Valodniecības pamatterminu skaidrojošā vārdnīca. Sastādijis autoru kolektīvs V. Skujiņas vadībā.

REGINA KVAŠYTĖ Šiauliai University EXPLANATORY DICTIONARY OF BASIC LINGUISTIC TERMS Sastādījis autoru kolektīvs V. Skujiņas vadībā, Rīga, 2007, 624 p. At the beginning of 2008, a long-awaited terminography publication appeared in Latvia, finally allowing linguists, too, to feel like specialists in a field with up-to-date terminology. Explanatory Dictionary of Basic Linguistic Terms is the first explanatory dictionary of linguistics terms prepared in Latvian, which, as its title indicates, brings together the principal terms of this branch of science. Until then, colleagues had used a Russian–Latvian translation dictionary of terms that was almost 50 years old and no longer met the needs of a changing language of science (VTV 1963). However, the new dictionary’s 242 Regina Kvašytė authors relied on it when selecting terms and their Russian equivalents. Under the direction of Valentīna Skujiņa, a Doctor Habilitatus in Philology and a renowned Latvian terminologist, the dictionary was prepared by linguists of the senior and middle generations with broad scholarly interests: Ojārs Bušs (Ojārs Bušs), Daiga Juoma (Daiga Joma), Andra Kalnača, Ilze Lokmane (Ilze Lokmane), Dace Markus (Dace Markus), and Iveta Pūtеле (Iveta Pūtеле). They were assisted by numerous specialists from other branches of philology. Funding for publication of the dictionary was provided by the state agency “Valsts valodas aģentūra” [State Language Agency], while the initiative to prepare it came from the agency “Latvijas Universitātes Latviešu valodas institūts” [Institute of the Latvian Language of the University of Latvia]. The dictionary’s contents were discussed extensively, and individual opinions reconciled. As in any other field, the first task was to select the concepts to be included in the dictionary; next, to choose which existing terms should be used, refine or create new ones, define them, and find equivalents in foreign languages. As the authors themselves state in the Preface, the dictionary’s main aim is to gather and explain the most relevant terms in linguistics and thus promote the development of Latvian linguistic terminology. Its intended users are linguists, Latvian-language teachers, university lecturers, students of language-related disciplines, and others. First, the new terminography publication deserves a more detailed description. Of the dictionary’s total length, the main section—that is, the section explaining Latvian terms—occupies pages 12 to 463 (incidentally, this can also be distinguished visually: the page edges are colored gray). The dictionary contains approximately 2,000 Latvian linguistic terms, with equivalents provided in English, German, and Russian. The terms are arranged alphabetically. The dictionary includes cross-references to related terms, which help readers better understand concepts that have already been defined (these are marked with the reference see also). There are many illustrative examples in individual entries, most often for terms naming various types of writing, for example, antīkua, glagolica, hieroglyph, pictogram. Individual dictionary entries also contain various diagrams that help clarify the concepts named by the terms (compound phrase1 [compound word combination], semantic triangle [semantic triangle], simple phrase [simple word combination], etc.). The dictionary is quadrilingual, so for convenience 1Examples from Latvian are translated into Lithuanian and written in square brackets, except where international terms are used in both languages or the term forms are identical. If there is no established usage in Lithuanian linguistics, or if this more accurately reflects the structure of the Latvian term, the translation may be literal. This is marked with an asterisk (the authors of the dictionary under review do something similar, for example, neoloģi-ja* / a. neology / v. Neologie* / kr. неология*). Terminoloģija | 2008 | 15 243 because it includes indexes of terms for each foreign language. They stand out in that each also includes translations into Latvian. Of the Dictionary’s total length, the indexes occupy about one third—from page 464 onward. There is no doubt that this approach is practical, since there is no longer any need to look for the Latvian equivalent in the main body of the Dictionary. It should also be added that much information facilitating its use is provided in the description of the Dictionary’s structure: certain conventions are used, which users of the Dictionary will understand only after familiarizing themselves with it in detail. The selection of terms shows that the Dictionary contains many new linguistics terms of varied structure: kods, diskurss, korpuss, makrosociolingvistika, kon-situācija, kultūraizguvums [cultural borrowing*], viltusdraugs [false (translator’s) friend*], tekstveide [text production], jauniešu slengs [youth slang], komunikatīvā kompetence [communicative competence], and so on. Some are international borrowings, while others are native or hybrid formations (similar examples are also found in the work of Lithuanian linguists). It is worth noting that the terminology of some branches of linguistics, including newer ones, is quite extensively developed and represented in the Dictionary. Onomastics, sociolinguistics, and translatology, or translation theory, are particularly prominent. For example, the new Dictionary includes terms relevant to sociolinguistics, often with synonyms: alohtonā minoritāte [autochthonous minority], aizstājošā divvalodība, aizstājošais bilingvisms [subtractive bilingualism*, subtractive bilingualism*], as well as terms needed in translation theory and practice—including many Latvian formations, most often compounds: assvaloda, galvenā starpniekvaloda [pivot language*, main intermediary language*], avotvaloda [source language*], mērķvaloda [target language*]; atulkojums, pretvirziena tulkojums [back-translation*, reverse-direction translation*], čuksttulkošana [whispered interpreting*], and so on. Considerable attention is devoted to terminology used in the field of terminology2. The Dictionary under discussion contains as many as 19 terms in this field built on the root term- alone (for comparison, one may note that only three are listed under this root in the Lithuanian Dictionary of Linguistic Terms: terminas, terminija and terminologija (Gaivenis, Keinys 1990)), for example: simple forms—terminēma, terminelements [term component], terminogrāfija, termzinātne [the science of terms*], terminoloģija; and two-word compounds—termina noteikšana, termina identificēšana [term determination, term identification], terminoloģiskā funkcija [terminological function]; as well as some multiword compounds—terminu pieņemamības vērtēs 2 A separate glossary has been published in Lithuanian, containing approximately 200 terms used in terminology (Kvašytė 2005). 244 Regina Kvašytė skala [scale of term acceptability*]. A considerable number of terms from this branch of linguistics can also be found alphabetically (apakštermins [specific term], virsjēdziens [generic concept], and so on); moreover, these may sometimes be terms from other branches of linguistics which, based on their definitions, belong to terminology. Some terms included in the Dictionary under discussion illustrate the work of Latvian terminologists in term creation more generally. For example, instead of an English loanword, the term dators was coined and successfully established in the field of information technology, displacing English kompjūters [computer], which is used mostly in colloquial speech; it was adapted for use in linguistics. This was due to the fact that the formation as a whole (a derivation from the root of the Latin-origin word dati [data] and the international suffix -ors [–or], a derivational device suited to naming an instrument) is convenient in terms of word formation. The abundance of Latvian neologisms with the root dator- or adjectives derived from it confirms this view, for example: datorklase [computer class], datorprogramma [computer program], datortīkls [computer network]. Recent additions to linguistic terminology include terms such as datorizētā tulkošana [computer-assisted translation], datorlingvistika [computational linguistics]. The root dat- was also used to form a term whose shape has been debated for some time—datubāze [database*] (interestingly, Latvians and Lithuanians chose different international words as the basis for naming a similar concept: one group chose bazę (< Gr.), the other banką (< It.)). Initially used as a two-word compound term, datu bāze, it is recorded in the Dictionary after application of a tendency particularly characteristic of Latvian: compound terms becoming simple forms, since compounds, as one of the productive term types, allow meaning to be expressed more abstractly than combinations of two (or more) words. The Dictionary contains more examples of this tendency to use simple terms formed according to certain patterns more broadly in place of compound terms: etnosemantika, etnolingvistika, etnotoponīms; apakšjēdziens [specific concept], apakšnozare [subfield], apakštermins [specific term]³; defiskopa [hyphenated compound*] (cf. also the three-part compound defiskoptermins [hyphenated term*]), defisrakstījums [hyphenated spelling*], defissavienojums [hyphenated combination*]; hibrīdtermins [hybrid term], hibrīdvārds [hybrid word], hibrīdvaloda [hybrid language], as well as some other language types: avotvaloda [source language*], cilmvaloda [language of origin*], aizguvējvaloda [borrowing language*]. Although this approach is not foreign to Lithuanian terminology either (as some of the above-mentioned examples demonstrate 3 All these terms are formed in Latvian with the element apakš-, whose main meaning corresponds to that of the word apakšā, “below, underneath”; they are translated into Lithuanian in various ways. Terminologija | 2008 | 15 2 4 5 (equivalents of examples), formations of this type are particularly characteristic of Latvian – this can be regarded as the influence of German (Keinys 1994: 89). The dictionary also contains many multiword compound terms, although they are not abundant. Four-word terms occur rarely: augsta mēles pacēluma patskanis [high tongue-height vowel], salikta teikuma struktūras shēma [structural scheme of a complex sentence], salikts kombinēta saistījuma teikums [complex sentence with combined coordination], while three-word terms are somewhat more frequent: pārejošs darbības vārds [transitive verb], vārda formālais variants [formal variant of a word], indoeiropiešu valodu saime [Indo-European language family], latgaliešu rakstu valoda [Latgalian written language], and so on. Synonymy is a fairly widespread way of recording and using terms. The new Latvian terminographic publication is no exception: it contains various types of synonyms, that is, cases where simple terms or the main or secondary components of compound terms are synonymous. These may be absolute or derivational synonyms of Latvian or international origin, for example: galotne, fleksija [ending], divvalodība, bilingvisms [bilingualism], līdzartikulācija, koartikulācija [coarticulation], devējvaloda, donorvaloda [source language*, donor language], diahroniskā valodniecība, diahroniskā lingvistika [diachronic linguistics]. Latin equivalents are also sometimes provided alongside them: saliktā nākotne, futūrum II [compound future tense], darbības lietvārds, nomen actionis [*action noun]. Some concepts have as many as three variants (usually a compound term, its abbreviated variant, and an international term): atvasināts vārds, atvasinājums, derivāts [derived word, derivation, derivative], bahuvrihi, bahuvrihi saliktenis, citnozīmes saliktenis [bahuvrihi compound, compound with another meaning*]. The dictionary also includes terms that are still disputed and are retained as synonyms, for example, anglisms, anglicisms4. The main problem concerns the component -ic-, which, as V. Skujinia has repeatedly stated, carries no semantic load and is therefore unnecessary. Regarding polysemy, it should be said that there are few such linguistic terms, although some polysemous terms do occur in the Dictionary. These include akomo-dācija, used in different branches of linguistics—both in phonetics and sociolinguistics; anafora, a figure used in stylistics that reveals the relationship between a word and a previously mentioned word, and also a term in terminology; and alonīms in onomastics, meaning both a variant of a proper name and a pseudonym. Definitions are an important part of the Dictionary. They vary in scope, ranging from concise to comprehensive. Some are very concise, resembling synonyms or distinguishing one 4 Latvian has no native-language derivative like Lithuanian does—anglybė. 246 Regina Kvašytė concept from another: semasiologs – semasioloģijas speciālists; sintaksists – sintakses speciālists; reģionālais dialekts – teritorijai raksturīgs dialekts atšķirībā no sociolekta [regional dialect—a dialect characteristic of a territory, as distinct from a sociolect]. Other definitions are supplemented with illustrative material, which is a positive feature from the perspective of Dictionary users, since an example or two of the phenomenon under discussion can sometimes help explain it better than a purely theoretical description. There are also more comprehensive definitions containing a wealth of additional information about a particular phenomenon, for example, lietiško rakstu valodas stils, lietiškais stils [style of business writing, business style] – Funkcionālais valodas paveids jeb stils, ko lieto oficiālos dokumentos. Lietiško rakstu stilā lieto emocionāli neitrālus izteiksmes līdzekļus, to raksturo standartizēta, maksimāli unificēta izteiksme, stingras un lēni mainīgas normas, izteiksmes līdzekļu ekonomija, speciālās terminoloģijas un standartizētu konstrukciju lietojums, liels lietvārdu īpatsvars. Latviešu valodas lietiško rakstu stilam raksturīga cituvalodu ietekme. [A functional variety or style of language used in official documents. Business writing uses emotionally neutral means of expression and is characterized by standardized, maximally unified expression, strict and slowly changing norms, economy of expressive means, use of specialized terminology and standardized constructions, and a high proportion of nouns. The business-writing style of Latvian is characterized by the influence of other languages]. Such a definition is comparable to a description of stylistic features in an encyclopedic or educational publication. Of course, not all the definitions in this Dictionary of Linguistics Terms are so developed. Genuine encyclopedic information appears in the definition of the term ātrraksts, stenogrāfija [shorthand*, stenography], which states when this writing method originated, who invented it, and so on. A multifaceted examination of the Dictionary and information related to its preparation reveals links with Lithuania. The Dictionary’s preface mentions that its expert was Axel Holvoet (incidentally, his first and last names have been Latvianized in accordance with all the rules of Latvian—Akselas Holvutas) from the Institute of the Lithuanian Language. The Dictionary itself sometimes mentions the Lithuanian language; for example, it includes terms such as lietu viešu filoloģija [Lithuanian philology], lietuviešu valoda [Lithuanian language], and synonymous terms liet uvisms, lituānisms [Lithuanianism, Lituanism], lietuvistika, lituānistika [Lithuanian studies], as well as terms whose meanings encompass the Lithuanian language, such as baltisms [Balticism], baltistika, baltu filoloģija [Baltic philology], baltu valodas [Baltic languages]. Among the 113 entries in the bibliography, which includes works in various languages, several works by Lithuanian linguists are also cited: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika (1996), Lietuvių kalbos enciklopedija (1999), Lithuanian Grammar (1997), and A. Paulauskienė’s Lietuvių kalbos Terminologija | 2008 | 15 247 morfologija (1994), Vinco Urbučio Žodžių darybos teorija (1978), Adelės Valeckienės Funkcinė lietuvių kalbos gramatika (1998), Zigmo Zinkevičiaus Kalbotyros pradmenys (1980). Tiesa, pastebėtas netikslumas – lietuvių Kalbotyros terminų žodynas minimas be autorių (žr. 27-ą poziciją), todėl į abėcėlinį literatūros sąrašą pagal pavadinimą pateko prie K raidės, o ne prie G, kaip turėtų būti pagal autorius). It must be acknowledged that the Dictionary is not without certain inaccuracies. Its structure has not been fully systematized; for example, some terms are missing despite being referred to under related terms: sinekdoha – poetiškā sinekdoha [poetic synecdoche], leksiskā sinekdoha [lexical synecdoche], yet neither of the latter appears under the letter P nor under L. The inclusion of several other terms in the Dictionary could also be questioned—is vārdabrālis [namesake (masculine)], vārdamāsa [namesake (feminine)], tēls [image], tauta [people] appropriate for a dictionary of terminology in this field? However, neither the absence of some equivalents from the alphabetically arranged Dictionary (they appear only under related terms as possible points of comparison), nor an error in an entry in the bibliography, nor the fact that some terms are unnecessary or questionable diminishes its content, significance, or importance for the development of the Latvian language of science and Latvian linguistics. The Latvian terminographical publication is excellently prepared both in terms of content and visually and typographically. The appearance of a linguistic publication that accords with the principles of terminography is important, and it has appeared at a timely moment, when numerous new phenomena are emerging in life in general and in language, as the language of science is changing and developing. This could serve as a serious incentive for Lithuanian linguists, who have been using the available Kalbotyros terminų žodynu (Gaivenis, Keinys 1990) for almost two decades, to follow the example of their neighbors and colleagues—to develop Lithuanian linguistic terminology and prepare a new edition. LITERATŪRA Gaivenis K., Keinys S. 1990: Kalbotyros terminų žodynas, Kaunas. Keinys S. 1994: Latvių terminologijos tvarkymo principai. – Terminologijos vagos, 87–90. Kvašytė R. 2005: Mokomasi terminologijos žodynėlis, Šiauliai. VTV 1963: Valodniecības terminu vārdnīca. Sast. R. Grabis, Dz. Barbare, A. Bergmane, Rīga: Latvijas Valsts izdevniecība. Gauta 2008-12-23 Regina Kvašytė Šiaulių universitetas P. Višinskio g. 38, LT–76352 Šiauliai E. paštas: [email protected] 248 Regina Kvašytė