Tautinės realijos: pavadinimai, terminai ir jų vartojimas

National Realia: Names, Terms, and Their Use REGINA KVAŠYTĖ Šiaulių universitetas INTRODUCTORY NOTES Intercultural communication helps us learn about the cultures of other peoples and promote our own people’s culture within their milieu. Linguistic expression plays an important role when discussing the phenomena of a people’s culture. Attention first turns to vocabulary with a national coloring, used for different purposes in texts of different styles—academic, popular-science, journalistic, and literary. Such vocabulary exists in all languages. Speakers of each language first acquire knowledge about their own people and the realia of its life, and later become acquainted with the cultures of other peoples. A text’s national coloring is conveyed by the proper nouns it uses (personal names, place names, and symbolic names) and common nouns (names of realia and phenomena of material and spiritual culture, etc.). In this article, such common nouns are called names of national realia—that is, names of real objects and phenomena of material and spiritual culture characterized by national distinctiveness. These have been chosen as the subject of a study whose aim is to discuss, from the perspective of both one’s own language and other languages, the terminology used to designate national realia. The theoretical overview draws on publications in Lithuanian and other languages, while a range of bilingual and explanatory dictionaries has been selected as the source of illustrative examples. CLASSIFICATION OF NATIONAL REALIA It is argued that “the features of a word’s semantics in a particular speech act are not insignificant—they help evoke certain images and actualize the content of speakers’ consciousness in slightly different ways. <...> The lexical background has a national specificity, because equivalent words in different languages may evoke different associations <...> A somewhat different matter is the semantic halo of a word, nourished by folklore texts, the cultural tradition of a people, and the roots of its historical past” (Gudavičius 2000: 84–85). All national realia can be divided into certain groups according to the objects they name. Ethnolinguist 56 Regina Kvašytė | Tautinės realijos: pavadinimai, terminai... Aloyzas Gudavičius identified the following broader areas in which national vocabulary is used: national cuisine, clothing, musical instruments, folk dances, traditions and customs, folklore and mythology, and matters relating to a people’s history (Gudavičius 2000: 79–80). Later, the author refined this classification, stating that “examples reflecting the specificity of material culture” may include: 1) names of national cuisine dishes and drinks; 2) names of musical instruments; 3) names of clothing and footwear; 4) names of household items and tools; and 5) names of phenomena of domestic culture and public life (Gudavičius 2009: 94). One may agree that the first four semantic groups mentioned are indeed elements of a people’s material culture, but the names in the last group—that is, phenomena of domestic culture and public life—reflect “the sphere of spiritual cultural phenomena.” The items of folk culture are listed first below. As examples, A. Gudavičius gives names of dances (but does not distinguish songs, although he mentions both sutartinę, and singing styles raliuoti, valiuoti), as well as “names of mythological beings and fairy-tale characters, and other folklore vocabulary, for example, krivis ‘an ancient Lithuanian clergyman, a priest’, romuva ‘a Baltic sanctuary’, alkas ‘a sacred place of sacrifice’; mythical beings aitvaras, kaukas, giltinė, laumė” (Gudavičius 2009: 94–95). It would seem that rūpintojėlis and koplytstulpis, assigned to the group of phenomena of domestic culture and public life, should belong to the group of material-culture realia. Another group identified comprises traditions, rituals, and folk festivals (the examples given suggest that it would be more precise to speak of the phenomena characteristic of them) (Gudavičius 2009: 94–95). Words that reveal national distinctiveness are also considered to include “names of the geographical features, fauna and flora, and climatic natural phenomena in a people’s living environment, as well as the varying degrees of detail in those names” (Gudavičius 2000: 80). Drawing on A. Gudavičius’s classification, but making some improvements to the proposed system, vocabulary with national coloring can be divided semantically into three groups: 1) realia of material folk culture; 2) realia of spiritual folk culture; and 3) realia of a people’s history. Each of these groups can then be subdivided into narrower semantic groups. For example, within the group of material-culture realia, groups of names for clothing, footwear, jewelry, tools, food, drinks, and so on are clearly distinguishable. Names of songs, singing styles, dances, games, festivals, traditions, customs, and so on would be classified as spiritual-cultural realia. Naturally, the degree of detail in the classification depends on the need to distinguish lexical units as parts of a particular whole. For example, names of tools can be classified according to the fields in which Terminologija | 2009 | 16 57 they are used: blacksmithing, pottery, weaving, cross-carving, and so on, while traditions are classified according to calendar holidays and the like. In this way, a classification scheme linked by hierarchical relations is developed, which can be further expanded as needed. It can be applied to analyze the realities and phenomena of both one’s own and foreign cultures—ethnographic terms and exoticisms. TERMS FOR CLASSIFYING NATIONAL REALIA IN ONE’S OWN LANGUAGE Ethnographic terms, that is, words naming the realities of the material or spiritual culture of a particular nation that have entered the standard language (cf. ethnographic term, “A name for a reality of the material or spiritual culture of a particular nationality that has entered the literary language <...>” (KTŽ 1990: 60)), would most accurately be called the realia of one’s own nation. The definition given in the Dictionary of Linguistic Terms states that these name the realia of “a particular nationality,” suggesting that the perspective is, as it were, from within, assessed from the viewpoint of the language being discussed. Dictionaries often use the labels ethnogr. or ethn. in such cases to mark elements of ethnography in the language (cf. ethnography, “1. the science that studies peoples and other ethnic communities and their material and spiritual culture; 2. the collection, description, and documentation of facts concerning the material and spiritual culture of peoples and other ethnic communities” (TŽŽ 2001: 220)). The use of such words in a text in one’s own language usually poses no problems, or the problems relate to spelling or matters of language usage. For example, in Lithuanian, the word cepelinas is more commonly used for a culinary dish than didžkukulis (DŽ, 2006; KP 2005: 36), whereas in Latvian a distinctive Latvian cheese, “made from curd and milk, with butter, eggs, salt, and often caraway seeds added; it does not require a special ripening period” (LLVV 4, 1980: 26), is called both by the compound jāņusiers and by genitive constructions in the plural or singular, with a proper name as the dependent element: Jāņu siers, Jāņa siers [Midsummer cheese – R. K.]. Similar usage patterns or variations in the names of national realia can also be found in other languages. However, the term ethnographic term is unsuitable when describing, for example, historical events or national movements of one’s own nation, which likewise belong to the lexicon expressing national identity. Such vocabulary should be regarded as historical. Historical vocabulary, or historicisms, as names for obsolete realia, “are usually recalled when one needs to name objects or phenomena of bygone times. Historicisms evoke antiquity (romuva ‘a sanctuary of the ancient Baltic tribes, a center of their cultural life,’ krivis ‘a pagan priest of the ancient Lithuanians,’ 58 Regina Kvašytė | Tautinės realijos: pavadinimai, terminai... žynys“)“ (LK 1995: 41). Kai kurie istorizmai įtraukiami ir į aiškinamuosius, ir į verčiamuosius žodynus, pavyzdžiui, apibrėžtasis istorizmas krūvis lietuvių-anglų kalbų žodyne aprašomas kaip „Lithuanian pagan priest“ (NALKŽ 2002: 370). Taip pat elgiamasi ir Lietuvių-rusų kalbų žodyne, tik dar pridedama atitinkama istorizmo pažyma «istor. (литовский) языческий жрец» (LRKŽ 2001: 370). Akivaizdžia kita lietuvių kalbos istorizmo – knygnešys – tautinė specifika taip pat atsispindi dvikalbiuose žodynai. Lietuvių-latvių kalbų žodyne šis žodis apibrėžtas aprašomuoju būdu: „vēst. grāmatu iznēsātājs; (aizliegtu) grāmatu izplatītājs“ [ist. knygų išnešiotojas, (uždraustų) knygų platintojas]1 (LLV 1995: 235), ten pat panašiai apibūdintas ir vedinys knygnešystė „(cara cenzūras aizliegtu) grāmatu iznēsāšana (izplatīšana)“ [(caro cenzūros uždraustų) knygų išnešiojimas (platinimas)]. Kūrybo vartojimas rodo, kad kai kurie apibrėžties elementai pateikiami kaip komentarai. Žodis knygnešys ir lietuvių kalboje yra išgyvenęs tam tikrus reikšmės pokyčius: reiškęs „slaptą lietuviškų knygų gabentoją per sieną“, vėliau imtas vartoti reikšme „knygų platintojas“ (senesnioji reikšmė jau virto semantiniu istorizmu) (Palionis 1979: 301)2. Būtent tai ir bando parodyti cituoto žodyno sudarytojai, vis dėlto palikdami galimybę šį žodį vartoti šiuolaikiškesne reikšme, kuri matoma atmetus komentarus ir pažymą. Anglų kalbos žodyne jau skiriamos šiuolaikinė ir istorinė šio žodžio reikšmės: “1. (knygų platintojas) bookdistributor; 2. ist. book spreader; book-hawker” (NLAKŽ 2002: 356). Lietuvių-rusų kalbų žodyne su pažyma istorija pateiktas tik vertinys книгоноша (LRKŽ 2001: 357). Kitų šalių istorizmų randama ir lietuvių kalbos vartotojams skirtuose žodynuose, pavyzdžiui, Latvių-lietuvių kalbų žodyne kaip istorizmai fiksuotos tokios Latvijos gyvenimo realijos: jaunlatvieši „ist. jaunalatviai (XIX a. šeštojo ir septintojo dešimtmečių kultūrinio-nacionalinio sąjūdžio Latvijoje dalyviai)“ (LLŽ 2003: 308); jaunstrāvnieki „ist. latvių inteligentijos demokratinio „Naujosios srovės“ sąjūdžio XIX a. paskutiniojo dešimtmečio dalyviai“ (LLŽ 2003: 308). Iš pastarojo pavyzdžio matyti, kad istorizmas nei verčiamas, nei rašomas sulietuvinta forma (tokia galimybė buvo – reikėjo tik pakeisti galūnę) – pateikiamas tik komentaras (plg. aiškinamajame latvių kalbos žodyne „vēst. Jaunās strāvas dalībnieki“ (LLVV 4, 1980: 40))3. Kitų kalbų šaltiniuose, pavyzdžiui, Latvių-rusų kalbų 1 The explanations of the meanings of Latvian words in this article are translated into Lithuanian. 2 For more detail, see Kvašytė, Čepaitienė, Župerka 2006; see also Vilkaitė, Kvašytė 2006. 3 Apie Latvijos realijų pavadinimus, tarp jų ir istorizmus, plačiau žr. Kvašytė 2005. Terminologija | 2009 | 16 59 the dictionary gives translations of Latvian compounds with comments in parentheses («младолатыши (прогрессивные деятели национального антифеодального и просветительского движения XIX века в Латвии») (LKV 1, 1979: 487), «новотеченцы (участники демократического движения интеллигенции в 90-ые годы XIX века в Латвии») (LKV 1, 1979: 488). The name of a monetary unit illustrating a particular period in Russian history, červoncas, is included in the dictionaries of international words in both Baltic languages: “1. a Russian gold coin (from the 17th century); 2. a state banknote of the SSSR, equal to 10 rubles, in circulation from 1922 to 1947; 3. an SSSR gold coin issued in 1923 (mainly for settlements with other countries)” (TŽŽ 2001: 142) (cf. the definition of the word červoncs in Latvian: “1. In Russia (until 1917), a gold coin worth 3 rubles. 2. In the Soviet Union (from 1922 to 1947), a banknote worth 10 rubles” [1. In Russia (until 1917), a gold coin worth 3 rubles. 2. In the Soviet Union (from 1922 to 1947), a monetary token worth 10 rubles] (SV 1999: 129)). The Russian–Lithuanian dictionary records as many as three meanings of the Russian word in question, and only one of them is rendered in a transliterated form: “1. the red one (a Russian gold coin until 19171); 2. č e r v o n c a s [spaced out by the author of this article], a ten-ruble note (1922–1947); 3. colloq. ten rubles” (RLKŽ 2002: 834), whereas the word is not included in the Russian–Latvian dictionary. The cases discussed suggest that pragmatic approaches to historicisms differ. TERMS FOR CLASSIFYING NATIONAL REALIA IN FOREIGN LANGUAGES The term e g - e x o t i c i s m is used to name the specific features of foreign languages—“a foreign word, a borrowing denoting an unfamiliar reality of everyday life or culture characteristic of a foreign (especially distant) country” (TŽŽ 2001: 190). In linguistic literature, the compound term exotic vocabulary is also used as a synonym for the single-word term (its plural equivalent), when referring to the totality of such words: “Words or special word combinations taken from distant, little-known languages in order to give a style a distinctive local color <...>” (KTŽ 1990: 55). The definition in the Dictionary of Linguistic Terms emphasizes the purpose of using such national realia. As Russian sociolinguist Nina Mečkovskaja states, “exoticisms reveal or explain a foreign culture less than they symbolize it” (Мечковская 2000: 52). The term 1 It is likely that the dictionary contains a typographical error—the letter “m” should appear. 60 Regina Kvašytė | Tautinės realijos: pavadinimai, terminai... Exoticism, unlike the previously discussed ethnographism, is used to name the realia of other languages; however, with certain reservations, the term exoticism is unsuitable for words naming realia of closely related languages and cultures, such as Lithuanian and Latvian, since the realia of these peoples, although unfamiliar, are not exotic in the true sense of the word. There is reason to argue that the terms described, ethnographism and exoticism, form a certain antonymic pair when classifying names of national realia according to whether they belong to one's own or a foreign language. But what should we call this kind of vocabulary when, in translation, it is transferred from the original language into the text of another language? Everything noticed by a representative of another culture but not understood—whatever seems strange to them and calls for interpretation—is a signal that the text contains specific elements of the culture reflected in the text, which, according to linguoculturologist Valentina Maslova, are called lacunae (Маслова 2001: 111). Narrowing this claim to the lexical level, one can say that lacunae, or lacunar vocabulary, consists of lexical units of a particular language that have no direct lexical-semantic equivalent in another language (Bankavas 2001: 9). It is claimed that the term lacuna is characteristic of the Francophone cultural tradition (Иванов 2006: 79), and that the first to apply this term in linguistics were the Canadian scholars Jean-Paul Vinay and Jean Darbelnet (Дюнь 2007: 135). The term lacuna is used in many languages, including English, French, Latvian (Bankavas 2006), and Russian (Степанов 1965; Муравьев 1975, etc.). However, the Dictionary of International Words gives the definition of the word lacuna, of Latin origin, as ‘[Lat. lacuna – hollow, gap] a gap in a text, an omission, a missing part’ (TŽŽ 2001: 425), providing grounds for doubting whether this term is suitable for naming the vocabulary in question. It is claimed that national-cultural distinctiveness may be revealed not only by the presence of specific words, but also by the lack of words in another language to convey the meanings expressed by them. Thus, such ‘gaps’, ‘white spots on the semantic map of a language’, are called by the same term (Степанов 1965: 120). ‘In one case, lacunae arise because of differences between the respective cultures <...>. In another case, a lacuna is caused not by the absence of a denotatum’s equivalent in one language, but by the fact that a language seems to have no need to distinguish what another language distinguishes’ (Мечковская 2000: 53). Latvian linguist Andrejis Bankavas divides this vocabulary into absolute and relative lacunae, and further divides the former into two subgroups: ‘ethnographic lacunae (balzams, sagša, sakta, Līgo vakars, lats, auseklītis, dainas, Pērkons, suitu sievas) <...> and linguistic lacunae <...>. By distribution, lacunae are divided into national (balzams, GNP, kokle) and regional (kefīrs, kvass, ķimelis, rupjmaize’ (Bankavas 2001: Terminologija | 2009 | 16 61 (9–10). It is evident that the same word may belong to several classification types; for example, balzams belongs to both the group of ethnographic and that of national lexical units. However, this classification is quite complex, since it is not always easy to assign a particular word to only one subgroup. Thus, the Latvian word balzams (if it is not the nomenclatural word in the name of a specific product representing Latvia, Rīgas melnais balzams, which often pragmatically stands for the full product name) could also be a regional lacuna, since similar drinks are produced elsewhere, not only in Latvia (cf. Bitner’s balsam, etc.), or might even lack national connotations (cf. the meanings of balsam, a borrowing from Greek: ‘[Gr. balsamon – aromatic resin] 1. a solution of natural or synthetic resins in essential oils; natural ~s are products of plant metabolism; 2. pharm. a medicinal or cosmetic preparation made from such a solution; 3. a strong alcoholic drink prepared with balsam extracts or oils’ (TŽŽ 2001: 90). From the perspective of Latvian, a realia named by a borrowing from Greek is classed as an ethnographism; therefore, lacuna is understood in two ways: it is a place in a text that needs to be filled, and, on the other hand, it is a term naming a realia that must be described using the resources of another language. There is, however, a different view. For example, A. Gudavičius emphasizes that ‘lacuna5 denotes the absence of a word in one language (English lack “shortage, absence”) relative to another language, when the corresponding object, phenomenon, etc. exists in the reality reflected by both languages. Thus, the reason for lacunae is not the diversity of the real world, but the particularities of how the world is categorized in language’ (Gudavičius 2007: 93). Other authors associate the names of specific national realia with equivalence: ‘it is difficult to find equivalents in another language, because the lives of other peoples do not include the objects or phenomena being named. This vocabulary, which could be called n o n - e q u i v a l e n t [emphasis added by the article’s author], is very important for understanding a people’s material and spiritual culture’ (Gudavičius 2000: 79; Gudavičius 2009: 93–94). The term equivalent, derived from the Latin word ‘[Lat. aequivalens (gen. aequivalents)] equal in value, an object of equal value; equivalent value, an equal quantity; level, counterpart’ (TŽŽ 2001: 198), is traditionally used in the works of linguists from various countries, although its meaning may vary (Černė 2006; Papaurelytė-Klovienė 2007; Polkovņikova 2006; Влахов, Флорин 2006; Иванов 2006; Саевич 1999, etc.). Another morphologically similar term in Lithuanian that denotes a relation to equivalence—non-equivalent vocabulary—is defined as ‘words or word combinations of the original language that 5 A. Gudavičius vartoja rašybos variantą lakuna (Gudavičius 2007: 93). 62 Regina Kvašytė | Tautinės realijos: pavadinimai, terminai... denote objects, processes, phenomena, or other facts of life for which the target language has no equivalents’ (Ambrasas-Sasnava 1978: 132). Nevertheless, the shorter form is more convenient to use, that is, the subordinate component of the compound term formed with the prefix non-. ‘Relational adjectives formed from nouns with the prefix non- denote a feature resulting from the absence of the thing named by the base noun’ (Keinys 1999: 80). Both ethnographisms and exoticisms may be considered non-equivalent if vocabulary marked by national colouring is viewed from the perspective of the target language. It has even been proposed that such vocabulary be distinguished from vocabulary that has no equivalents in a language in general (Влахов, Флорин 2006: 56). A term with a similar meaning to non-equivalent vocabulary used in Latvian linguistic literature is regional geographical vocabulary (Latvian reģionālģeografiskā leksika). It is used by Latvian linguist Ilga Migla, who studies the rendering of Latvian realia in German (Migla 1996: 2). This term emphasizes the territorial component, rather than the semantic or equivalence-related one. In the new Latvian dictionary of linguistic terms (Valodniecības pamatterminu skaidrojošā vārdnīca), vocabulary for which no words in one’s own language can be found is called cultural borrowings (Latvian kultūraizguvumi). The definition shows that this is a word, expression, or phraseological unit from the source language (Latvian avotteksts) which, if no suitable equivalent is found in the target language (Latvian mērķteksts), is transferred into it (if the languages use the same alphabet, it is transliterated; if different alphabets, it is transcribed). It is also stated there that this layer of borrowings consists of the aforementioned ethnographisms (VPSV 2007: 198). Although convenient to use, the Latvian coinage is not entirely satisfactory in terms of content, since it emphasizes only one method of rendering such national vocabulary—direct transfer—whereas pragmatic considerations may lead to the choice of other methods of rendering the vocabulary in question, such as commentary, explanation, substitution, and so on; that is, other kinds of equivalents may be sought, without limiting the process to transliteration or transcription. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to use this term alone (besides, this compound term has no usage tradition in Lithuanian and is less convenient than the Latvian neologism). Sometimes there is no basis at all for speaking of the emergence of borrowings. Examples of different ways of recording such non-equivalent vocabulary are found in various dictionaries—both explanatory⁶ and bilingual⁷. Their authors ⁶ Plačiau apie liaudies šokių ir žaidimų pavadinimus žr. Černė 2006. ⁷ Plačiau apie latvių kalbos realijas kitų kalbų žodynuose žr. Kvašytė 2003, apie lietuvių kalbos realijas latvių kalba žr. Kvašytė 2005. Terminologija | 2009 | 16 63 …strives to reflect the word’s national coloration in comments or at least in a note. For example, in the group of spiritual folk-culture realia, a name for a singing style particularly characteristic of Lithuanians, sutartinė Lietuvių–latvių kalbų žodyne, is given with a specific label. The word itself is not translated; only a comment is provided: “folk. sutartine (lietuviėšu tautas dziesmu žanrs)” (LLV 1995: 495), whereas in English the Lithuanian word is replaced by a description: “flk. Lithuanian polyphonic part-song” (NLAKŽ 2002: 768); the same is true of the Lietuvių–rusų kalbų žodyne, «сутартине», a many-voiced Lithuanian folk choral song» (LRKŽ 2001: 802). The Lietuvių–latvių kalbų žodyne records the name of a specific food—a baked product—šakotis, “2. cul. šakotis (lietuviėšu nacionālais zarains pīrāgs no olām)” (LLV 1995: 502), transcribed in Lithuanian, while English speakers are shown what šakotis looks like: “cul. pyramidal cake (resembling the tree-trunk with spikes)” (NLAKŽ 2002: 778); the Lietuvių–rusų kalbų žodyne also refers to its appearance: «3. cul. shortbread cake in the shape of a fir tree» (LRKŽ 2001: 816). The Rusų–lietuvių kalbų žodyne conveys the name of a Russian folk musical instrument, балалайка, by means of a transliterated equivalent: “mus. balalaika” (RLKŽ 2003: 26); the same approach is used in the Rusų–latvių kalbų žodyne, “балалайка” (KLV 1988: 25). In addition, words such as the name of a folk song, частушка, are explained in Lithuanian and Latvian (or in one of the two): “častuška (a humorous Russian folk song)” (RLKŽ 2003: 883); “častuška (a Russian folk song)” (KLV 1988: 563); or the name of a woman’s headdress, кокошник – “kokošņiks (a Russian woman’s national-costume head ornament” [kokošnikas (Russian women’s headdress)] (KLV 1988: 196). As the definitions show, in addition to the general explanation that it is a Russian folk song, Lithuanians further specify its character—humorous. Any reference to national identity disappears entirely when the Russian ethnographic term самовар is rendered in Lithuanian by the word virdulys (RLKŽ 2003: 722). The Latvian equivalent of the same Russian ethnographic term is the compound calque patvāris [that which boils by itself], which partly preserves the cultural coloring characteristic of Russia. This is also retained in the explanatory dictionary of Latvian: “a portable tea-making device in which water is heated in a firebox or by an electric heater,” while all the illustrative examples relate to Russia (LLVV 6(1), 1986: 533). For those familiar with Russian culture, this object is associated with an item of a specific shape and purpose; however, such associations do not arise without a broader context on hearing or reading the Lithuanian word virdulys. In publications on language usage, the word samo-varas is considered an unacceptable foreignism (KP 2005: 99). 64 Regina Kvašytė | Tautinės realijos: pavadinimai, terminai... Some of this non-equivalent vocabulary—which is closer in status to borrowings—is included in dictionaries of international words: balalaika, “a Russian folk stringed musical instrument with 3 strings and a triangular body, played with the fingers” (TŽŽ 2001: 88); kokošnikas, “1. an old ceremonial headdress worn by married Russian women; 2. a decorative, molded arch-shaped element of Russian church architecture” (TŽŽ 2001: 378); častuška, “in Russian folk oral literature, a short song (usually four lines) with topical content” [a short song of topical content (usually a quatrain) in Russian folk oral literature] (SV 1999: 128–129). It is clear that each language (and the compilers of each particular dictionary) chooses its own way of recording words imbued with such national coloring. CONCLUSIONS In summary, it can be stated that there is considerable variety in the terms used to classify the national realia of one’s own and foreign languages. The terms ethnographism and exoticism, as a kind of pair of antonyms, are important when discussing vocabulary characterized by national distinctiveness from the perspective of one’s own language. To designate vocabulary used for the purposes of compiling dictionaries or, more broadly, intercultural communication, linguists in various countries use terms such as lacuna, regional geographic vocabulary, cultural borrowings, non-equivalent vocabulary, and others. In Lithuanian linguistics, non-equivalent vocabulary is considered the most appropriate term, although it must be acknowledged that it, too, is conditional (it should be recalled that the use of terminology is, in general, a matter of convention): in each case an equivalent must be found, but there is no direct lexical equivalent in the other language. The pragmatics of choosing an equivalent depends on various circumstances and conditions, such as the linguistic relatedness of the target language, the nature of the text, and the traditions and purposes associated with the use of the particular word. ŠALTINIAI DŽ – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas. Šeštasis (trečiasis elektroninis) leidimas. Ats. red. S. Keinys, Vilnius, 2006. KLV – Krievu–latviešu vārdnīca. Izlabots un papildināts otrais izdevums, Rīga, 1988. LKV – Latviešu–krievu valodu vārdnīca. Rīga, 1979. LIV – Balkevičius J., Balode L., Bojāte A., Subatnieks V. Lietuviešu–latviešu vārdnīca, Rīga, 1995. LLVV – Latviešu literārās valodas vārdnīca, 1.–8. sēj. Rīga, 1972–1996. LLŽ – Latvių–lietuvių kalbų žodynas, Sud. A. Butkus. Kaunas, 2003. LRKŽ – Lyberis A. Lietuvių–rusų kalbų žodynas. Vilnius, 2001. NLAKŽ – Piesarskas B., Svecevičius B. Naujasis lietuvių–anglų kalbų žodynas. Vilnius, 2002. RLKŽ – Lemchenas Ch., Macaitis J. Rusų–lietuvių kalbų žodynas, Trečiasis leidimas, Vilnius, 2003. SV – Svešvārdu vārdnīca, Dr. philol. J. Baldučnika redakcijā, Rīga, 1999. TŽŽ – Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas. Ats. red. A. Kinderis, Vilnius, 2001. Terminologija | 2009 | 16 65 LITERATŪRA Ambrasas-Sasnava K. 1978: Vertimo mokslas, Vilnius. Bankavs A. 2001: Lakūnas latviešu valodā. – Leksika: vēsturiskais un aktuālais. Akadēmiķa Jāņa Endzelīna 128. dzimšanas dienas atceres starptautiskās zinātniskās konferences materiāli, Rīga, 9–10. Bankavs A. 2006: Franču–latviešu–angļu leksikogrāfijas terminu vārdnīca, Sast. A. Bankavs, Rīga. Černie V. 2006: Beekvivalente leksika aiškinamuosiuose žodynuose. – Leksikografija ir leksikologija I. Aiškinamųjų bendrinės kalbos žodynų aktualijos. Sud. R. Petrokienė, Vilnius, 192–208. Gudavičius A. 2000: Etnolingvistika, Šiauliai. Gudavičius A. 2009: Etnolingvistika (Tauta kalboje), Šiauliai. Gudavičius A. 2007: Gretinamoji semantika, Šiauliai. Keinys S. 1999: Bendrinės lietuvių kalbos žodžių daryba, Šiauliai. KP 2005: Kalbos patarimai 4. Leksika: skolinių vartojimas (svetimybės, tarptautiniai žodžiai) (L 1). Sud. D. Mikulėnienė, Vilnius. KTŽ 1990: Gaivenis K., Keinys S. Kalbotyros terminų žodynas, Kaunas. Kvašytė R. 2005: Latvijos gyvenimo realijos lietuvių šaltiniuose. – Filologija 10, 57–64. Kvašytė R. 2003: Latvių nacionalinės realijos kitų kalbų šaltiniuose. – Filologija 8, 15–24. Kvašytė R. 2005: Lietuvių tautas realijas latviešu avotos. – Vārds un tā pētišanas aspekti 9, Liepāja, 290–299. Kvašytė R., Čepaitienė G., Župerka K. 2006: Istorija kaip kalbos ir raštijos stilistinio savitumo veiksnys (lietuvių ir latvių paralelės). – Lietuvių ir latvių gretinamosios stilistikos klausimai, Sud. ir ats. red. R. Kvašytė, Šiauliai, 40–53. LK 1995: Barauskaitė J. ir kt. Lietuvių kalba I: Leksikologija, fonetika, akcentologija, dialektologija, rašyba, Vilnius. Migla I. 1996: Latvijas reģionālgeogrāfiskā leksika vācu valodā. Disertācijas kopsavilkums filoloģijas doktora grāda iegūšanai, Rīga. Palionis J. 1979: Lietuvių literatūrinės kalbos istorija, Vilnius. Papaurėlytė-Klovienė S. 2007: Lingvistinės kultūrologijos bruožai, Šiauliai. Polkovnikova S. 2006: Latviešu valodas bezekvivalenta runs verbi kontrastīvā aspektā. – Valoda – 2006. Valodas dažādu kultūru kontekstā, Zinātnisko rakstu krājums XVI. Daugavpils, 49–56. Vilkaite I., Kvašytė R. 2006: Pasvyoji leksika lietuvių–latvių ir latvių–lietuvių žodynuose. – Lietuvių ir latvių gretinamosios stilistikos klausimai, Sud. ir ats. red. R. Kvašytė, Šiauliai, 225–243. VPSV 2007: Valodniecības pamatterminu skaidrojošā vārdnīca. Sast. aut. kol. V. Skujiņas vad., Rīga. Влахов С. И., Флорин С. П. 2006: Непереводимое в переводе. Издание третье, испер. и доп., Москва. Дунь И. Л. 2007: Интраглингвальные лакуны в лексической системе русского языка. – Вісник СумДУ. Серія Філологія, № 1. Том 1, 135–141. Интернето prieiga <visnyk.sumdu.edu.ua/ arhiv/2007/1/02_124_Dun.pdf> [žiūrėta 2009 12 08]. Иванов А. О. 2006: Безэквивалентная лексика: учебное пособие. Санкт-Петербург. Маслова В. А. 2001: Лингвокультурология, Москва. Мечковская Н. Б. 2000: Социальная лингвистика, Москва. Муравьев В. Л. 1975: Лексические лакуны (на материале лексики французского и русского языков), Владимир. Савич И. 1999: Безэквивалентная лексика в тематической группе названий музыкальных инструментов. – Национально-культурный компонент в тексте и языке: материалы Международной научной конференции, ч. 3. Минск, 107–111. Степанов Ю. С. 1965: Французская стилистика в сравнении с русской. Москва. NATIONAL REALIA: NAMES, TERMS AND THEIR USAGE The object of this research is appellative nouns which reflect the peculiarities of life, traditions and environment of a certain nation. The aim of the article is to find a term which is the most appropriate for naming of such national realia. Some authors use the term lacuna when naming things which seem unusual to a representative of another culture and which require interpretation. Other authors relate them with equivalency. 66 Regina Kvašytė | Tautinės realijos: pavadinimai, terminai... Since it is sometimes difficult to find equivalents in a language when the speakers of it are not familiar with a certain things or phenomena existing in another culture, the term non-equivalent lexis can be used. In linguistic literature other terms are also used, for example exotism and exotic vocabulary, though these are not suitable for closely related languages. The term ethnographism which names some national realia is not suitable for describing national historical events, national movements and other things the names of which belong to the specific national lexis. Moreover, ethnographisms first of all denote national realia which do not cause problems for native speakers when used in a text. It is more difficult with foreign cultural phenomena and translation of their names. A conclusion could be drawn that the most suitable term for the lexis referring to national realia is non-equivalent lexis. Is has to be admitted that this term may not always be applicable because it is necessary to find a certain equivalent while translating a text. The choice of the equivalent depends on many things, for example the affinity of the source language, the character of the text and the tradition and intention of the usage of a particular word. Gauta 2009-12-13 Regina Kvašytė Šiaulių universitetas P. Višinskio g. 38, LT – 76352, Šiauliai E. paštas [email protected] Terminologija | 2009 | 16 67