Lietuvių kalbos leksikos norminimo raida

ANTANAS BALAŠAITIS THE DEVELOPMENT OF LITHUANIAN LEXICAL STANDARDIZATION 1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS The information presented in practical dictionaries influences language usage, since they are compiled with the aim of standardizing the lexicon (Naktinienė 2000: 12). Published more than half a century ago, Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas (hereinafter DŽ) is considered a seminal work of the Lithuanian language (Keinys 1991a: 96). Moreover, this dictionary is “a simple, accessible, and effective means of raising the standard of both spoken and written language” (Ulvy das 1977: 13). Thus, DŽ is an important work for the development of Standard Lithuanian and, at the same time, for Lithuanian culture as a whole. It is therefore useful to assess it from various perspectives, especially when preparing a dictionary of the standard language. This article presents several features of DŽ’s compilation history from a sociological perspective, recalling matters that are difficult for today’s younger generation of philologists to imagine—how the political authorities of the time and their changes affected linguists, the nature of the work they were compiling, and the standards it prescribed. A broader assessment of the period should also not be overlooked when examining the circumstances in which DŽ was compiled. The official authorities obstructed efforts to take organized action to preserve the Lithuanian language under the conditions of an increasingly prevalent bilingualism (and to revive the Lithuanian Language Society), while promoting internationalism and Russian as essential to the friendship of nations, and emphasizing only its positive influence on Lithuanian. Thus, “the Lithuanian language lost its sovereignty in the country—the basic condition that had allowed it to grow and strengthen” (Piročkinas 1994: 5). The author of this article1, like Professor Zigmas Zinkevičius in his works on language history, links the state of the language and its standardization to the life of society. 1 The article is a substantially expanded version of a paper delivered at the jubilee international scientific conference on June 23, 2008 (see “Changes in the Standardization of Lithuanian Lexicon in the First Editions of Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodyno.” – Leksikologija ir terminologija: teorija, praktika, istorija. Abstracts, 2008). The article is intended to honor Jonas Kruopas (1908–1975), the responsible editor of the first two editions of DŽ, on the centenary of his birth. 112 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 81 2. FIRST ATTEMPTS AT A PRACTICAL DICTIONARY Praktinį norminį žodyną greta didžiojo jau ketino parengti Kazimieras Būga (1879–1924). Kaip nurodoma Antano Salio (1902–1972) straipsnyje Lietuvių enciklopedijoje (LE XXXV 1966: 408), „A. Vireliūnas ir A. Varnas buvo jau pradėję atrinkinėti medžiagą iš didžiojo žodyno kartotekos“. Bet po Būgos mirties šis užmojis buvo pamirštas. „Medžiagos atrinkimas buvo iš naujo pradėtas Juozo Balčikonio vadovaujamo didžiojo žodyno redakcijoje“ (ten pat). A practical language reference work was prepared just after the end of the Second World War. The linguist and educator Alfonsas Kalnius (1907–1981), together with the geographer Stanislovas Tarvydas (1903–1975), drawing on Mato Jurkynas’s (1909–1944) collections of onomastic material, compiled a language handbook. It was edited by Kazimieras Gasparavičius (1908–1983), Napalys Grigas (1896–1972), Kazys Ulvydas (1910–1996), and Aleksandras Žirgulys (1909–1986), with Juozas Lazauskas (1892–1970) as responsible editor. It was titled Lietuvių kalbos rašybos žodynu and published in 1948. The title was clearly too narrow: the work presented the basics of spelling, punctuation, accentuation, and case usage, an outline of dialects, several hundred place names, and an accent-marked dictionary of about five thousand words (without definitions). For some time, it served as a handy book for students and as a means of standardizing the standard language. Lithuanian linguists who were war refugees in Germany also sought to prepare publications addressing the needs of their native language. In 1950, Lietuvių kalbos vadovas, compiled by Pranas Skardžius (1899–1975), Stasys Barzdukas (1906–1981), and Jonas Martynas Laurinaitis (1894–1966), was published in Bielefeld. In the “Editors’ Note,” P. Skardžius explained the history of the publication’s preparation. S. Barzdukas, a teacher at the Lithuanian Gymnasium in Tübingen, had suggested to him that a spelling textbook for schools should be prepared. The professor supported the initiative. In March 1948, a meeting of the Lithuanian Refugee Community approved the preparation of the textbook. But it soon became clear that a more comprehensive publication was needed: “at present it is advisable to publish not merely a spelling textbook, but as comprehensive a work as possible, which, in addition to spelling, would also briefly cover the more important aspects of standard-language pronunciation, word formation, inflection, syntax in part, and vocabulary.” All this was needed “so that we might all have a more substantial linguistic resource to help us preserve for longer the level of our native-language culture and its distinctiveness, facilitate communication among ourselves, and thereby sustain our national and communal spirit for longer.” A. BALAŠAITIS. Lietuvių kalbos leksikos norminimo raida 113 With this aim in view, the manuscript grew into a substantial book. In the Lithuanian Language Handbook, P. Skardžius discussed standard-language usage, pronunciation, sound formation, stress and accent, the stress patterns of individual parts of speech, spelling (including variable forms), the spelling of foreign words, word formation, neologisms, international words, the use of cases, and punctuation. A fairly extensive dictionary was also included. This distinctive, comprehensive dictionary, which made up three quarters of the book (444 pages), was intended for émigrés and took account of their needs in the countries where they lived. In addition to Lithuanian personal names and place names, it included place names and notable figures’ surnames from Germany, the USA, Canada, and Australia. The dictionary also contains biblical names, writers’ pseudonyms, scholars’ surnames, names of places of worship, various abbreviations, and popular Latin names and expressions. More common prefixes are presented and explained in separate entries. Some familiar words are not explained (only their part of speech and stress pattern are indicated), while others are explained by synonyms. For some words, the etymology or equivalents in English, French, or German are given. Most entries offer concise explanations with brief usage examples. Prefixed verbs are listed either in the entry illustrating the main word or in separate entries, and are sometimes explained as well. The dictionary also aimed to standardize the lexicon: words considered unsuitable for standard language are enclosed in square brackets and marked by origin: [apàrt (prc., sl.), without, e.g.: without money, Onutė also received gifts], [gùzikas (g., l.), button], [leikà (g.), watering can, funnel], [mierà (g., r.), measure, moderation], [šni̇celis (vok.), slice], [špòsas (vok., l.), joke, prank], [trùšikai (r.), briefs, underpants], [Vìlija (g., l.) Neris], [viršgam̃tinis (calque), supernatural], [želė (prc., r.), jelly]. Overall, care was taken to illustrate the topics discussed in the dictionary’s introduction, demonstrate language usage, promote its cultivation, and teach correct stress and spelling. Preparation of the handbook was being completed as emigration from Germany began. Editor P. Skardžius finished reading the proofs after arriving in Cleveland (USA), and signed the “Editorial Note” on December 15, 1949. The closing note, “On Completing the Work,” signed by the Lithuanian Community in Germany in Munich on June 29, 1950, names those who assisted with its preparation and printing, as well as its supporters. The “Venta” publishing house handled its publication. Printed in a run of 5,000 copies, The Lithuanian Language Handbook (604 pp.) served for a long time as a reference book for our war refugees. A revised and expanded edition of the book was being prepared, but it was never published (Skardžius 1999: 793–794, 928). 114 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 81 3. THE FIRST EDITION OF THE DICTIONARY OF CONTEMPORARY LITHUANIAN The practical dictionary manuscript was prepared only after the Second World War by the lexicographers Napalys Grigas and Antanas Lyberis (1909–1996) of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language. Antanė Kučinskaitė (1915–2006), who had recently begun working at the Institute, selected words from the card file of the comprehensive dictionary, since only about half the alphabet’s words had been copied onto cards for the concise dictionary (Kučinskaitė 1981: 26–27). As this author wrote, a substantial dictionary manuscript had already been written by the end of 1948 (ibid.). After examining the manuscript, the Academy of Sciences leadership pointed out that it lacked words relating to Soviet life and specialized terms. Following criticism of volume II (1947) of the comprehensive Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, the expanded meeting of the Academy of Sciences’ Department of Social Sciences on November 12, 1948, also considered the manuscript of the standard-language dictionary then in preparation. In his report, Juozas Balčikonis (1885–1969), director of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language, indicated what kind of dictionary it would be. It was intended to include all Lithuanian words in use and the more common international words, as well as place names alongside global geographical names. Part of the dictionary had already been edited (the letters A–O, R, Š, and U). “Editing the dictionary gives rise to difficulties concerning standardization, stress, suffixes, etc. A weak point of the dictionary is that too little scientific terminology has been collected, as well as too few words created by Soviet life” (see Bulletin of the Academy of Sciences of the Lithuanian SSR, 1949: 301). The dictionary manuscript came in for severe criticism. Vice-President J. Žiugžda complained that “obsolete material, collected long ago, is being used for the Dictionary entirely uncritically. [...] Both in its choice of words and in its phraseology (i.e., usage illustrations), the Dictionary is divorced from the reality of Soviet life” (ibid., 302). The editor of Tiesa, H. Zimanas, and Academy of Sciences president J. Matulis agreed with this critical assessment. K. Korsakas, director of the Institute of Lithuanian Literature, stressed that “a standard-language dictionary should serve practical needs. [...] In fact, the Standard-Language Dictionary as now edited is an abridged summary of the Comprehensive Dictionary” (ibid., 304). The dictionary manuscript therefore had to be shortened and, at the same time, supplemented. The compilers were concerned not only with removing “ideological errors” but also considered questions of its structure. Proper names were dropped, and ways of presenting prefixed verbs more effectively were sought. Academician Boris Larin (1893–1964), deputy director of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature in 1952–1953, proposed listing prefixed verbs in separate entries. This proposal could not be accepted because the comprehensive dictionary’s card file was organized differently. Therefore, later, it- A. BALAŠAITIS. Lietuvių kalbos leksikos norminimo raida 115 as far as possible, A. Lyberis placed only prefixed verbs with specific meanings in separate entries, while the others remained in usage examples. The introduction to DŽ1 states that “it would in fact be advisable to list all prefixed verbs separately in alphabetical order, even those without distinctive meanings” (p. XI). This was done in the DŽ2 edition. At the Union-wide conference of lexicographers organized by the Institute of the Lithuanian Language in April 1952, as reported in Literatūra ir menas (1952 05 11), “staff members of the Linguistics Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences delivered a series of valuable papers at the conference and offered serious guidance on questions of Lithuanian lexicology and lexicography.” Disagreeing with the changes being made to the editing of the LKŽ, J. Balčikonis resigned as editor and director of the Institute. In 1952, the Institute of the Lithuanian Language was merged with the Institute of Lithuanian Literature. The academician and literary scholar Kostas Korsakas (1909–1986) was appointed head of the combined institute. In accordance with the conference’s recommendations and the instructions of the editorial board for the Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian, established by the Presidium of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences, the relevant editing guidelines were prepared (their authors were J. Kruopas, A. Kučinskaitė, and B. Larin). K. Korsakas, B. Larin, J. Kabelka, J. Kruopas (managing editor), A. Lyberis, and K. Ulvydas were appointed to the editorial board. J. Balčikonis’s name also appears on the title page, although in a letter dated December 3, 1953, he declined to be listed among the dictionary’s editors: “Since I am no longer a staff member directly involved with the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature, and since I do not agree with the other dictionary editors’ views on correctness of language in every respect, I would ask you not to include me among the editors of that dictionary” (see Reminiscences of the Linguist Juozas Balčikonis, 2006: 296). The Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian was published in 1954. Its fairly extensive introduction explained the dictionary’s structure, the explanation of word meanings, and stress. About 45,000 words in the dictionary were marked for stress and defined. The preface describes the purpose of DŽ as follows: “Soviet linguists were given the urgent task of preparing a comprehensive explanatory dictionary of contemporary Lithuanian that would clearly reflect socialist ideology and Soviet life, effectively contribute to the cultivation of language, and help establish literary-language norms in Soviet society.” Thus, the dictionary’s editors were primarily expected to concern themselves with the ideology imposed by the Communist Party. In accordance with the Communist Party’s position set out in the preface, DŽ included the following and similar ideologically charged definitions of words relating to public life, together with illustrative sentences, most of them taken from Russian Soviet dictionaries: 116 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 81 agent 3. a spy and saboteur for an imperialist government. aggressor an invader, instigator of an imperialist war, an attacking country: Imperialist ~s. army 5. colloq. a group, a multitude: At the head of the gigantic, powerful armies of peace supporters marches our great Motherland—the Soviet Union. church (1) 1. a building where people adhering to religious superstitions gather to pray. Cf. Orthodox church a place of worship for Orthodox Christians. kulak (1) 5. a representative of the rural bourgeoisie—a wealthy peasant: The class of ~s has been liquidated in our country. religion (1) one of the forms of social consciousness, a worldview based on mysticism and belief in miraculous forces and imaginary beings; faith: “Religion is the opium of the people” (Marx). “Religion is one of the forms of spiritual oppression” (Lenin). In class society, r. is a tool for oppressing working people and maintaining the rule of the exploiting classes. R. is opposed to science and hinders understanding the laws governing the development of nature and society. faith (1) belief in the supposed existence of God; the pseudoscience of religion. A few more sentences transferred into the dictionary from the press of that period: Our great Soviet Motherland is the stronghold and standard-bearer of peace throughout the world. Filled with joy and happiness, the Lithuanian people marches in the October demonstration in the united family of the Soviet peoples. Unshakable faith in the victory of communism. All roads lead to communism. Soviet rule created unprecedented opportunities for the development of culture. Experience of life in those times suggests that the dictionary’s political coloring was caused by the prevailing dictatorship and propaganda. Those implementing it urged the Lithuanian Dictionary to be “improved” out of conviction in the splendor of communist ideology and Soviet life, while the editors did so out of fear of appearing disobedient and reluctant to adopt the imposed ideology. It had already been experienced often enough that disobedience was followed by repression. Recalling the first edition of the Lithuanian Dictionary, the editor of the third edition, Stasys Keinys, acknowledged that “it was a difficult and complicated time. Any ideological disfavor with the authorities could then end in years of pondering one’s ‘mistakes’ and exercising one’s muscles across the Gulag archipelago of the vast ‘homeland’” (Gimtoji kalba 8, 1991: 22). Lithuanian linguists who had ended up in the United States criticized the politicization of the Lithuanian Dictionary. P. Skardžius wrote that “everything that constitutes the foundation of culture and civilization in the West is here forcibly cast in a single mechanical mold: [...] everything is subordinated to a blind mechanism, the socio-economic factor [...]”. A considerable part of the dictionary “is permeated with communist ideology” (Skardžius 1999: 918); “...this dictionary is not scientifically objective, but A. BALAŠAITIS. Lietuvių kalbos leksikos norminimo raida 117 ideologically selective: many words commonly used in everyday life were deliberately omitted, e.g. adventas, anatema, atvelykis, babtistas, čekistas, dekalogas, enkavedistas, evangelija, evangelistas, komunija, ostija, trejybė, etc.” (Skardžius 1997: 411). Judging from the illustrative examples of words given in DŽ, A. Salys wrote in the article “Dictionaries” in volume 35 of the Lietuvių enciklopedija that “such propagandistic ecstasy can perhaps be explained only by the boundless political terror of those years” (Salys 1985: 236). The Institute’s director, K. Korsakas, announced the publication of the dictionary in Tiesoje (1954 10 05). Soon afterward the executive editor, J. Kruopas, also presented the dictionary (Tarybinis mokytojas, 1954 11 11), pointing out some of the standards established: abažūras, veliūras, fakyras, turnyras. He also stressed that “the establishment of some normative forms provoked major disputes among the dictionary’s editors” (Kruopas 1998: 422–425). Naturally, it was not easy to establish the most acceptable standards in the first normative dictionary. Thus, in the very first review, Vytautas Būda (Literatūra ir menas, 1954 10 30) expressed doubts about the proposal “to form place-based personal names using only the suffix –ietis [...]. The compilers of the dictionary, had they taken literary Lithuanian folk speech into account, would have done better to leave all three suffixes (–ietis, –iškis, –ėnas) as parallel forms.” Six months later, in another review, Vincentas Drotvinas, Adelė Laigonaitė, and Jonas Paulauskas (Literatūra ir menas, 1955 04 02) made comments on the selection of words (they could not find abiturientas, buldozeris), and proposed giving more attention to words with common prefixes prie-, su-, už-. Vladas Grinaveckis, Jonas Palionis, and Vincas Urbutis published comments on the selection of words in Tiesoje (1955 03 05): “even rarer dialect words should find a place in an explanatory dictionary if they occur in the works of the classics of Lithuanian belles lettres: e.g., luinas, pylė, repukas (Donelaitis), snopis (Žemaitė), atvalka, kraiguoti, nupiepti (P. Cvirka), panuovalis (Vienuolis), priebėga (I. Simonaitytė). Among international words, the following should be included: aviamodelizmas, buldozeris, frezuoti, leiboristas, skreperis, streptomicinas.” The greatest criticism they expressed concerned the treatment of loanwords: “In the dictionary, loanwords are not properly processed from a lexicographic standpoint; they are not restricted, and the limits of their usage are not indicated. The abbreviation not recommended (= a word not recommended) that was introduced is almost never used with loanwords that are truly not recommended for use in Lithuanian..., and it is absent from ainis, išdirbinys, laisvanoris, skaitlingas, vaizdinys, as well as from balkis, glita, šniūras, špricas, trusikai.” 118 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 81 4. THE CHICAGO EDITION OF DŽ (1962) A review of the editions of DŽ should also recall the publication of the first edition of DŽ in Chicago. A practical Lithuanian-language dictionary was needed by the Lithuanian community, which had grown in the United States after the war, including refugees who had arrived from Germany. But there was no one available to prepare such a dictionary: both linguists and educators first had to establish themselves, working at all kinds of manual jobs. It was decided to reprint the Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodyną, published in Vilnius in 1954; the communist propaganda simply had to be removed—or, in their term, “de-Bolshevized.” The popular Lithuanian publishing house “Terra” in Chicago began arranging the reprinting of the dictionary in 1955. A discussion began in the press (Drauge, Naujienose, Vienybėje) about how it should be revised. P. Skardžius (1999: 917–924) and Benediktas Babrauskas offered many comments. The writer B. Babrauskas (1910–1968), who had written about language-culture issues in Lithuania and published the booklet “Kirčiavimo taisyklės” (1939), undertook to “de-Bolshevize” DŽ. He replaced politicized definitions of word meanings and illustrative sentences, removed several Soviet terms entirely, and substituted illustrative text of equivalent length featuring neutral neighboring words. Dictionary inserts set in a very similar typeface were pasted over the original text, and the photographic reprint was thus printed in Chicago. The dictionary included its own preface, “Notes on the Second Edition,” which explained the reasons for the revisions: work on revising the dictionary began because “the first edition was unacceptable, particularly because it was overloaded with material from Bolshevik propaganda, which had nothing to do with the purpose of the dictionary, with its linguistic requirements, or, ultimately, with the seriousness and objectivity of a scholarly work.” Unable to contact the compilers and ask their permission to reprint because of the former Iron Curtain, the reviser offers his apologies. The name of editorial board member B. Larin was omitted from the title page, since he was regarded there as the political leader of the Lithuanian linguists, or, in the Russian term, a “politruk.” There is no mention anywhere of the person who revised the dictionary; even L. D.’s (probably Leonardo Dambriūnas’s (1906–1976)) review in Gimtojoje kalboje (1963, no. 1) does not even mention the publishers. This is understandable, since the dictionary was reprinted without the compilers’ permission. The reviewer undoubtedly knew who had revised the dictionary and which publishing house had issued it, but it would have been imprudent to write about work carried out illegally. In the Lithuanian press in the United States, the dictionary in preparation was advertised (in the subscription announcement) as Professor J. Balčikonis’s dictionary, perhaps because his name came first on the editorial board, although J. Kruopas was identified as executive editor. As a result, J. Balčikonis even had to explain in the press: “to publish in Ameri A. BALAŠAITIS. Lietuvių kalbos leksikos norminimo raida 119 “...in the country no one had asked me for such a dictionary, and I had not given consent to use my name for that purpose” (Tiesa, 1961 03 04). In Lithuania, this edition was not discussed anywhere at the time, not even in the linguistic press, as though it had never existed. Only during the years of national revival did a few copies appear in the major libraries of Lithuania. I first wrote about the history of this edition in 1999 in Gimtoji kalba (nos. 5, 6)—“The Chicago edition of the Dictionary of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language” (1962)2. 5. SECOND EDITION OF DŽ After a dozen or so years, the need arose to prepare a new edition of DŽ. There were plans to make the new edition much better—not a dictionary of contemporary language, but one of the standard language, then called literary language (after the term literaturnyj jazyk used in Russian linguistics). To this end, a conference was convened on October 23, 1968, to discuss the dictionary then in preparation. The executive editor, J. Kruopas, published an article entitled “What Should a Literary Language Dictionary Be Like” (Literatūra ir menas, 1968 10 19; see Kruopas 1998: 455–460). However, after some time it became clear that it was not yet possible to prepare a fully exemplary dictionary of the standard language, and the old title was retained for the dictionary published four years later (1972). The second edition was considerably more polished and larger. First, it should be noted that, as promised in the DŽ1 introduction, it was reorganized lexicographically: prefixed verbs were presented in separate entries. In the first edition, only illustrative sentences had been provided for verbs with prefixes. The dictionary was also supplemented with neologisms. The foreword lists: būtininkas, draugovininkas, dūjininkas, dailėtyra, dirvótyra, kosmonautas, savitarna, as well as láiptinė, motorolėris, nailònas, porolònas, taisyklà, teikinỹs (alongside the existing teikmuõ), and others. Rare words of little use in the standard language were removed: kasis, mainybos, miešinys, nuošalystė, nuožanga, pasaginė, and others. In view of variation in stress, new stress variants were included: aistrà (4, 2), áiškus, -i (3, 1), ašaróti, ãšaroti; bérti, bérti; deguõnis (2), deguonis (3b); pakálnė (2), pakálnė (1); paslėgti, paslėgti; próga (1), progà (4); raudónas (1, 3), raudonúoti, raũdonuoti; rū́šis (1), rùšis (4); vẽlkė (2), velkė (4); vérgas (3), ver̃gas (4), and others. “This was done so that stress variants existing in the language would not be considered errors.” 2 I took the opportunity to investigate the circumstances surrounding this edition in the summer of 1994, when the Institute of Science and Encyclopedias publishing house sent me to Chicago to collect data for the reference work JAV lietuviai (1998, 2002). 120 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 81 For the purposes of lexical standardization, the stricter label ntk. (=not recommended) was introduced. Alongside the existing žr. (=see), which directs the reader from a word not considered erroneous to a more frequent, more usual one, the abbreviation ntk. is placed beside words that are not recommended, nonstandard, and considered linguistic errors. Their standard equivalents are given after an equals sign. The dictionary, with its restructured organization, grew considerably—to 60,000 words. Another improvement was more appropriate, neutral definitions and broader usage examples, cleansed of primitive newspaper-propaganda sentences. The foreword states that the dictionary was “corrected, revised, supplemented with new words and illustrative examples, and edited by staff members of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature J. Kruopas, A. Lyberis, D. Lukšys, J. Paulauskas, J. Senkus, and K. Ulvydas; K. Vosyl ytė contributed to the preparation of the new text; K. Gaivenis revised and supplemented the terminology and read the entire text; and A. Balašaitis, A. Kučinskaitė, and others read the entries for individual letters and offered valuable comments.” J. Kruopas remained the executive editor. The new edition of the dictionary devoted more attention to lexical standardization, and definitions of word meanings became more objective. Unfortunately, primitive propaganda was still retained in the illustrative sentences. The dictionary was also reviewed in the press. Reviews emphasized its expansion and improvement, and the greater precision of its definitions. They also pointed out matters that still needed correction. Elena Grinaveckienė (Literatūra ir menas, 1973 02 10) questioned whether the dictionary needed to include derivatives with dialectal suffixes that usually carry a pejorative meaning (valkatūžas, vampazyti, mangūryti, arklėkas, paršėkas, vyriščias), as well as unusual neologisms with the suffixes -ėlis, -uolis (pasenėlis, pasiaubėlis). Excessively rare dialect words—probably Lithuanianized borrowings—were also unnecessary: skobas “sour,” žaglys “thief,” ž arynas “thicket.” One comment is worth noting: “It is wrong for the dictionary to endorse the expression tamprūs ryšiai, which linguists unanimously correct. This gives grounds to view their scientific conclusions skeptically.” The editors of DŽ₃ took this comment into account, but some other rarities were uncritically carried over into the new edition. Vytautas Būda also agreed with the criticism of words in DŽ₂ that needed correction in his article “A Long-Awaited Dictionary Edition” (Pergalė, 1973, no. 8): “It is somewhat regrettable that a dictionary intended to standardize our language departs in several places from the general standardizing approach and even contradicts recommendations made not only by Jonas Jablonskis or Juozas Balčikonis, but still being made by other publications of the same institute, above all ‘Kalbos kultūra’ (p. 162). Among such unacceptable words, the author mentions žingeidus, suokalbis, išsireiškimas, A. BALAŠAITIS. Lietuvių kalbos leksikos norminimo raida 121 “consequence”, only with the note see, directing readers to smalsus, sąmokslas, pasekmė. He further adds that DŽ2 conflates both “consequence” and “result”, as well as “outcome”, into two meanings under one entry—‘result’ and ‘consequence’. V. Būda was surprised: “It is hard to understand why one meaning of the noun gerbūvis (well-being) is rejected, while another is accepted (good, modern municipal amenities). After all, Jablonskis and other linguists (cf. ‘Kalbos kultūra’, 18, p. 7) continue to expel it from the language, above all because of its poor formation: in either meaning it is an unsuccessful calque” (p. 163). The article’s author considered that “there is likewise no justification whatsoever for using the participle sekantis instead of the pronoun kitas (‘next’).” DŽ3 classified sekantis as nonstandard, and also adopted the comments concerning atžymos, tamprus (5 meanings), priešpastatyti, apjungti, nuriebalinti. Gražvydas Kirvaitis also urged further improvement of DŽ. In the article “Let Us Further Improve the ‘Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian’” (Kultūros barai, 1974, no. 1), he regretted the inadequate addition of specialized terms and identified terms that the dictionary needed: alternatyva, esė, fantastika, izotopas, kaubojus, munduras, rotaprintas, and others. Of course, one must agree with his observation that “as cultural and scholarly ties expand, international words are becoming more numerous in contemporary Lithuanian as well. This process, characteristic of all languages, should also be reflected more fully in DŽ.” Doubts about the government patterns of the words kabutės, laipsnis, lygiagretus, išvados, padariniai, viltis, temperatūra were answered with examples given in DŽ3: Priejo teisingą išvadą, prie teisingos išvados. Turiu viltį pasveikti. Vienodos priežastys sukelia vienodus padarinius. Linija lygiagreti su trikampio pagrindu. 20 laipsnių temperatūroje. Sutartiniai pavadinimai rašomi kabutėse. Skirti ~ėmis. Imti į ~es. Rašyti, dėti ~es. Thus, the call to improve the dictionary was heeded in the third edition. DŽ2 was perhaps discussed most extensively and in greatest detail in lexicographer J. Paulauskas’s “Current Problems of Lexical Standardization and the Dictionary” (Kalbos kultūra 27, 1974). Having acknowledged that “the standardization of the literary language’s lexicon, although intensive, is proceeding more slowly than we would like. [...] quite a number of questions of lexical standardization remain unresolved” (p. 40), he first mentions the pressing need to standardize variants, a task that DŽ had only just begun. Speaking of words or meanings rejected as nonstandard in DŽ2, he notes that some questionable ones still remain because they are frequently used in the press. Some are marked spec. and knyg., “indicating that although a word is poorly formed (or has been assigned an unusual meaning), it is used in certain fields, where there are no more popular equivalents formed correctly, or such equivalents exist but are less popular” (p. 42). The author regarded— 122 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 81 the improvement of the explanations of words and their meanings in DŽ2 as important, making them more precise and fluent. Citing better usage examples, he argued that “well-chosen illustrative examples showing a word’s meanings, its sphere of use, its context, and its syntactic relations with other words in a sentence are one of a dictionary’s principal assets” (p. 48). The article ends as if with an injunction to the editors of future DŽ editions: “Illustrating the use of words and their meanings is the area of lexicographic work in which the dictionary can continue to be expanded, refined, and improved for a long time (once all the other issues have been examined and put in order)” (ibid.). 6. THE THIRD EDITION OF DŽ Another 18 years later, the third edition of DŽ was prepared. Among the previous dictionary editors, J. Paulauskas and K. Ulvydas remained. The terminologist Stasys Keinys was appointed editor-in-chief. In addition to these linguists, Vytautas Vitkauskas, Jonas Klimavičius, Nijolė Slėžienė, and Juozas Pikčilingis (who died in 1991 before the publication of DŽ3) were also added to the editorial board. As noted in the preface, the editorial board members bore “the main workload of preparing, supplementing, revising, refining, and correcting the dictionary.” The workload was probably not shared equally. V. Vitkauskas read the entire text and submitted comments. As J. Klimavičius has said, his main concern while reading was to add terms, especially from the natural sciences (there are considerably more of these in this edition). N. Slėžienė, a researcher of verb valency, supplemented the text with illustrative sentences showing verb government; she regrets that, for the sake of keeping the dictionary concise, only some of them were retained. DŽ3 was completed during the so-called period of “restructuring,” or, more accurately, national liberalization. The preface was signed by the editor-in-chief on January 30, 1990. In response to the changed circumstances, it clearly distances itself from the ideology imposed on linguists in previous editions and states that “a normative general philological dictionary of the language is not a textbook on politics or any other field.” It is where one should look for “linguistic information about the words presented.” In informing the public about the completed dictionary, S. Keinys reiterated this view in Gimtojoje kalboje (1991, no. 8, p. 23). Later still, after the dictionary layout had been prepared, in the article “A Dictionary for Everyone” in the journal Mokykla (1993, no. 10, p. 32), he likewise stressed that when “preparing the third edition for publication, it was decided to purge DŽ as far as possible of political current affairs. [...] after the restoration of indepen- A. BALAŠAITIS. Lietuvių kalbos leksikos norminimo raida 123 After the restoration of the Lithuanian state, the text of DŽ was reviewed once again and submitted to the Mokslo publishing house in 1991. The preface states that the spelling in DŽ3 was changed in accordance with resolutions of the Lithuanian Language Commission under the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences (1977 06 17), thus legitimizing spellings based on pronunciation: pjauti, rugpjūtis, bjaurūs, spjauti, etc. Minor changes were also made when the dictionary was printed, with the permission of the Language Commission. Parallel spellings were permitted for kontūzyti, kontūžyti and tramplínas, tramplýnas (DŽ2 had kontūzyti, but tramplýnas). On the same occasion, should karnýzo also have been sanctioned, cf. kefýras, šarnýras. Karnýzas is found in LKŽ (from the dictionaries of F. Kuršaitis and M. Nyderman). The spellings fjòrdo and pasjánso remained unchanged (the forms previously used in DŽ2 were retained: fiòrdas, pasiánsas). Apparently, we will have to wait for the sanctioning of these forms just as with bjaurus, pjauti, since all pronunciation dictionaries indicate a pronounced j here, while international-word dictionaries (e.g., V. Vaitkevičiūtė 2007) give fjòrdo alongside fjòrdas. It is regrettable that kariljònas and šinjònas were not included. There will certainly have to be room for them in a future edition of DŽ. Of the competing variants doktorãtas, doktorantūrã and daktarãtas, daktar­antūrã, the commission recommended the former. Variable stress is changed and standardized through variants: DŽ2 had audrà (4) and áudra (1), whereas now the order is reversed. This edition, too, gives permitted stress variants: glaistýtuv as (1), glaistytùvas (2); kiáurymė (1), kiaurýmė (2); mìltingas (1), mìltingas (1); pagálbinis (1), pagalbinis (2); pasáulinis (1), pasaulìnis (2); plūdė (2), plūdė (4); rūgštýne (2), rūgštynė (1); sklandýt uvas (1), sklandytùvas (2); santuokìnis (2), sántuokinis (1); veikùs (3), v ei­kus (1); žvýnas (3) and (1), etc. Due attention is given in this edition to lexical selection and standardization, drawing on Kalbos praktikos patarimai (1976, 1985). The preface states that “the abbreviations žr. (=žiūrėk) and ntk. (=neteiktinas) have a standardizing function: the former directs a word or variant that is not considered a language error toward a more usual, more frequent word, while the latter indicates that the word (or meaning) is nonstandard, is considered a language error, and that the word or words given after the equals sign should be used instead.” The label ntk. is considerably more frequent in this edition than in DŽ2. Alongside informational articles about the new dictionary edition3, it is also worth recalling the article by the author of this paper, who edited DŽ3 at the Mokslo ir enciklopedijų publishing house: “Dictionary Norms and Recommendations” (Gimtasis žodis, 1995, no. 6). Of 3 The third edition of DŽ was also discussed at considerable length at the scholarly conference “Problems of Lexicography: Semantics, Etymology, Presentation of Dialectal Data, Principles of Dictionary Compilation,” organized by the Institute of the Lithuanian Language (1995 03 16–17). Six papers were devoted to it. 124 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 81 Among the points raised that remain relevant for future editions are the following: include the terms nuotekos, rankinė; among the competing variants, recommend the preferred name for a Karaite house of prayer—kinesė or kenesa; the term relevant to naturalists—radavietė or radimvietė; and add the label ntk. to the word pakalikas. Unfortunately, the editor-in-chief apparently regarded these as insignificant details (they were not taken into account even in the electronic version of DŽ₅). The standardizing principles of DŽ₃ were also maintained in the fourth edition, reprinted in 2000—it was “printed from the set of the third edition preserved at the printing house.” The editor-in-chief, S. Keinys, arranged for only a few minor typographical and other errors to be corrected, along with some refinements to stress marking. Worth noting: the stylistic label istor. was added to the words milicija, tarybinis and tarybiškas, while the label šnek. was removed from kolchozas. Incidentally, this should all the more have been done for the word stribas, since the dictionary gives no alternative equivalent for it. DŽ was published in electronic form in 2002 and 2003. It was substantially expanded—with about 150 new entries and approximately 3,000 of the most important place names in Lithuania and the world. S. Keinys reviewed it in Kalbos kultūra (Keinys 2004: 76–83). The sixth edition of DŽ (the third electronic edition) was published in 2006. 7. HOW THE DICTIONARY WAS IMPROVED Efforts to improve the dictionary were made in various ways—the editors of the third edition removed relics of Soviet life and thought: they dropped certain words or their propagandistic illustrations. The following entries were omitted from DŽ₃: bolševikinti, buožija, buožinis, buožiškas, kompartija, komjaunuoliškas, lenininis, leniniškas, partkomas, partòrgas, politkalinys, polituadòbas, partkabinètas, revkòmas, spaliukas, baltagvardietis, raudongvardietis. Word combinations and expressions were removed from the illustrative examples: raudonieji partizanai, raudonieji kampeliai, proletariato pergalė prieš buržuaziją, perauklėti inteligentiją, tarybinė spauda, tarybiškai nusiteikęs žmogus, komunistinis auklėjimas, marksizmas-leninizmas, revoliucinio proletariato ideologija, nenugalimoji Tarybinė armija and so on. Long propagandistic sentences were removed from the entries komunistas ir komunizmas. Notes were added to the words draugovė, draugovininkas, išbuožinti, komjaunimas, komjaunuolis, pionierius indicating that they are historicisms. It was overlooked that agitpūnketas also belongs among them. From our review of DŽ₁, we have already seen how it carried out the task emphasized in the preface: to show Lithuania’s social and political life. Pra- A. BALAŠAITIS. Lietuvių kalbos leksikos norminimo raida 125 It is worth taking a look at later changes and their reflections in subsequent editions as well. To this end, let us compare the entries for several words: draugystė, laisvė, nepriklausomybė, tautininkas, tėvynė, valstybė, vėliava, vienybė. Friendship – after a neutral definition, DŽ1: Leninist-Stalinist friendship among nations. We both lived in ~eje; in DŽ2,3 only We will both live in ~ėje remained, with Išro d. also added. Freedom – DŽ1 gave the longest constructed entry after philosophical definitions; later editions give short, neutral definitions and sentences: The people’s struggle for ~ės in DŽ2 was changed to The nation’s struggle for ~ės, Creative f. Political f.; this was repeated in DŽ3 as well. Independence – not being dependent on anything; freedom in DŽ1,2: The Soviet Army won back freedom and ~ę for us; in DŽ3 State’s i. Strive for ~ės. Defend one’s ~ę. Nationalist – in DŽ1 a nationalist, a chauvinist; in DŽ2 only a nationalist; in DŽ3 a member of a party or union that emphasizes national identity: Lithuanian ~ų Union. Nationalist – in DŽ1 a proponent of nationalism, a reactionary: Bourgeois ~ai are the Lithuanian people’s most bitter enemies; in DŽ2 only a proponent of nationalism: Bourgeois ~ai, while DŽ3 merely transferred the definition from DŽ2. Homeland – 1. native land. DŽ1 gave several propagandistic theses: The Communist Party wisely leads our Homeland along the further road of victories, toward communism. Through patriotic labor, the Soviet peoples strengthen their Homeland. Defense of the Socialist Homeland. To die for one’s ~ę. The Great Patriotic War; DŽ2,3 gives short, neutral sentences: Our H., Lithuania. Defend, love one’s ~ę. 2. place of origin of something important: The Soviet Union – the b. of socialism in DŽ3 was changed to England – the b. of football State – DŽ1 gives the longest Marxist definition, the same quotation from Stalin, and also The USSR is a socialist state of workers and peasants; DŽ2: an organized political community with its own supreme authority: The old Lithuanian state. State control; DŽ3 also adds State flag. The definition is equally neutral. Flag – DŽ1 Flag of the Soviet Union. State, national flag. Regimental flag.; DŽ2, in addition to these, also Red flag; DŽ3 State flag. National, tricolor flag. Regimental flag. Examples of figurative meanings: DŽ1 Flag of Communism. Flag of Peace. Now hundreds of millions of people are fighting under the great flag of Marxism-Leninism.; DŽ2 Flag of Communism. Flag of Peace.; in DŽ3 only Flag of Peace. Unity – 1. commonality, complete agreement: DŽ1 In Soviet society there is moral-political u. among all classes. Unity of views. 3. agreement, solidarity: Moral-political u. of the Soviet peoples; DŽ2 1. Unity of views. 3. Unity of the Soviet peoples. ~ėje galybė; in DŽ3 only 1. Unity of views. 3. U. is strength. 8. CHANGES IN LEXICAL STANDARDIZATION Changes in society were also reflected in the normative stance adopted by the editors of DŽ. It was one thing under occupation and another after independence was restored. Although the preface to DŽ1 discussed lexical standardization and the improvement of language culture, little standardization was actually undertaken in it. This survey proposes viewing lexical standardization from the perspective of linguistic purity and distinctiveness. The sentence is continued on the next page. 126 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 81 In the case of lexical standardization, DŽ₁ used only one label, žr. (“see”), which pointed to preferred variants and recommended replacing only an occasional foreignism: ankstýbas see ankstyvas, dyglus see dygus, kiniečiai see kinai, skaitlingas see gausus, tarnystė see tarnyba, užvaizdas see prievaiždas, verptuvė see verpykla, vėtrungė see vėjaro­dis; bakūžė see lūšna, bonka see butelis, grabas see karstas, kaštuoti see kainuoti, kulšis see šlaunis, špižius see ketus, špokas see varnėnas, špricas see švirkštas, trusikai see glaudės, vienok see tačiau. The strong label neteikt. (“not recommended”) was added to only a few words: apiprekinti, second meaning, neteikt. to exchange agricultural products for goods: A. collective-farm produce; gerbūvis not recommended see gerovė; kabliataškis not recommended semicolon; ripka not recommended ritinis. Thus, at the time, they did not dare to state a clearer position on foreignisms, the so-called barbarisms. Linguistic contaminants were not properly assessed. This was also pointed out in reviews. Why did DŽ₁ take this position? Apparently because the official view being promoted was that Russian had only a positive influence on Lithuanian, enriching it. The official authority of the time, Academician J. Žiugžda, at the conference of Baltic and Moscow linguists in Riga in 1952 “raised the urgent need to expand Lithuanian terminology according to the word-formation practices and principles of Russian” (Literatūra ir menas, 1952 03 09). An intention to prepare a collection of practical and lexicographical language corrections, similar to L. Dambrūnas’s Kalbos patarėjas, published in 1939, was rejected by the heads of Soviet publishing houses. The reason given was that most of the foreignisms needing correction supposedly came from Slavic languages (most often Russian). Other explanations have also been offered for DŽ₁’s moderate normative position. Supposedly, this liberal attitude toward norms was characteristic of prewar linguists as well (Keinys 1991a: 83). R. Miliūnaitė’s article on the evaluation of linguistic phenomena casts doubt on this (Miliūnaitė 2000: 27). Having examined the recommendations in Kalbos patarėjas (1939), the author notes that of the more than 1,500 linguistic phenomena discussed there (mostly words), the great majority (81 percent) are regarded as language errors. Thus, both the compiler of Kalbos patarėjas, L. Dambrūnas, and its editors, P. Skardžius and A. Salys, properly assessed the linguistic phenomena that were not recommended. This view of prewar linguists was partly shared by the authors of the aforementioned reviews of DŽ₁ in Tiesa, who criticized the lexicographic treatment of loanwords. Another admission made at the time by S. Keinys, editor-in-chief of DŽ₃, contradicts the alleged liberalism of the DŽ₁,₂ editors’ outlook: he acknowledged that it was “a difficult and complicated time,” when ideological errors could lead to repression (cf. p. 117). Therefore, such a stance toward foreignisms and even linguistic purity A. BALAŠAITIS. Lietuvių kalbos leksikos norminimo raida 127 for quite a long time impeded their correction in Kalbos kultūroje, Mūsų kalboje, as well as the appearance of Kalbos praktikos patarimų; it affected their recommendations—only the label “preferable” was used for the calques atlieti, bendrasąjunginis, betarpiškas, gilus (gratitude, impression), gili (sympathy), palaipsniui, pilnutinai, tamprūs (ties), and others. The view was propagated that one must not dare to question the recommendations of the highest authority—the DŽ. Whatever the DŽ does not regard as not recommended need not be corrected. Although individual editors avoided foreignisms, they spread through the press and gradually came to seem acceptable. The linguistic sensibility was continually weakened by the growing prevalence of bilingualism, while Russian was increasingly used in administration, production, and, finally, everyday life. Was the DŽ₁ editors’ “liberal” attitude toward language norms not a forced, small concession to foreign influences?4 Due attention to lexical standardization was given only in DŽ₂, when there was less reason to fear criticism of foreignisms. Alongside the label žr. (“see”), which indicates recommended form variants, the label ntk. (“not recommended”) was used much more often, as were the less frequent stylistic labels knyg. (“literary”) and spec. (“specialized”). Among the words classed as not recommended in DŽ₂ were bakužė = lūšna, boti = heed, brylius = hat, kaladė = chopping block, kalnierius = collar, prūdas = pond, savistovus = independent, smala = resin, sosiska = sausage, špizius = cast iron, špricas = syringe, užganėdinti = satisfy, užmetinėti, išmetinėti = reproach, velyti = allow, wish, etc.; only the entries laisvanoris, laisvanoriškas, lygsvara, ruimas were retained with the cross-reference žr. (in DŽ₃ they are considered not recommended). Some translated senses of words were also omitted as not recommended: sense 5 of pilnas in DŽ₁, “highest, complete,” and sense 10 of sekti, “to follow, come immediately after something.” The retention of foreign vocabulary is assessed even more strictly in DŽ₃. In the second edition, only knatas—wick, and štepselis—plug, were evaluated with the label see; in DŽ₃ they are considered not recommended. In DŽ₂, atlieti, papkė “a cardboard folder for storing papers” appeared without any label; in DŽ₃ they are not recommended. Tamprus 3. in the figurative sense “close, intimate” in DŽ₁,₂, but in DŽ₃ this meaning is no longer recommended. Neraminti, formerly without a label, is not recommended in DŽ₃. Užsirekomenduoti, formerly without a label in DŽ₂, is marked in DŽ₃ as bookish. Žymus 3. “great, significant”; žymiai “a lot, very much” was unlabelled in DŽ₂, but is marked in DŽ₃ as bookish. Neišpasakytas: in DŽ₂, see neapsakomas, but it is entirely absent from DŽ₃. The third edition eliminated translated figurative meanings: plokščias “shallow, superficial”; p. galvojimas was not carried over into DŽ₃. Priešakinis 3. “leading, progressive, ad- 4 Cf. Z. Zinkevičius’s thought in the “Concluding note” to volume VI of Lietuvių kalbos istorijos, written on February 16, 1993: “Small concessions to foreign influences always have painful consequences, no matter what pretext is used to justify them (‘flexibility,’ ‘understanding reality,’ and so on).” 128 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 81 “guiding”: ~iai workers (the most class-conscious, most progressive). P. science. ~ė technology. The role of P. workers – this was a translated meaning only in DŽ₁. Deep 3. fig. “great, notable, essential”: D. science. ~i wisdom, secret. D. revolutionary transformation – DŽ₁. Later the meaning was modified somewhat: DŽ₂ “great, strong”: D. feeling, impression. ~i wisdom. D. sleep. In DŽ₃ this meaning is marked bookish. D. feeling, impression. Apparently, the recommendations in Language Practice Advice were taken into account. Perhaps they also influenced the marking of full-fledged in DŽ₃ as bookish. But it is debatable whether paantrinti needed to be included in DŽ₃. The usual words repeat and agree should not be overshadowed by a calque (cf. Russian povtoriti). With the less common normative labels bookish and spec., DŽ₂ marked words formed irregularly (most often due to Russian influence): apspręsti “to condition,” lemti “to determine” (it is absent from DŽ₃), priešpastatyti bookish (cf. Russian protivopostaviti) – in DŽ₃ labeled nonstandard, nuriebalinti spec. “to remove fat” (it is absent from DŽ₃). At that time, production workers also used more calques of this type in colloquial speech: nudūjinti, nudrūškinti, nukeñksminti, numėšinti, nuplaukinti, nušārmininti, nuvandėninti, nužiēvinti. They were corrected in Language Practice Advice (1976), and were included in neither DŽ₂ nor DŽ₃. This should mean that their use was stopped in time. Although the loanword máikė was widespread, no suitable, fluent replacement was found, so for a long time people did not dare to correct it. Only in the second edition of KPP (1985) were several substitutes proposed: márškė, marškūčiai, sportinūkė, marškinėliai. This loanword does not appear in any edition of DŽ. Only in the second edition of KPP was tãšė corrected, and a good substitute was also suggested – rañkinė. Unfortunately, this neologism is not found in DŽ₃, although it would have gone very well alongside rankinūko (nor is it in the online version of DŽ). Also debatable is the second meaning of vystyti, labeled bookish in DŽ₃; its reflexive form appeared in DŽ₁ without any label as a synonym of “to grow, become stronger, mature.” In DŽ₂, it was given the meaning “to make more perfect or complex, to develop, to unfold,” with the label spec. This verb has long caused doubts for many linguists; its reflexive meaning spread as an equivalent of Russian razvivatsja. Its contrast with the first, literal meaning, “to wrap, swaddle,” was problematic. Today, instead of development (of society, consciousness, democracy, the palate), raida, plėtotė, plėtra, sklaida. Vystyti’s second meaning is also included in DŽ₄. As a result, it is no longer avoided in writing; it is thought that the aforementioned equivalents cannot replace vystymasis in every context (Klimavičius 2002: 106). However, has the long and frequent use of vystyti, vystymasis not taken over the content of these concepts and made the words denoting them seem irreplaceable? A. BALAŠAITIS. Lietuvių kalbos leksikos norminimo raida 129 CONCLUSIONS The idea first put forward by K. Būga—to prepare a practical dictionary alongside a comprehensive historical dictionary of the Lithuanian language—was realized only after the Second World War, at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language under the direction of J. Balčikonis. After discussion, criticism, and revision, the Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian was published in 1954: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas. The standardization of vocabulary depended on the conditions of social life. These conditions were unfavorable for the editors of DŽ1. The leadership of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences at the time carried out the Communist Party’s instructions and required linguistic works to be adapted for propaganda, while the dictionary’s direct purpose was relegated to second place. Therefore, in 1962 Lithuanian émigrés in Chicago (USA) reprinted this edition, removing the communist propaganda deemed unacceptable in a linguistic work. More attention could be devoted to language culture only in DŽ2, when the ideological conditioning of linguistic scholarship diminished and there was less fear of criticizing Russian loanwords. Definitions of social terms and illustrative sentences became more objective. An objective prescriptive dictionary was prepared only after Lithuania regained its independence and shed imposed ideology, and linguists abandoned the view that the Russian language had only a positive influence. Such was the third edition of DŽ, published in 1993. Compared with its predecessors, it made greater progress in standardizing the language and advancing its culture. LITERATŪRA Balašaitis A. 1995: Žodyno normos ir patarimai. – Gimtasis žodis 6, 1–3. Balašaitis A. 1999: „Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodyno“ Čikagos leidimas (1962). – Gimtoji kalba 5, 28–31; 6, 28–32. Balčikonis J. 1961: Laiškas redakcijai. – Tiesa, kovo 4. Būda V. 1954: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas. – Literatūra ir menas, spalio 30. Būda V. 1973: Ilgai lauktas žodyno leidimas. – Pergalė 8, 161–166. Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas: I leid., 1954; II leid., 1972; III leid., 1993. Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas, Čikaga (JAV), 1962. Dėk žodį prie žodžio – turėsi žodyną. Atsiminimai apie kalbininką Juozą Balčikonį. Sud. B. Goberienė ir A. Pupkis. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 2006. Drotvinas V., Laigonaitė A., Paulauskas J. 1955: Pastabos apie „Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodyną“. – Literatūra ir menas, balandžio 2. Grinaveckienė E. 1973: Literatūrinės kalbos aruodas. – Literatūra ir menas, vasario 10. 130 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 81 Grinaveckis V., Palionis J., Urbutis V. 1955: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas. – Tiesa, kovo 5. Kalbos praktikos patarimai. Sud. A. Pupkis. I leid., 1976; II leid., 1985, Vilnius. Keinys S. 1991a: „Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas“ ir kalbos normalizacija. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 29, 92–98. Keinys S. 1991b: Šis tas apie „Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodyno“ trečiąjį leidimą. – Gimtoji kalba 8, 22–24. Keinys S. 1993: Žodynas visiems. – Mokykla 10, 31–32. Keinys S. 2004: „Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas“ per penkiasdešimt metų. – Kalbos kultūra 77, 76–83. Kirvaitis G. 1974: Dar gerinkime „Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodyną“. – Kultūros barai 1, 63–64. Klimavičius J. 2002: Katekizmo kalba – kalbos katekizmas. – Kalbos kultūra 75, 105–120. Kruopas J. 1998: Rinktiniai raštai, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Kučinskaitė A. 1981: Kaip buvo rengiamas „Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas“. – Mūsų kalba 1, 25–28. Lietuvių kalbos vadovas. Sud. P. Skardžius, S. Barzdukas, J. M. Laurinaitis. Bielefeld, 1950. Lietuvos TSR Mokslų akademijos žinynas. T. 4–5. Vilnius, 1949. Miliūnaitė R. 2000: Kalbos reiškinių vertinimo laipsniai „Kalbos patarėjuje“. – Kalbos kultūra 73, 24–35. Naktinienė G. 2000: Bendrinės kalbos žodynas ir leksikos norminimo problemos. – Kalbos kultūra 73, 12–24. Paulauskas J. 1952a: Maskvos ir Pabaltijo kalbininkų mokslinė konferencija. – Literatūra ir menas, kovo 9. Paulauskas J. 1952b: Konferencija kalbos mokslo klausimais. – Literatūra ir menas, gegužės 11. Paulauskas J. 1974: Aktualios leksikos norminimo problemos ir žodynas. – Kalbos kultūra 27, 40–49. Piročkinas A. 1994: Lietuvių kalba okupacijų gniaužtuose (1940–1991 m.) – Gimtasis žodis 7–8, 1–7. Salys A. 1985: Raštai, t. 3, 213–244, Roma. Skardžius P. Rinktiniai raštai: t. 2, 1997, 406–420; t. 4, 1998, 649–660; t. 5, 1999, 793–794, 917–924, 928, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Ul vydas K. 1977: Kas kelia kalbos kultūrą. – Kalbos kultūra 32, 3–21. Vaitkevičiūtė V. 2007: Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas, Vilnius: Žodynas. Gauta 2008 10 06 A. BALAŠAITIS. Lietuvių kalbos leksikos norminimo raida 131 ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARDISATION OF LITHUANIAN LEXIS Summary The paper gives an overview of circumstances of compiling the Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian (DCL; Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas) and the standardisation of lexis in its different editions. The idea of compiling a dictionary for practical purposes belongs to Kazimieras Būga (1879–1924). However, due to his early death the compilation of the dictionary was suspended and only resumed by Juozas Balčikonis (1885–1969) who headed the editorial board of the Dictionary of Lithuanian. Its manuscript was finalised after WW2 at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language. The manuscript was discussed at the Department of Social Sciences of the then Lithuanian Academy of Sciences in 1948. The Department advised to amend the Dictionary by adding the materials from Soviet newspapers and literature and by explicating the terms in the way they were explicated in dictionaries of the Russian Language. There was an editorial board set up for editing the Dictionary. J. Kruopas (1908–1975) was appointed as its editor-in-chief. The Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian was published in 1954. To refer to the normative derivative variants of the lexis, synonyms and equivalents replacing loanwords the authors used the abbreviation žr. More attention to language standardisation was devoted in the second edition of the DCL (1972), which was published when the political censorship was not so heavy. The edition amply uses the abbreviation ntk. for unacceptable loanwords. Moreover, the dictionary was revised by lexicographers; as a result, prefixed verbs were given in separate entries. In the third edition of the DCL which was published after the restoration of Lithuania’s independence (1993) the evaluation of loanwords was even stricter. 132 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 81