenses necessary to pay for all factors of production (Makutėnas, Makutėnienė 2004: 94); total costs are defined as the sum of fixed and variable costs over a given period and, at the same time, as all monetary expenses incurred to produce goods or provide services (Makutėnas, Makutėnienė 2004: 95). In Gediminas Davulis’s Economic Theory, when the term production costs is used, expenses is usually given in parentheses (Davulis 2009: 56). Nevertheless, as a term and a classifying concept, economics textbooks choose costs, unlike most works on management accounting. The following are distinguished: a firm’s short-run and long-run costs, fixed and variable costs, total costs, average costs, and marginal costs (Kerem, Randveer 1998: 38–40; Varian 1999: 347–366; Bhaskar 2000: 122–135; Skominas 2000: 149–156; Martinkus, Žilinskas 2001: 193–208; Jakutis ir kt. 2003: 44–52; Lukoševičius, Stankevičius 2003: 76–78; VDU 2005: 80; Davulis 2009: 49–55; Panovas 2013: 123–129). Even definitions of the different types of a firm’s costs are formulated with the concept costs. Fixed costs are described as costs that do not change when a firm changes its production volume; variable costs are costs that change when a firm changes its production volume; total costs are the sum of fixed and variable costs; and average costs are total costs divided by the quantity of output produced (Kerem, Randveer 1998: 38; Lukoševičius, Stankevičius 2003: 76–77; Skominas 2000: 149–150; Davulis 2009: 51).

The reasons for the tendency in economic theory to choose costs rather than expenses should probably first be sought in the definitions provided for production costs. Production costs, although explained as a firm’s expenses, are associated in economic theory—which is often defined as the science of using scarce resources—with the use of resources, and are defined as the value of resources consumed in production or the price of inputs, that is, inputs expressed in monetary terms. Thus, the word costs is understood in a sense different from “money spent.” It is associated not with expenses but rather with price, and that price is the price of inputs—that is, of what is consumed in order to obtain a benefit or achieve an objective. A business firm’s production costs essentially coincide with its ex-

296

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

penditures. Thus, terminological differences are probably determined by evaluating the phenomenon from different perspectives. Costs matter to economics not as chronological records of money spent, but as a theoretical concept. This is also indicated by a whole group of derived concepts such as cost function, short-run cost function, long-run cost function, cost minimization, cost curve, cost inflation, and so on. These functions, which convey economic relationships, would also confirm that the term expenses is not well suited to conveying such relationships: multiplying the quantity of inputs by their price makes it awkward to call the resulting amount expenses. But the tendency to call production costs—which, in business practice, coincide with expenses—costs is probably driven above all by the evident effort in economics textbooks to include them in a general cost-classification scheme.

General classification of costs and relations among concepts

The definitions presented in economics textbooks reveal that the word costs does not have entirely the same meaning throughout: in the phrase opportunity costs, it denotes the loss incurred by choosing something else, a benefit not received, or the cost of an opportunity; whereas in production costs, it denotes the value of the resources used in production, usually their monetary value, or more precisely, the price of inputs.

If the word conveys different meanings, or at least shades of meaning, it would follow that the general concept costs cannot even be defined. Indeed, both economics textbooks and terminology dictionaries tend to avoid defining it; when it is defined, it is treated as an abbreviation for production costs. Nevertheless, one textbook intended for secondary school does provide such a definition, and on its basis adopts a meaning that can link the concepts opportunity costs and production costs: a meaning associated with the loss incurred in acquiring something: “Costs are what we lose when we decide to do or acquire something.” (Makutėnas, Makutėnienė 2004: 192). This would seem to provide a link between the phrases opportunity costs and production costs, explain the meaning of the word costs, and offer an argument for why the loanword persists in economic theory: Lithuanian lacks a word to convey this meaning. The use of the concept in macroeconomics textbooks would confirm that the word is given a similar meaning. For example, the personal costs of economic growth—a more demanding life “enriched” with emotions, stress, conflict, and increased uncertainty about the future—are described as costs “that a person and a family must bear in order to attain the higher material well-being brought by economic growth” (Buračas ir kt. 2005: 255), which indicates,

R. VASKĔLAITĖ. Kaštai – veng­tina svetimybė ar ekonomikos teorijos neišvengiamybė? 297

that costs refer to a certain loss incurred in gaining something else, more precisely, the price of material well-being. Elsewhere, the costs of unemployment are explicitly called a price, with the word used figuratively: “Unemployment has substantial economic costs (economic costs). The main economic price of unemployment is output that is not received (not produced).” (Čiegis 2012: 125). However, some formulations suggest that the meaning of the word costs comes very close to the meanings of loss, effect, consequence. For example, the section “Costs of Unemployment” lists a decrease in output or gross domestic product, and the loss of personal income and qualifications, among other things (Kerem, Randveer 1998: 104); these could also be called the negative consequences of unemployment. The redistribution of wealth and reduced national competitiveness in export markets, considered costs of inflation (Kerem, Randveer 1998: 105–106), could be called effects of inflation. The social costs of economic growth, such as urbanization accompanying industrial development, rapid exploitation of nature, and fundamental changes in people’s way of life (Buračas ir kt. 2005: 255), might be called losses incurred as a result of economic growth, or effects of economic growth. Nevertheless, these phenomena can also be understood as the price to be paid for unemployment, inflation, or economic growth. Since the semantic boundary is not clear-cut, elsewhere these phenomena are discussed using effect, consequence, loss (Snieška ir kt. 2005: 403–406; 448–454), or these words and costs are used synonymously (Kerem, Randveer 1998: 104, 106–107; Čiegis 2012: 128).

Whatever meaning is assigned to the word costs, the definitions show that in the phrase opportunity costs it is more closely associated with the loss incurred by making another choice—that is, with the figurative meaning of the word price—whereas in the phrase production costs it is associated with inputs expressed in money, the price of inputs, that is, the literal meaning of price. This would suggest that it should be difficult to find a basis for classifying general costs as a superordinate concept. Indeed, almost all higher-education textbooks proceed to classify costs and define their types without defining the superordinate concept. Most of the classification units distinguished are the aforementioned types of firms’ production costs, but the general scheme also includes opportunity costs, accounting and economic costs, and implicit and explicit costs, which are distinguished on somewhat different grounds. Some also mention private and social costs (Jakutis 2006: 58; Davulis 2009: 56).

Attempts are made to link the concepts opportunity costs and production costs by defining both as value, but value is not a basis that would allow these concepts to be differentiated through distinct dependent words. Va-

298

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

The discussion of costs presented in textbooks shows that opportunity costs are not a type of production costs, as are the other types distinguished (variable, fixed, average costs, etc.). Thus, it is impossible to differentiate all the concepts on a single basis. On the other hand, opportunity costs and production costs are not unrelated concepts. As has already become clear, textbooks may treat opportunity costs as a certain measure for evaluating production costs. In other words, production costs can be assessed in terms of the benefit forgone as a result of a choice: when discussing society’s production, this means the lost benefit from using resources in one way, or the goods or services not produced when resources are used in that way, and so on; when discussing the use of a business enterprise’s own resources, it means income not received. Only this kind of connection between the concepts would support the use of the adjectival modifier. The concept discussed at the beginning of economics textbooks and applied to any choice would more appropriately be called the cost of an alternative, that is, the cost of choosing an alternative, or, as textbooks put it, the price of an alternative, the value of an alternative, the cost of an opportunity, a forgone opportunity, or the like.

An attempt to differentiate broadly understood costs of an alternative from costs as a microeconomic concept by using a distinct headword was made in perhaps the only economics textbook to do so: it uses the terms opportunity costs and production expenses (Maldeikienė 2003). However, when no other kinds of costs are mentioned, the question arises: whose alternative are opportunity costs considered to be? On the other hand, as the analysis conducted has shown, the substitute production expenses does not adequately convey the concept of production costs. The textbook in question is intended for grades 9–10; it presents neither the production function nor the cost function, and there is no need to distinguish quantities and values related to production, so the terminological problem does not arise. The explanation of the concept of expenses offered there may also be sufficient for students only: “Thus, in pursuing a goal, a producer is forced to incur expenses. Such expenses are customarily called costs. Hence, costs are first and foremost a company’s monetary expenditures.” (Maldeikienė 2003: 58).

There are no further attempts to differentiate the concepts using different headwords. The search for different substitutes is probably also impeded by the fact that in economic theory developed in English, the word cost refers both to the loss of benefit associated with an alternative choice and to a company’s production expenses expressed in monetary terms. If it is decided to avoid the loanword, a single equivalent is likewise chosen in all cases: expenses (Jakutis et al. 2007) or expenditure (Paunksnienė, Liučvaitienė 2009).

If one sets out to avoid the loanword, it might be possible to look for different substitutes to convey the concepts, but the question is whether there is any need to look for them. After all, the word

R. VASKELAITĖ. Kaštai – vengtina svetimybė ar ekonomikos teorijos neišvengiamybė?

299

kaštai has a long tradition of use in economic terminology—long enough for the old loanword to be established as a term and to remain relevant in usage. The word may have been somewhat less relevant to the terminology of the economic order prevailing during the Soviet period, but in a market economy, price and monetary expression are matters of exceptional importance. And, as we have seen, production costs are also associated with the price of expenses. On the other hand, there is no Lithuanian word that conveys the meaning “what is given up in acquiring something else” and is suitable as a term in the field of economics. These semantic factors probably largely explain why the loanword kaštai is used.

CAUSES OF THE GAP BETWEEN THE STANDARD AND USAGE

Analysis of the standard for the noun kaštai and its use in economics textbooks reveals that there are several, rather complex causes for the gap that has arisen. However, as the analysis has shown, the most important are the insufficient assessment of the word’s semantics and the specific features of the domain in which it is used.

In Lithuanian dictionaries, the noun kaštas is defined only as “expenses, funds,” which reveals just one shade of the word’s meaning. As a term in economic theory, this word is associated precisely with the meanings of kaštas not given in dictionaries, namely “price” and “value.” At the same time, in economic theory the loanword is used with a meaning for which Lithuanian lacks a word. This is what is sacrificed when choosing, receiving, or acquiring something. It is not simply a loss, so the words loss, damage, detriment, deprivation, forfeiture do not adequately convey its meaning. In general usage, the figurative use of the word price would convey this meaning more or less adequately, but in the field of economics it would cause problems of polysemy.

However, the codified standard does not even propose price, value as substitutes. Prescriptive lexical works and Lithuanian dictionaries that explain meanings list kaštai as a loanword for which the substitutes are expenditure, funds and expenses. Analysis of actual usage, based on texts in economic theory, reveals that there is little inclination to use these substitutes, and the definitions of concepts given in the texts show that they could not be used at all. The substitute expenses, as proposed in one dictionary, is used with a different meaning in the same field—as a term denoting resources consumed in production or their quantity. Expenditure is likewise apparently failing to take hold in economic theory for semantic reasons

300

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

reasons: in this field, the phenomenon is understood as the value or price of the resources consumed, rather than as the funds spent by a company to acquire those resources. The substitute funds was not even attempted in economics textbooks, since its meaning is entirely unsuitable for naming the phenomenon under consideration.

The substitutes costs and expenses would fail to convey the essence of the concept opportunity costs, since it is associated with a particular loss incurred when choosing an alternative; moreover, economics textbooks, which largely convey economic theory developed in English, tend to use the same basic component in the concepts opportunity costs and production costs. The influence of English cannot be ruled out entirely, since economic theory developed in English predominates both in Lithuania and in other European Union countries, and when it is taught in Lithuanian, its system of concepts is observed. This influence is also evident in economics dictionaries: as economics turned toward the West, the number of terms containing the word kaštai increased considerably in them. Many concepts at the theoretical level containing the word cost emerged, and compound terms whose principal component in earlier dictionaries was the word expenses also began to be presented with this word.

On the other hand, the standardization of the word kaštai has not been consistent. The codified norm is not coherent—neither synchronically nor diachronically. Even today, the word is considered both a word used in the narrower sphere of standard language, or simply a loanword (DŽ), a loanword with a dialectal coloring (LKŽ), and an undesirable foreignism (KP4). The term kaštai was classified as an undesirable foreignism only more than 30 years after its first negative assessment (ntk.), given in KPP₁ (1976). By then, the term had already become established in usage. The fact that kaštai was not included in KPP₂, published in 1985, would also indicate fluctuations in the norm. These are also reflected in the word’s assessment in the periodical press. After P. Skardžius proposed the substitutes expenses and funds in 1962, attention was drawn to the fact that they are suitable only in certain cases. In 1995 it was also noted that in journalistic writing the word kaštai is also used to mean price or value, but the proposed substitutes were funds, costs, expenses (Pupkis 1995: 14). Furthermore, another shade of meaning was not taken into account in discussions of the word kaštai, namely its association with a loss incurred in obtaining something else, with the value of a loss. The noun proposed for correction was linked to the verb kaštuoti, and the latter’s decline in usage was cited. An analysis of economics texts shows that the verb kaštuoti is now completely unused, but the noun remains relevant as a term in economic theory.

English, the prevailing language in the development of economic theory, not only encourages adherence to conceptual equivalence but also reveals the phonetic resemblance between English cost and Lithuanian kaštai.

R. VASKELAITĖ. Kaštai – vengtina svetimybė ar ekonomikos teorijos neišvengiamybė?

301

resemblance. As already mentioned, the phonetic structure of German Kosten is similar. Contemporary contact with other languages of the world reveals that a word with the same root is also used in many other languages: Spanish costo (coste), Italian costo, Portuguese custo, Dutch kosten, French coût, Norwegian kostnad, Belarusian koum, Danish omkostning, Finnish kustannus, and others. Z. Babickienė’s article confirms P. Skardžius’s etymological insights: the term kaštai is Indo-European. According to the article’s author, it entered Middle English from Old French: cocter, to cost – lot. cōnstāre, “to be fixed”, const (Babickienė 2012: 57). This origin changes its status as a foreignism and is another factor supporting its use. But whatever its origin, this word is fully adapted phonetically and morphologically and does not differ from words not considered foreignisms, such as paštas, raštas and the like.

As can be seen, the factors supporting the word kaštai in economic terminology are strong, and the problem is multilayered and multifaceted, encompassing more than one field. Further factors behind the mismatch between usage and the norm would become clear through a broader examination of other fields of use, primarily accounting. The analysis presented here would also be substantially supplemented by research into the word’s prevalence in general usage, especially in scholarly articles on economics or accounting, as well as by a more detailed examination of the term’s development. Thus, many avenues for research remain, and this article is rather an initial effort to examine the relationship between usage and the codified norm and the factors underlying their inconsistency.

CONCLUSIONS

1. In the most recent works on the codified norm (KP4₁ and KP4₂), the word kaštai is assessed negatively from the standpoint of the norm, i.e. it is considered an undesirable foreignism; however, it is widely used in texts on economic theory, specifically in economics textbooks for higher education. This relationship can be viewed as a gap between the norm and usage.

2. One reason for this gap is the inconsistency of the norm itself, both current and past. In LKŽ_e, the word kaštas is regarded merely as a loanword widespread in dialects (from Polish); DŽ_e gives the cross-reference “see” only as a suggestion to replace the word with more commonly used words of Lithuanian origin, expenses, funds, whereas KP4 considers the word an undesirable foreignism in the field of finance. Kaštai was assessed strictly in KKP₁—as an unacceptable foreignism—but it was not included in KKP₂…

302

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

Thus, from 1976 to 2005, a fairly long period elapsed in language standardization work.

3. In correcting the noun in publications on language usage, the usual rationale is that the derivative kaštuoti is naturally falling out of use. This derivative is not used in texts on economic theory, whereas the noun kaštai has become established as a term. Analysis of usage reveals that in economic theory this borrowing conveys the special meaning “loss incurred in acquiring something,” for which Lithuanian lacks a word. This meaning is not adequately conveyed by the words nuostolis, netektis, praradimas, žala (loss, deprivation, forfeiture, damage). In general usage, that meaning could more or less be conveyed by the figurative sense of kaina (price), but this word is unsuitable for economic theory because of its polysemy. As a term denoting production costs and their types, the word kaštai is usually associated with the monetary expression of value—price—and thus more with the literal meaning of kainos (price).

4. The proposed substitutes lėšos, išlaidos, sąnaudos (funds, expenses, costs) in language-standardizing publications do not adequately convey the concept’s meaning; moreover, they are used with other meanings in the same field. The term išlaidos (expenses) also distinguishes the fields of economic theory and accounting.

5. One factor sustaining the word kaštai in economic theory is the aim of presenting a general scheme for classifying costs; this aim is influenced by economic theory developed in English and by the way concepts are set out in English. This is confirmed by dictionaries of economic terms translated from English or compiled with reference to English-language economic terminology.

6. The term kaštai has been used in economics for quite a long time. It was also used in the Soviet-era dictionary of economic terms (1966), while dictionaries prepared during the transition to a market economy and to an economic science that formulates its principles show that the term has become even more current.

7. The term’s use in economic terminology is also supported by its phonetic similarity to analogous terms used in other languages. The word is not of Polish but of Indo-European origin; moreover, it has been adapted phonetically and morphologically in Lithuanian.

8. The factors supporting Kaštus as an economic term are quite substantial, whereas the substitutes proposed to date are inadequate to convey its meaning. Thus, continued usage in the specialized field should determine whether to seek new substitutes or, in keeping with the principle of consistency, to continue using the term kaštai. Nevertheless, given that the nuances of the word kaštai differ in economic theory—it denotes both the value (price) of a loss resulting from the necessity of making a choice and the value (price) of costs—it is worth considering whether it is not confusing for economic terminology to use a single word in both cases.

R. VASKELAITĖ. Kaštai – veng­tina svetimybė ar ekonomikos teorijos neišvengiamybė?

303

ŠALTINIAI

AĮV 2000: Martin kus B., Neverauskas B., Sakalas A., Venskus R., Žilinskas V. Aiškinamasis įmonės vadybos terminų žodynas, Kaunas: Technologija.

BBB 1994: Buračas A., Svecevičius B. Biznio, bankų, biržos terminų žodynas, Vilnius: Žodynas.

Bhaskar J. D. 2000: Vadybinė ekonomika, Kaunas: Technologija.

BKT 1997: Buračas A. Bankininkystės ir komercijos terminų žodynas. I dalis: Bankininkystės ir komercijos terminų aiškinamasis žodynas, Vilnius, Kaunas: Vilniaus universitetas, Kauno humanitarinis fakultetas.

Buračas A., Jakutis A., Petraškevičius V., Stepanovas A., Šečkutė L., Zaicev V. S. 2003: Ekonomikos teorija. 5 leidimas, Vilnius: Eugrimas.

Čiegis T. 2012: Makroekonomika. Vilniaus universiteto vadovėlis, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.

Davulis G. 2009: Ekonomikos teorija. Vadovėlis aukštųjų mokyklų studentams. Antroji papildyta ir pataisyta laida, Vilnius: Mykolo Romerio universitetas.

Drilingas B., Čiburienė J., Snieška V. 1997: Makroekonomikos pagrindai, Kaunas: Technologija.

ETS 1999: Ekonomikos terminai ir sąvokos. Mokomasis žodynas, Vilnius: Vilniaus pedagoginis universitetas.

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

ETŽ₂: Pass Ch., Lowes B., Davies L. 1997: Ekonomikos terminų žodynas. Antrasis papildytas ir pataisytas leidimas. Iš anglų k. vertė Z. Bareikytė, L. B. Žemaitvtė, K. Francūzevičienė. Redagavo ir tikslino A. V. Rutkauskas, St. Vaitkevičius, Vilnius: Baltijos biznis.

Jakutis A. 2006: Ekonomikos teorijos pagrindai. Mokomoji knyga. 6-asis pataisytas ir papildytas leidimas, Vilnius: Vilniaus Gedimino technikos universitetas.

Jakutis A., Petraškevičius V., Stepanovas A., Šečkutė L., Zaicevas S. 2003: Ekonomikos teorijos pagrindai. Ketvirtas pataisytas leidimas, Kaunas: Smaltija.

Jakutis A., Petraškevičius V., Stepanovas A., Šečkutė L., Zaicev S. 2007: Ekonomikos teorija. Šeštas pataisytas leidimas, Kaunas: Eugrimas.

Kalčinskas G. 2007: Buhalterinės apskaitos pagrindai. Šeštoji laida, Vilnius:ス Pačiolis.

Kalčinskas G., Černius G. 1997: Finansinė ir menedžmento apskaita 1: Įmonių apskaitos pagrindai, Vilnius: Pačiolis.

304

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

Kerem K., Randveer M. 1998: Ekonomikos pagrindai. Studijų Baltijos valstybėse įvadas, Vilnius: UAB „Jonas ir partneriai“.

Klimašauskienė Z. 2006: Mikroekonominė analizė. Mokomoji knyga, Šiauliai: VŠĮ Šiaulių universiteto leidykla.

Lakis V., Mackevičius J., Gaižauskas L. 2010: Valdymo apskaitos teorija ir praktika. Vadovėlis, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.

Lukoševičius V., Stankevičius P. 2003: Teorinė ekonomika. Metodinė mokymo priemonė. I dalis, Vilnius: Vilniaus pedagoginis universitetas.

Mackevičius J. 2003: Valdymo apskaita: koncepcija, metodika, politika, Vilnius: TEV.

Mackevičius J., Poškaitė D. 2003: Finansinė analizė, Vilnius: Katalikų pasaulis.

Makutėnas V. Makutėnienė D. 2004: Ekonomika. Vadovėlis XI–XII klasei. Pirmoji knyga, Kaunas: Šviesa.

Maldeikienė A. 2003: Ekonomika. Vadovėlis 9–10 klasėms, Vilnius: Tyto alba.

Martinkus B., Žilinskas V. 2001: Ekonomikos pagrindai. Antrasis pataisytas ir papildytas leidimas, Kaunas: Technologija.

Mikučionis P. 2000: Ekonomikos teorijos pradmenys. Mokomoji knyga, Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas.

Paliulytė R. 2005: Makroekonomika: paskaitų ciklas, Vilnius: Vilniaus vadybos aukštoji mokykla.

Panovas I. 2013: Mikroekonomika: vadovėlis, Vilnius: Mykolo Romerio universitetas.

Paunksienė J., Liučvaitienė A. 2009: Mikroekonomika: mokomoji knyga, Vilnius: Technika.

Rastenienė A. 2005: Mikroekonomika. Paskaitų ciklas. Antras papildytas ir pataisytas leidimas, Vilnius: Vilniaus vadybos akademija.

RLŽ 1966: Rusiškai lietuviškas ekonomikos terminų žodynas. Redakcinė kolegija: K. Meškauskas (ats. red.), A. Poviliūnas, V. Puronas, A. Skupeika, Vilnius: Mintis.

Skominas V. (ats. red.) 2000: Mikroekonomika, Vilnius: Enciklopedija.

Skominas V. (sud.) 2006: Makroekonomika, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.

Snieška V., Ambrasienė I., Bernatonytė D., Dapkus M. ir kt. 2000: Mikroekonomika. Antrasis pataisytas ir papildytas leidimas, Kaunas: Technologija.

Snieška V., Baumilienė V., Bernatonytė D. ir kt. 2005: Makroekonomika. Vadovėlis. Trečiasis pataisytas ir papildytas leidimas, Kaunas: Technologija.

R. VASKELAITĖ. Kaštai – veng­tina svetimybė ar ekonomikos teorijos neišvengiamybė?

305

Šalčius P. 1991: Petras Šalčius. Raštai. Teorinė ekonomika ir ekonominės minties istorija, Vilnius: Mintis.

ŠET: Auštrevičius P., Pupkevičius D., Treigienė D. 1991: Šiuolaikinių ekonomikos terminų enciklopedinis žodynas lietuvių–anglų–vokiečių–rusų kalbomis. Ats. red. A. Miškinis, Vilnius: Lietuvos laisvosios rinkos institutas, Lietuvos komersantas.

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

Varian H. R. 1999: Mikroekonomika: šiuolaikinis požiūris, Vilnius: Margi raštai.

VAS: 2013: 11-asis verslo apskaitos standartas „Pardavimo savikaina ir veiklos sąnaudos“. Prieiga per internetą: <http://www.administratorius.com/wp-content/uploads/11vas.pdf>.

VDU 2005: Ekonomika. Mokomoji knyga, Kaunas: Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas.

VDU 2013: Vytauto Didžiojo universiteto Kompiuterinės lingvistikos centras. Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos tekstynas. Prieiga per internetą: <www.tekstynas.vdu.lt>.

Wonnacott P., Wonnacot R. 1994: Makroekonomika, Kaunas: Litterae Universitatis.

Wonnacott P., Wonnacott P. 1997: Mikroekonomika. Antrasis pataisytas leidimas. Moksl. Red. Z. Lydeka, Kaunas: Poligrafija ir informatika.

Žutautienė J. 2007: Verslo ekonomika, Klaipėda: Klaipėdos universiteto leidykla.

LITERATŪRA

Babickienė Z. 2012: Ekonomikos terminų gramatinių ir leksinių variantų sklaida: norma ir realybė. – Specialybės kalba: gramatika ir logika. Mokslinių straipsnių rinkinys, Vilnius: Mykolo Romerio universitetas, 51–64.

Banaitis P. 1995: Dėl ekonomikos terminų [su redakcijos prier.]. – Gimtoji kalba 10, 25–26.

DŽ 2000: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

DŽ_e 2011: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas. Internetinė versija, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Prieiga per internetą: < http://dz.lki.lt/>.

Girčienė J. 2004: Skoliniai ir bendrinė kalba, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla.

Jakaitienė E. 2010: Leksikologija: studijų knyga, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.

KPP₁ 1976: Kalbos praktikos patarimai. Sudarė A. Paulauskienė, Vilnius: Mokslas.

KPP₂ 1985: Kalbos praktikos patarimai. Sudarė A. Pupkis, Vilnius: Mokslas.

306

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86

KP4₁ 2005: Kalbos patarimai 4. Leksika: skolinių vartojimas (svetimybės, tarptautiniai žodžiai), Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

KP4₂ 2013: Kalbos patarimai 4. Leksika: skolinių vartojimas (Leksikos skolinių sąrašas ir Senųjų svetimybių sąrašas). Antrasis pataisytas ir papildytas leidimas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos centras.

LKK 1998: Lietuvių kalbos komisijos nutarimai 1977–1998, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

LKŽ 1959: Lietuvių kalbos žodynas. V tomas, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla.

LKŽₑ 2011: Lietuvių kalbos žodynas, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Prieiga per internetą: <http://www.lkz.lt/startas.htm> (žiūrėta 2013).

Pupkis A. 1995: Ar vartotinas žodis kaštai? [Klausimų kraitelė]. – Gimtoji kalba 6, 14.

Rimkutė A. 2007: Kai kurie sinoniminių religijos terminų vartosenos atvejai katekizmuose (XVI a. ir XIX a. galas – XX a. pradžia). – Terminologija 14, 135–145.

Skardžius P. 1998: Rinktiniai raštai 3, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

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

Umbrasas A. 2004: Bendrašakniai dvižodžių teisės terminų sinonimai ir variantai 1918–1940 m. Lietuvos kodeksuose. – Terminologija 12, 7–26.

Vaicekauskienė L. 2007: Naujoji lietuvių kalbos svetimžodžiai: kalbos politika ir vartosena, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

VLKK 2013: Valstybinė lietuvių kalbos komisija. Konsultacijų bankas. Prieiga per internetą: <www.vlkk.lt> (žiūrėta 2013 12 02).

Zemlevičiūtė P. 2001: Sinoniminiai „Medicinos enciklopedijos“ terminai. – Terminologija 8, 34–49.

Gauta 2013 12 09 Priimta 2013 12 20

KAŠTAI – A BARBARISM TO BE AVOIDED OR AN INEVITABILITY OF ECONOMIC THEORY?

Summary

The article addresses a case of word use which is in disagreement to the codified norm – the use of the noun kaštas (English cost) in the economic language. Based on the analysis of the use of this word and the whole group of terms formed with it in the economic theory textbooks for higher education institutions as well as the

R. VASKE LAITĖ. Kaštai – veng­tina svetimybė ar ekonomikos teorijos neišvengiamybė?

307

treatment of the term in the dictionaries of economic terms, the article aims to find out the factors determining the contradiction between the norm and actual use.

A rather varied evaluation of the noun kaštas in terms of norm in various dictionaries and standardising publications is considered one of such factors. Such norm variations is one of the factors of the spread of this word in the actual use, however, this loanword is special by its spread in a special area exclusively – economic theory. It means that the theory employs this word as a term for rendering a special meaning.

The analysis of the texts on economic theory, revealing the meaning of the word kaštai as a term of economic theory, also unravels the reasons of the word’s insusceptibility to corrections: the proposed replacements išlaidos (expenses), lėšos (funds), sąnaudos (expenditure) do not render the meaning of the word; what is more, they are used in the same area in different meanings. The term išlaidos also separates the spheres of economic theory and accounting.

Whereas a Lithuanian word rendering the specific meaning is lacking, the loanword is used. One of the factors in favour of the use of the loanword is also its spread in various languages, not only Polish, which was considered the source of arrival of this word in Lithuanian dialects. Contemporary interaction with other world languages shows that the word of this root is also used in other European languages. The loanword is also supported by the fact that economic theory is predominantly created in English and the arrangement of concepts in it has influence on the arrangement of Lithuanian concepts.

On the other hand, the use of the term kaštai in the economic sphere is rather old. As the norm of this word tends to vary and it is being corrected from time to time, it has already established itself in the economic language and, in contrast to the new Anglicisms, it has been adapted in Lithuanian phonetically and morphologically. Its replacement would mean the reformation of the long-established system of concepts in the science of economics; however, the major problem pertains to the fact that the replacements proposed to date do not render the meanings of this word in the economic theory. It should be up to the representatives of the economic theory, i.e. authors of new textbooks and compilers of the dictionaries of terms, to decide whether it is meaningful to search for new replacements or to support the long-established system of concepts.

KEYWORDS: loanword, barbarism to be avoided, meaning of the word, norm, use, term, concept.

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ

Lietuvos bankas

Gedimino pr. 6, LT-01103 Vilnius

[email protected]

308

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 86