Literatūros mokslo terminų antonimija 1922–1942 m.

Antonymy in Literary Studies Terminology, 1922–1942 ASTA MITKEVIČIENĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language An important period in the development of literary studies terminology was the third and fourth decades of the twentieth century, when the present-day Lithuanian terminology of this academic discipline was being rapidly developed and established. One of the semantic phenomena associated with the system of terms is antonymy. This article aims to survey the principal aspects of antonymy in literary studies terminology during that period. Antonymous terms were sought in the most important and most extensive textbooks on literary theory and world literature history (see the list of sources). The first Lithuanian textbook on literary theory, K. Bizauskas’s Literatūros teorija (more precisely, the third, expanded and revised edition (1922); the first two were much shorter), was examined, along with other significant specialized works on literary theory: M. Gustaitis’s Stilistika (2nd ed., 1927), J. Norkus’s Literatūros teorija (3rd ed., 1930), and J. Ambrazevičius’s Literatūros teorija (4th ed., 1938); works on the history of world literature included V. Dubas’s textbook (1st ed., 1923; 3rd ed., 1931) and the two-volume Visuotinė literatūra by J. Ambrazevičius, J. Grinius, and A. Vaičiulaitis (4th ed., 1942). The latter textbook, under a slightly different title, had been published in 1931–1932 (the selected fourth edition differs little from the second: vol. 1 – 1934; vol. 2 – 1939)1. Unlike terms belonging to other semantic categories—synonyms and polysemous terms—antonymous terms are neither criticized nor regarded with doubt by terminological theorists and practitioners. Antonymy particularly helps realize one of the requirements set for terms—that they be systematic—and does not give rise to problems in usage or related issues. The theory of terminological antonymy is based on the concept of antonymy2 in general linguistics. The basis of antonymous terms consists of logical and semantic 1 The sources are discussed in greater detail in the author’s articles published in Terminologija (see nos. 11, 12). 2 Some theorists attempt to use the concept of incompatibility (German Inkompatibilität, French incompatibilité), also called inconymy, heteronymy, diahi-, which is broader in some respects and narrower in others. 134 Asta Mitkevičienė | Literatūros mokslo terminų antonimija 1922–1942 m. oppositions. Of course, not all terms contrasted in a text are true (systemic) antonyms. An important (though not the only) characteristic of antonymic terms is correlation (correlates, according to K. Gaivenis, are “terms belonging to one category but contrasted according to some essential feature”) (Gaivenis 1989: 101). Antonymic terms, as a group of correlates, are mentioned in Russian terminology (see, e.g., Никитина 1987: 85, 1996: 16). Terminological antonymy is associated with the dichotomy of concepts and their binary classification (Gaivenis 1989: 100; Лаврова 1979: 55), and less with hierarchical or other kinds of conceptual classification (Gaivenis: ibid.). In Lithuanian terminology, as in general linguistics, antonymy is usually regarded as a relationship between linguistic units at the same level. However, in K. Gaivenis’s view, this semantic phenomenon has certain distinctive features in terminology (see ibid.: 102). In the literature on terminology, the boundaries between antonymic and non-antonymic terms are not always drawn in the same way (especially when the antonymy of compound terms is discussed). In her terminology glossary, R. Kvašytė distinguishes, alongside lexical and derivational antonyms, a group of terminological antonyms, consisting of antonyms that acquire opposite meanings within a system of terms, for example, written language and spoken language (Kvašytė 2005: 12; see also Andriuškaitė 2001: 72–74). Russian terminology likewise has proponents of broad conceptions of terminological antonymy, which disregard the semantics of the words comprising the terms (see, e.g., Никитина 1997: 67). In foreign terminology dictionaries and glossaries (GTT; PTT), antonymic terms are defined simply as opposing terms or designations of opposing concepts, without specifying their particular characteristics or boundaries. This article adopts the traditional view of antonyms. Thus, such literary studies terms found in sources as folk lyric poetry – literary lyric poetry Biz 167, oral works – written works Nor 10, folk song – individual song Am 109, and so on, are not considered antonyms, although their basis is the binary classification of concepts3. A feature by which one phenomenon is distinguished from another in a binary classification does not always entail the emergence of antonymic terms (Лаврова 1979: 57). Associative terms can sometimes be mistaken for antonyms. Antonymic co-hyponymic terms in various fields form sizeable groups of antonymic terms, yet are often overlooked by theorists. V. Danilenko, one of the first in Russian terminology to devote greater attention to terminological antonymy, provides either examples of single-word antonymic terms or simply antonymic adjectives that occur as subordinate components of terms ponymy; diaphonymy are opposites of co-hyponyms (more commonly called co-hyponyms), which are also characterized by contrariety and, less often, contradiction (see MLS 1993: 270). However, this is not a widespread view. 3 At most, they could be understood as contextual (situational) antonyms. Terminologija | 2006 | 13 135 (Даниленко 1977: 80–81). In the terminology textbook by B. Golovin and R. Kobrin, antonyms are defined as words (Головин 1987: 58). From a traditional perspective, the antonymy of compound terms, as syntactic units, arises from the antonymy of lexical units (the words that make them up). The antonymy of syntactic constructions is regarded in linguistics as a derivative phenomenon (see РЯЭ 2003: 29). It is probably no coincidence that most linguistic dictionaries and encyclopedias discuss only antonymic words (see KTŽ; CODL; CEL; LST; Ахманова 1996, etc.). The main conditions for the use of antonyms in language, distinguished from the syntagmatic perspective, are a regular context and stable lexical relationships (Ermanytė 1995: 11). Compound antonymic terms clearly meet the second condition—their components are linked by stable lexical relationships. It can be argued that texts in literary studies also meet the other condition: both antonyms are often used in the same sentence or at least in adjacent sentences (cf. A period is called simple if it comprises only one thought, and compound if it comprises a combination of two or more thoughts, which are divided between rise and fall Biz 35; Finally, Shakespeare combines verse and non-verse language in the same work AG 229) (in the source – A. M.). In terms of form, antonymic terms are divided into those with a common root (derivational, root-based) and those without a common root (lexical). As we shall see, in literary studies terminology, besides true (proper) literary studies terms (prose – poetry), general scientific (analysis – synthesis) and art (fantastic element – realistic element) terms, as well as linguistic terms (agreeing attribute – non-agreeing attribute), among others, are also linked by antonymic relations and constitute an integral part of literary studies terminology. NON-COGNATE ANTONYMS Non-cognate antonymous terms in literary studies are supported by four types of oppositions: contradictory (complementary), contrary, vectorial, and conversive⁴. In terminology, contradictory opposition is usually 4 Enciklopediniame rusų terminologijos žodyne (Татаринов 2006: 17) komplementarinio tipo antonimai skiriami nuo kontradikcinių. Lietuvių kalbotyroje (ir terminologijoje) kontradikcinės priešybės ir komplementarinės priešybės antonimai įjungiami į vieną grupę, nes manoma, kad kontradikcinė priešybė pasižymi komplementarumu (žr. Ermanytė 1995: 9–10). Apskritai kalbotyroje priešybių tipai skiriami ne tuo pačiu pagrindu. Vektorinės priešybės pamatas gali būti arba kontradikcinė, arba kontrarinė priešybė (žr. РЯЭ 2003). 136 Asta Mitkevičienė | Literatūros mokslo terminų antonimija 1922–1942 m. associated with a dichotomy of concepts, whereas contrary opposition is associated with the limiting concepts of a terminological field (Kazlauskaitė 2004: 212, 215; Andriuškaitė 2001: 68–69). It is difficult to distinguish strictly between terms identified on the basis of contradictory opposition and antonyms based on contrary opposition. Usually, the question is whether there is a middle member (distinguished on the same basis) or not. The non-cognate antonymous terms found in the sources most often express contradictory opposition. The roots of single-word antonymous terms expressing contradictory opposition (A₁ – A₂⁵) are of foreign origin, e.g.: analitikas – sintetikas AGV 266, analizė – sintezė Gus 156, archaizmas – neologizmas Biz 43, Gus 19, Nor 20, Am 34, dedukcija Gus 154 – indukcija Gus 161, objektyvumas Dub₃ 376, AGV 6 – subjektyvumas Dub₃ 118, AG 131, optimizmas Dub₃ 72, AG 211 – pesimizmas Dub₃ 51, Dub₃ 271, AG 44, poētika Biz 129 – prozaika Biz 98, poezija Gus 4, Nor 4, Dub₃ 308, Am 23 / poēzija Biz 32 “fictional, imaginative literature”⁶ – proza Biz 32, Gus 4, Nor 4, Dub₃ 308, Am 23 “non-fictional, non-imaginative literature” (cf. poezija prozoje Biz 97, proza poezijoje Biz 97), realybė AG 256 “reality” – fantazija AG 256 “invention”, realistas Dub₁ 112, Dub₃ 115 – idealist as Dub₁ 99, Dub₃ 170, realizmas AG 254 – fantastika AG 253 “fantasticality”; of Lithuanian origin, e.g.: aiškumas – miglotumas AG 5, gyvumas AG 205 / raiškumas AG 205 – sausumas AGV 6, įdomumas Dub₁ 49, Dub₂ 275 – nuobodumas Dub₃ 70, senybė Nor 20 / senžodis Am 34 – naujadaras Nor 20, Am 35, tikrovė – prasiman ymas Nor 17; roots of different origins, e.g.: originalas Dub₃ 118, AG 195 – vertimas Dub₁ 40, Dub₃ 19, AG 198, tikrenybė Gus 103 – fantazija Gus 113, turinys Biz 15, Gus 5, Dub₁ 4, Dub₃ 3, Am 9, AG 47 – forma Biz 15, Gus 4, Dub₁ 34, Dub₃ 45, Am 9, AG 47, etc. Two different oppositions link the same terms: proza Biz 80, Gus 4 “unrhymed language” – eilėraščiai Biz 80 / eilės Gus 4 “rhymed language”, proza “works in prose” – eilėraščiai Biz 94, Nor 6. Antonymy between single-word terms arises from general-language antonymy, or the antonymous terms have emerged purely within the language of science. The antonymy of the terms listed determines the relations between compound terms formed with them and having antonymous secondary constituents (such a relation can 5 The following symbols are used in this article: A₁ and A₂ are antonymous single-word terms or antonymous head or governed constituents of compound terms; a₁ and a₂ are antonymous agreeing constituents of compound terms; x is a non-antonymous term constituent (in multiword terms, constituents). 6 In Lithuanian literary studies, the primary antonymic opposition poezija – proza is “fictional, imaginative literature” – “non-imaginative, utilitarian literature” (cf. TŽŽ 1936). In one of the sources from the period under consideration, poezija ir proza (AG 212), which in this instance are not terms, also convey the opposition through their meanings. Terminologija | 2006 | 13 137 can be represented graphically as A₁ – A₂ → A₁x – A₂x), e.g.: poezijos kalba – prozos kalba Am 26, poezijos teorija Biz 129, Am 26 – prozos teorija Biz 98, Am 26, poezijos veikalas Nor 4, Am 25 / poezijos veikalas Biz 32 – prozos veikalas Biz 32, Nor 4, Am 25; tikrovės elementas Dub₃ 214 – fantastikos elementas Dub₁ 187, Dub₃ 281, or the antonymy of the compound terms is directly related to it (the single-word terms and constituents of the corresponding compound terms are related) (this can be expressed as A₁ – A₂ ↔ a₁x – a₂x), e.g.: analitiškas dėstymo metodas Biz 116 – sintetiškas [dėstymo] metodas Biz 117, deduktyvus protavimas – induktyvus protavimas Gus 155, eilėraštinis pasakojimas Nor 6 – proziškasis pasakojimas Nor 67, objektyvus pasakojimas – subjektyvus pasakojimas Biz 153, originali pasakėčia – verstinė pasakėčia Nor 67, poezinis elementas – prozinis elementas Gus 107, poezinis vaizdavimas – prozinis vaizdavimas Gus 79, realistinė [istorinio romano] linkmė – idealistinė linkmė AGV 163, realus fonas AG 93 – fantastinis fonas AGV 109, realus kelionių aprašymas – fantastinis kelionių aprašymas Gus 99, tikra aplinka – pramanyta aplinka AG 3, also poetinis posakis – prozinis posakis Biz 31, poetinis veikalas – prozinis veikalas Biz 48, poetiškas aprašymas – prozaiškas aprašymas Gus 101, poetiškas veikalas – proziškas veikalas Biz 94, etc. The antonymy of other compound terms is based on adjectives or participles of various origins with opposite meanings7, which often form more than one term. The following term oppositions are expressed by Lithuanian antonyms serving as secondary term constituents: bendrasis aprašymas “a group of similar objects is described” – atskirasis aprašymas “a single object is described” Biz 110, Gus 100, bendroji literatūros teorija – atskiroji literatūros teorija Biz 15, dvasinė iškalba “associated with religion” – pasaulinė iškalba “not associated with religion” Gus 168, išviršinis vaizdas – išvidinis vaizdas Biz 130, jausminė lyrika – protaujamoji lyrika Am 106, jausminio pobūdžio juokas – protinio pobūdžio juokas Gus 201, pagrindinė novelė – šalutinė novelė Nor 70, pagrindinė tema – šalutinė tema Am 78, teigiamas veikėjas – neigiamas veikėjas Nor 59, Am 82, tiesioginė reikšmė Biz 59, Nor 25 – perkeltinė reikšmė Biz 59 / perkelta reikšmė Nor 25, vientisinis periodas – sudėtinis periodas Biz 35, vientisinis sakinys – sudėtinis sakinys Gus 90, visuomeninis motyvas Am 105 – asmeninis motyvas Am 106, etc. The sources also contain compound terms connected by antonymic relations and having antonymous constituents with foreign roots, e.g.: kolektyvinė kūryba – individualinė kūryba 7It is often difficult to determine which belong to general vocabulary and which to specialized vocabulary. 138 Asta Mitkevičienė | Literatūros mokslo terminų antonimija 1922–1942 m. AG 134, collective poetry – individual poetry Dub3 14, complex character Dub3 210 – elementary character Dub1 112 / simple character Dub3 187, concrete narrative – abstract narrative Am 82, antonymic constituents with roots of different origins, e.g.: individual scene – collective scene AG 202, general style – individual style Gus 179, world history – church history Gus 142, etc. Opposing types are named according to various generalized features, e.g.: “separate – common,” “unified – composed,” “religious – non-religious,” “good – bad,” “complex – simple,” and so on. Compound terms with antonymic head components constitute another case of terminological antonymy. Their head components are antonymic one-word terms, for example, realism of character AG 229 – unnaturalness of character AGV 81 (A₁ – A₂ → xA₁ – xA₂), or non-terminological words in literary studies, e.g.: closeness to life – distance from life Dub₃ 231, [expression of thought] variety Biz 137 – uniformity of thought expression Biz 136, suddenness of events – slowness of events Am 52 (cf. a sudden event – a slow event Am 52), syllable length – syllable shortness Gus 59 (cf. a long syllable – a short syllable Gus 47, Am 68, the long syllable – the short syllable Gus 60, Nor 39, Am 68). The opposing components of other compound antonyms identified may function as one-word terms, but this is not realized in the selected sources; thus, we can speak only of compound antonyms, e.g.: ornateness of expression – simplicity of expression AG 5 (Lithuanian antonymic components), psychological verisimilitude AG 193 – psychological unnaturalness AGV 67 (antonymic components with roots of different origins), etc. In nature, antonymic terms with head components of opposite meaning do not differ from one-word antonymic terms. Only in a qualified sense should the antonyms work with a plot – work without a plot Am 78 be assigned to the group of non-cognate antonyms. The contradictory nature of some terms is open to discussion, for example, when the components of antonymic terms are qualitative adjectives, e.g.: the good character – the bad character Nor 60, AGV 60, a long sound – a short sound Biz 81 (the long sound – the short sound Nor 39, Am 70), a strong intrigue – a weak intrigue Am 82, or derivatives of such adjectives, e.g.: complexity of characters – simplicity of characters Dub₁ 112, Dub₃ 187, length of sounds – shortness of sounds Gus 64, etc. In lexicology, such pairs of adjectives and their derivatives are considered antonyms of contrary opposites, but the terms listed have no middle member (term) in literary studies. Apparently, it would be more accurate— Terminologija | 2006 | 13 139 —to leave them among the antonymic terms of contradictory opposition. Between the names of antonymic aesthetic categories and antonyms related to the aesthetic evaluation of a literary work, e.g.: beauty – ugliness Dub₃ 265, admiration Dub₁ 99 – disgust Dub₃ 363, and names of moods, e.g.: joy Am 107, AG 131 – sadness Am 106, AG 128, exultation – grief AG 52, etc., features of both contradiction and contrariety can be discerned: these pairs of terms have no equivalent middle members (terms), yet denying one member does not necessarily entail affirming the other; for example, what is not beauty is not necessarily ugliness, and so on. Literary-studies terms constituting contradictory oppositions designate quite diverse concepts, and their names can be assigned to several semantic groups. The most conspicuous are antonymic names of qualities. Terms of contrary opposition designate the extreme concepts in a terminological field. This kind of opposition can be found between extreme terms naming different parts (of works or text units) (the relation “beginning – end”), e.g.: introduction Biz 117, Nor 11 / preface Am 11, AG 241 – ending Biz 117, Nor 11, Am 11 / conclusion Nor 11 / finale AG 242, beginning (preface, introduction) – end (conclusion) Gus 153, beginning of a sentence – end of a sentence Am 60, exposition Dub₃ 37, AG 256 – denouement Dub₃ 236, AG 258 (dramatic exposition – dramatic denouement Biz 182, development of the intrigue – resolution of the intrigue Am 79), etc. The names of opposing genres tragedy Biz 185, Nor 58, Dub₁ 35, Dub₃ 175, Am 115, AG 13 and comedy Biz 185, Nor 58, Dub₁ 115, Dub₃ 241, Am 115, AG 13 deserve particular attention. Literary theory of the period under consideration distinguishes three main genres of modern drama: tragedy, comedy, and drama, with comedy and tragedy as the extreme concepts in the terminological field. Nevertheless, the basis for the emergence of these antonyms may be contradictory opposition; for a long time, tragedy and comedy were the main dramatic genres. Formally speaking, antonymic opposition links specific terms classical tragedy Biz 187 “ancient tragedy” – classical comedy Biz 194 “ancient comedy,” pseudoclassical comedy Biz 195 – pseudoclassical tragedy Biz 190, etc., but their opposition is probably purely associative in nature. Related to the antonymy of the terms tragedy and comedy is the antonymy of names for participants in literary processes: tragedian Dub₁ 105, Dub₃ 181, AG 60 “writer of tragedies” – comedian Dub₁ 115, Dub₃ 191, AG 89 “writer of comedies”; there is also an antonymic relationship between the names of qualities tragicism Dub₁ 161, Dub₃ 274 – comic quality Dub₁ 134, Dub₃ 66. Words related to tragedy and comedy serve as subordinate term components (A₁ – A₂ → a₁x – a₂x), e.g.: 140 Asta Mitkevičienė | Literatūros mokslo terminų antonimija 1922–1942 m. tragic figure – comic figure AG 251, tragic mask – comic mask Biz 185, AG 56, tragic myth Dub3 175 / trag ic myth Dub1 101 – comic myth Dub1, Dub3 175, tragic work – comic work Nor 47, but it is not always clear whether the opposition arises from the primary meaning of the antonymous words or from a secondary meaning. Directional opposites among unrelated terms are few in literary studies, and those that do exist are not varied. They designate actions in opposite directions (the direction “up – down”), e.g.: [of a period] rise – [of a period] fall Biz 34, Gus 89, raising the voice – lowering the voice Am 57, rise of the action – fall of the action AG 246, as well as names for objects with properties oriented in opposite directions, for example, raised voice – lowered voice Gus 92. Verbal antonyms question Am 55, AGV 156 and answer Am 55, AGV 157 are conversives. ROOT-SHARING ANTONYMS Compound terms that differ only by the prefix ne- (very rarely, by be-) are also related by antonymy, e.g.: agreeing modifier – non-agreeing modifier Gus 87, pure foot – impure foot Am 67, expanded [initial / final] member – unexpanded [initial / final] member Gus 93, expanded sentence Gus 90 – unexpanded sentence Gus 89, interrupted action – uninterrupted action AGV 82, meaningful word – meaningless word Am 76, euphonious language – non-euphonious language Biz 78, correct language Biz 38, Nor 18 – incorrect language Biz 38, Nor 19, literal meaning – figurative meaning AGV 103 (of an agent), direct question – indirect question Gus 27, figurative word – non-figurative word Am 24 (antonymous literal meanings of agreeing words); deep character AG 81 – shallow character AGV 169 (opposite figurative meanings), etc. The words serving as secondary components in some antonyms are clear terminological antonyms, e.g.: verse language – non-verse language Nor 6, Am 25, verse epic – prose epic Am 90, stressed syllable – unstressed syllable Biz 83–84, Gus 47, Nor 40, Am 63, accented syllable – unaccented syllable Gus 47, etc. Opposing properties are also named by root-sharing terms (single-word or compound), e.g.: naturalness AG 202, “verisimilitude” – unnaturalness AGV 38, complexity of the plot Dub1 203, Dub3 214 – lack of complexity of the plot Dub1 112, Dub3 187. The terms permanent epithet – non-permanent epithet Am 41 should be considered quasi-antonyms—their opposition is relevant only in certain contexts of use, for exam- Terminologija | 2006 | 13 141 ple, when it is necessary to distinguish and name opposing concepts precisely. Likeable character – unlikeable character AGV 55 (cf. antipathetic), worn-out word – not worn-out word Am 21 involve only simple negation, since, according to K. Gaivenis, in the case of antonymy “the opposition of the lexical meaning formed by negation must be symmetrical” (1989: 99). Such negation is relevant to the terminology of literary studies. The following pairs should also be regarded as quasi-antonyms: verse Gus 4, “verse language” – non-verse Gus 147, “non-verse language” (cf. prose Gus 4, “non-verse language”), dramatic work – non-dramatic work Am 115, grammatical stress – non-grammatical stress Biz 83—the second member of each pair merely negates the first and has no significance without it. The Greek-derived terms prologue Biz 183, Dub₃ 68, Am 113, AG 57 and epilogue Biz 183, Dub₃ 68, Am 113, AG 180 form an antonym pair because of their oppositely valued prefixes. Between root-sharing and unrelated antonyms are compound antonymous terms (terms with compound components, in the case of multiword terms). The antonymy of terms based on Lithuanian antonymous adjectives is illustrated by “monosyllabic stanza – “polysyllabic” stanza Dub₃ 131, monosyllabic words – polysyllabic words Gus 40 (the relation “one – many”); rising tone – falling tone Gus 60 (the relation “beginning – end”). The Greek-derived terms sympathy – antipathy Nor 47, Am 24, AGV 6, monologue Biz 181, Gus 159, Nor 57, Dub₁ 149, Dub₃ 223, Am 80, AG 57 – dialogue Gus 160, Nor 57, Dub₁ 74, Dub₃ 131, Am 80, AG 57 / diyalogue Biz 181 are conditionally classified among compound terms. This latter antonym pair is interesting because the component mono- (meaning one, single) and the affix dia- (meaning reciprocity) are not opposites. A group of terms formed with monologue and dialogue and their derivatives also consists of terms that are antonyms of one another (A₁ – A₂ → xA₁ – xA₂ or A₁ – A₂ → a₁x – a₂x), e.g.: rhetorical monologue – rhetorical dialogue AG 81; monological form – dialogical form Am 14, monological mode of writing – dialogical mode of writing Gus 98, etc. M. Gustaitis’s individual coinages, [of a period] pirmatakas “rising part of a period” – paskuitakas “falling part of a period” Gus 89 (cf. pirmatako and paskuitako nariai Gus 92), are also linked by antonymy. NON-ANTONYMY OF TERMS One of the characteristics of antonymy in terminology is the disappearance of general-vocabulary a n t o n y m s (Gaivenis 1989: 101, 102). In literary studies terminology, terms formed with general-vocabulary antonyms masculine and feminine are compound- 142 Asta Mitkevičienė | Literatūros mokslo terminų antonimija 1922–1942 m. terms [masculine rhyme (the last syllable of the line is stressed) – feminine rhyme (the penultimate syllable of the line is stressed) Biz 89, Nor 43 (masculine rhyme – feminine rhyme Gus 68, Am 72), masculine caesura ‘caesura after a stressed syllable’ – feminine caesura ‘caesura after a stressed syllable and one unstressed syllable’ Gus 48], although they have correlates, are not considered antonyms. The concepts named by these terms are neither dichotomous nor scalar: according to the position of the stress in relation to the syllables of the line, dactylic rhyme Biz 89, Gus 68 (dactylic rhyme Am 72, dactylic rhyme Am 43) and hyperdactylic rhyme Gus 68 are also distinguished; according to the position of the caesura in relation to stressed and unstressed syllables, there is dactylic caesura Gus 48. The meanings of the adjectives masculine and feminine used as modifiers in the terms under discussion have no connection with their meanings elsewhere. The names of the stages of ancient comedy, Old Attic ComedyDub ₁ 128 and New Attic ComedyDub ₁ 115 (cf. Middle Attic ComedyDub ₁ 115), although composed of elements related by antonymic contrariety, should likewise not be classed as antonyms—the terms are not opposites within the system. The temporal feature (‘old – new’) is non-essential in this case. Antonymous terms were collected from texts, and in connected text the number of antonyms is reduced by the variety of syntactic constructions; cf. loose composition AG 219 and strict composition AGV 72, prose rhythm and unrhythmic prose Gus 45, and so on. Conversely, although it would be easy to coin antonyms for some terms, for example anonymous epigramDub ₁ 64, Dub ₃ 114, free rhythm Am 66, indecent anecdoteDub ₁ 206, folkloric short epic Am 90, and so on, such forms are not attested in the sources examined (which have simply epigram, rhythm, anecdote, folkloric epic). Thus, actual terminological usage prevents us from overestimating the possibilities of antonymy and absolutizing the systemic nature of terms. SOME FEATURES OF THE FORM OF ANTONYMOUS TERMS AND SYNONYMY It has already been noted that terms (or term components) of different origins may be related by antonymy. A comparison of antonymous terms in terms of their form reveals certain differences, for example: realism of characterization AG 229 – unnaturalness of characterization AGV 81, external action – internal action AGV 5, poetic work Nor 5 – prose work Nor 4, archaism Nor 20 / obsolete word Am 34 – neologism Nor 20, Am 35, tragic episodeDub ₃ 17 – comic episodeDub ₃ 69, ‘monosyllabic’ stanza – ‘polysyllabic Terminologija | 2006 | 13 143 stanza Dub3 131, etc. Nevertheless, antonymous terms are coordinated with one another within the same source (especially when they occur close together in the text); cf. rise of the voice – fall of the voice Am 57, raising the voice – lowering the voice Am 57, rise of the voice – subsiding of the voice Am 64; inner image – outer image Biz 130, inner (–is?) world Biz 137 – outer world Biz 138; poetic expression – prosaic expression Biz 31, poetic utterance – prosaic utterance Biz 32, etc. Generally, if one component of an antonymous term is definite, so is the corresponding component of the other, and vice versa; cf. figurative word – non-figurative word Am 24. In scholarly language, consistency in the form of antonyms should be maintained without violating the principle of terminological stability (Gaivenis 1998: 13). Synonymy in language allows the same opposing concepts to be designated by different antonymous terms (although terminology has no need of synonyms), for example: verse language – non-verse language Biz 94 (prose language Biz 80) // versified language – non-versified language Nor 6, Am 25 (prosaic language Nor 6) // verse-form language – non-verse-form language AG 229; good character – evil character Biz 140 // good character – bad character Nor 60, AGV 60 // positive character – negative character Nor 59, Am 82; poetic language – prosaic language Biz 31 // poetic language Biz 31 (poetic language Am 25) – prose language Biz 31, Am 26; reality Gus 103 – fantasy Gus 113 // reality – fabrication Nor 17 // reality – fantasy AG 256, etc. Synonymous pairs of antonyms are characteristic both of the same source and of different sources. One member of an antonym pair may also be replaced by a synonym, for example: external [of a work] form AG 47 – inner form AG 196 // internal form AG 199; meaningful word – meaningless word Am 76 // meaningless word Am 109; content Gus 5 – form Gus 4 // gender Gus 4 (in the same source); compound period Biz 35, Nor 38 (compound period Gus 92) – simple period Biz 35 (simple period Gus 90) // continuous period Nor 38 (in different sources), etc. Generalized antonymous relations between terms, for example ‘realistic – unrealistic’, are expressed in various ways both within the same source and across different sources, e.g.: natural fiction Biz 137 – fantastic fiction Biz 135, realistic element Dub3 39 / realistic element Dub3 46, Dub3 72 – fantastic element Dub3 44 / fantastical element Dub3 241 / magical element Dub3 291, realistic travelogue – fantastic travelogue Gus 110, realistic novella Dub3 270, Dub3 280 – fantastical novella Dub3 280, real world AG 16 / real world AGV 130 / realistic world AGV 286 – fantastic world AGV 130 (cf. world of fantasy AG 16 144 Asta Mitkevičienė | Literatūros mokslo terminų antonimija 1922–1942 m. / world of fantasies AGV 318) and so on. The synonymy of antonyms and antonymic elements (especially within the same source) only complicates subject-specific communication. Replacing an antonymic term with a synonym may be justified only when the aim is correctness, precision, clarity, and so on. CONCLUSIONS In important works on literary theory and universal literary history published in 1922–1942, antonymic relations can be observed among terms of literary studies and related fields (linguistics, aesthetics, etc.), as well as general scientific and artistic terms. Antonym pairs comprise various terms: names of properties, expressive devices and textual units, designations of parts of works, names of processes, and so on. The literary studies of the period under consideration has not only its own antonyms (poetry – prose), which have entered general usage, but also antonymic terms based on antonymy in the general vocabulary (reality – invention). The antonymy of some multiword terms depends on the antonymy of single-word terms or related words, while in other cases the opposition arises from antonymy in the general lexicon. However, terms formed with general-vocabulary antonyms are not necessarily antonyms (cf. masculine rhyme – feminine rhyme). Antonymic terms in literary studies are cognate-root and non-cognate-root terms. Antonymic opposition arises between terms of different origins—Lithuanian, foreign, or mixed—and terms with elements of opposing origin. In the group of cognate-root antonyms, terms with Lithuanian antonymic elements clearly predominate. Since the basis of terminological antonymy is the dichotomy and binary classification of concepts, more antonyms expressing contradictory opposites can be found in literary studies texts than antonyms expressing contrary or vector opposites, or conversives. Multiword antonymic terms predominate noticeably in literary terminology, and antonyms with antonymic modifiers are more common than antonyms with antonymic head elements. This was probably determined above all by a non-linguistic factor—a particular system of scientific concepts. The sources of the selected period reveal certain groups of antonymic term pairs. These comprise basic antonymic terms in literary studies and other related antonymic terms, for example: poetry – prose, poetry x – prose x, poetic x – prosaic x, poetical x – prosaic x; tragedy – comedy, tragicism – comicism, tragic x – comic x, tragic x – comic x, and so on. Terminologija | 2006 | 13 145 No major changes in terminological antonymy were observed over the twenty-year period studied. Of course, over time one or another variant or synonym of an antonymic term was selected, or opposite concepts came to be designated by an entirely different pair of antonymic terms (a change in the expression of concepts). However, antonymy itself is a stable semantic phenomenon. KEY SOURCES AG – J. Ambrazevičius, J. Grinius. Visuotinė literatūra. Pirmoji dalis, Kaunas, 1942. AGV – J. Ambrazevičius, J. Grinius, A. Vaičiulaitis. Universal Literature. Part Two. Kaunas, 1942. Am – J. Ambrazevičius. Literary Theory. Poetics. Textbook for schools, Kaunas, 1938. Biz – K. Bizaukas. Literary Theory. Textbook for secondary schools, Kaunas, 1922. Dub₁ – V. Dubas. Įvadas į bendrąją literatūrą, Kaunas–Marijampolė, 1923. Dub₃ – V. Dubas. Literatūros įvadas, Kaunas–Marijampolė, 1931. Gus – M. Gustaitis. Stylistics. A textbook on literary theory, Kaunas–Marijampolė, 1927. Nor – J. Norkus. Literary Theory. Fundamental Principles of Prose and Poetry. For secondary school, Kaunas, 1930. LITERATURE AND ADDITIONAL SOURCES Andriuškaitė R. 2001: J. Balčikonio kalbotyros terminų antonimai. – Terminologija 8, 65–75. AŽ 2003: I. Erm­antytė. Antonimų žodynas, Vilnius. CEL 1997: The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. D. Crystal, Cambridge. CODL 1997: The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics. P. H. Mathews, Oxford, New York. DŽ₅ 2003: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas. Vyr. red. St. Keinys, Vilnius (e. leidimas). Ermantytė I. 1995: Priešybė kaip semantinis ir loginis antonimijos pagrindas. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 35, 9–31. Gaivenis K. 1989: Kai kurie antonimijos atvejai lietuvių terminologijoje. – Lietuvos TSR MA darbai. A serija 2 (107), 98–104. Gaivenis K. 1998: Fizikos terminijos antonimai. – Fizikų žinios 14, 13. GTT – B. de Bessé, B. Nkwenti-Azeh, J. C. Sager. Glossary of Terms Used in Terminology: http://www.benja-mins.com/ibp/additional/term_gloss.pdf Kazlauskaitė G. 2004: Fonetikos terminų antonimijos bruožai. – Terminologijos istorijos ir dabarties problemos. Ats. red. St. Keinys, Vilnius, 212–218. KTŽ 1990: K. Gaivenis, St. Keinys. Kalbotyros terminų žodynas, Kaunas. Kvašytė R. 2005: Mokomasis terminologijos žodynėlis, Šiauliai. LST 1988: Lexicon sprachwissenschaftlicher Termini. Herausg. R. Conrad, Leipzig. MLS 1993: Metzler Lexikon Sprache. Herausg. H. Glück, Stuttgart. PTT – The Pavo Terminology Tutorial. Glossary: http://www.terminplus.translationbureau.gc.ca/didacticiel_tutorial/english/glossary/index_c.html TŽŽ 1936: Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas. Sudarė K. Boruta, Pr. Čepėnas, A. Sirutytė-Čepėnienė, Klaipėda. TŽŽe 2002: Interleksis. Kompiuterinis tarptautinių žodžių žodynas. Ats. red. A. Kinderys, Vilnius (e. leidimas). VaitkTŽŽe 2003: V. Vaitkevičiūtė. Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas, Vilnius (e. leidimas). Ахманова О. С. 1996: Словарь лингвистических терминов, Москва. Даниленко В. П. 1977: Русская терминология: Опыт лингвистического описания, Москва. Головин Б. Н., Кобрин Р. Ю. 1987: Лингвистические основы учения о терминах, Москва. Лаврова Н. Н 1979: Антонимия лингвистических терминов. – Термин и слово, Горький, 54–64. Никитина В. В., Смирнова С. В. 1997: Из наблюдений над типами антонимов в терминологии бизнесса. – Терминоведение 1–3, 66–67. Никитина С. Е. 1987: Семантический анализ языка науки. На материале лингвистики, Москва. Никитина С. Е., Васильева Н. В. 1996: Экспериментальный системный толковый словарь стилистиче- 146 Asta Mitkevičienė | Literatūros mokslo terminų antonimija 1922–1942 m. of terms, Moscow. РЯЯ 2003: Русский язык: Энциклопедия. Под. ред. Ю. Н. Караулова, Москва, 28–31. Татаринов В. А. 2006: Общее терминоведение: энциклопедический словарь. Москва. ANTONYMY OF LITERARY TERMS IN 1922–1942 The article deals with antonymic terms extracted from important works on literary theory and the history of universal literature published in 1922–1942. That period represents an important stage in the development of contemporary Lithuanian terminology of literary studies. The sources for the article are as follows: Theory of Literature (The Theory of Literature) (1922) by K. Biz auskas, Stylistics (Stylistics) (1927) by M. Gustaitis, Theory of Literature (The Theory of Literature) (1930) by J. Norkus, Introduction to Universal Literature (An Introduction to Universal Literature) (1923) and Introduction to Literature (An Introduction to Literature) (1931) by V. Dubas, Universal Literature (Universal Literature) (1942, 2 volumes) by J. Ambrazevičius, J. Grinius, A. Vaičiulaitis. Not only “real” literary terms (tragedy ‘tragedy’ – comedy ‘comedy’) are antonymous, but also general terms from science and art (induction ‘induction’ – deduction ‘deduction’; realistic background ‘realistic background’ – fantastic background ‘fantastic background’) and some terms from related subject fields, such as linguistics (long syllable ‘long syllable’ – short syllable ‘short syllable’), aesthetics (beauty ‘beauty’ – ugliness ‘nasty’), etc., which form an integral part of literary studies. In terms of meaning, antonymic literary terms belong to different groups of terms, for example, names of features, names of means of expression, names of elements of texts, names of parts of works, names of actions, etc. Pagal raišką antoniminiai literatūros terminai yra arba poriniai terminai (darybiniai antonimai) (eilutinis epas ‘poetical epos’ – neilutinis epas ‘non-poetical epos’), arba neporiniai terminai (leksiniai antonimai) (turinys ‘content’ – forma ‘form’). Antonimai (taip pat antoniminiai terminai su priešingais elementais) yra giminiškos (lietuviškos arba svetimos) arba mišrios kilmės. Darybinių antonimų grupėje, regis, vyrauja terminai su lietuviškais priešingaisiais elementais. Taigi terminų antonimijos pagrindas yra dichotomijos principas ir dvejetainės sąvokos; nagrinėjami antoniminiai terminai dažniau siejami prieštaraujamąja priešprieša (originalas ‘original’ – vertimas ‘translation’) negu priešpriešine priešprieša (užuomazga ‘entanglement’ – atomazga ‘dénouement’), vektorine (kryptine) priešprieša (veiksmo kilimas ‘rise of action’ – veiksmo slūgimas ‘fall of action’) arba konversine priešprieša (klausimas ‘question’ – atsakymas ‘answer’). Terminology of literary science of the investigated textbooks has not only its own antonyms (such as poezija ‘poetry’ – proza ‘prose’), which have got into common (non-terminological) usage, but also antonyms opposition of which is related with particular antonymy of general lexis (tikrovė ‘reality’ – prasimanymas ‘fiction’). Antonymy of some complex terms is based on antonymy of one-word terms (or their relatives) (compare: poezija – proza → p o e z i j o s veikalas ‘poetic work (writing)’– p r o z o s veikalas ‘prosaic work (writing)’), sometimes opposite lies with antonymy of general lexis (g e r a s i s veikėjas ‘positive personage’ – b l o g a s i s veikėjas ‘negative personage’). Attention should be drawn to the fact that terms which had been created with antonyms of gen- Terminologija | 2006 | 13 147 Bendrosios leksikos žodžiai ne visada laikytini antonimais (plg. vyriškas ‘masculine’ – moteriškas ‘feminine’ ir vyriškas rimas ‘masculine rhyme’ – moteriškas rimas ‘feminine rhyme’). Amongst investigated antonyms complex terms make up the largest group and complex antonyms with antonymic subordinate elements are more numerous than antonyms with antonymic main elements. This may be caused mostly by a non-linguistic factor – particular system of concepts. Tiriamojoje medžiagoje išryškėja kelios antonimų porų grupės. Jas sudaro pagrindiniai (pamatiniai) literatūros antonimai ir su jais susiję terminai, pavyzdžiui: poezija ‘poetry’ – proza ‘prose’, poezijos x – prozos x, poetinis x – prozinis x, poetiškas x – proziškas x (‘poetic’ x – ‘prosaic’ x); tragedija (‘tragedy’ – komedija ‘comedy’, tragizmas ‘tragedy’ – komizmas ‘comicality’, traginis x – kominis x, tragiškas x – komiškas x (‘tragic’ x – ‘comic’ x), etc. Significant changes of antonymy of literary terms during investigated 20 years period haven’t been noticed. Surely, over time one or another variant or synonym of antonymic term was chosen or opposite concepts were named by the whole other pair of antonymic terms. However the antonymy itself is constant semantic relation. Received 2006-11-09 Asta Mitkevičienė, Institute of the Lithuanian Language, P. Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius, Email: [email protected] 148 Asta Mitkevičienė | Literatūros mokslo terminų antonimija 1922–1942 m.