V. Dubo visuotinės literatūros vadovėlio terminų variantai

Asta MITKEVIČIENĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language VARIANTS OF THE TERMS IN V. DUBAS’S TEXTBOOK OF WORLD LITERATURE One source of the terminology of any field of science is the past work in that field. The terms in V. Dubas’s textbook of world literature are important for understanding the history of terminology in literary studies. This is because it records terms in this field and related fields that are now in use and began to be widely developed in the third decade of the 20th century. Vladas Dubas (1887–1937) – tarpukario Lietuvos literatūrologas romanistas, publicistas, rašytojas. Jis buvo labai išsilavinęs – studijavo Varšuvoje, Paryžiuje, Romoje, baigė Maskvos universitetą, mokėjo daug kalbų – lotynų, prancūzų, vokiečių, italų, lenkų, rusų (Bartkus 1987: 57). Tai vienas pirmųjų tarpukario žmonių, dirbusių Lietuvos aukštojo mokslo bare. Nuo 1920 m. V. Dubas skaitė Vakarų Europos literatūros paskaitas Aukštuosiuose kursuose, o 1922 m. pradėjo dirbti Lietuvos universitete, kur dėstė romanistiką. Rašytinis šio mokslininko (nuo 1928 m. ekstraordinarinio profesoriaus) palikimas apima vadovėlį Įvadas į bendrąją literatūrą1 (1923, kiti du leidimai – 1927 ir 19312 m. – vadinasi Literatūros įvadas), dvitomę Prancūzų literatūros istoriją (1929–1930), studijas Chateaubriand’as (1925), Anatole France (1928), Voltaire (1932) ir kt. Šie darbai išleisti skaitytų paskaitų pagrindu (Bartkus 1987: 56–57; LLE 2001; VLE V 2004). V. Dubas rėmėsi kultūrinės istorinės mokyklos ir jos šalininkų tyrinėjimo principais – daugiau dėmesio kreipė į kūrėjų biografijas, kultūrinę aplinką, o ne į kūrinių meninę analizę (LLE 2001). Tai lėmė kitų sričių (ne vien literatūrologijos) terminų gausą jo darbuose. 1 In some encyclopedias, for example, VLE V 2004 and others, the title Introduction to General Literature is given. 2 The year of the textbook’s third edition is not given in the book, but bibliographic publications state that it was published in 1931. 119 The source of this article, V. Dubas’s textbook of world literature (for secondary schools), as noted, was published three times (revised and supplemented): in 1923, Introduction to General Literature appeared (it is possible that Introduction to General Literature was written as early as 1920, since that year is given at the end of the preface), while in 1927 and 1931, Introduction to Literature appeared. Thus, nearly a decade separates the first edition from the last. Introduction to General Literature was compiled from lectures V. Dubas gave at the Higher Courses in 1920 (Dubas 1923: XIII). The 1927 Introduction to Literature is a revised edition of the 1923 book, while the textbook’s third edition is a revised and supplemented Introduction to Literature. It should be noted at the outset that the first edition differs greatly from the other editions of the textbook (not only in content and length, but also in language). Introduction to General Literature was severely criticized by A. Voldemaras in a review published in 1923 in Švietimo darbas. The reviewer assessed the work as follows: “We regret Mr. Dubas’s work, regret the time wasted, but nevertheless must admit that the work is no good—so bad that it cannot be corrected” (Voldemaras 1923: 266). A. Voldemaras also objected to the textbook’s structure, content, and language. First of all, the reviewer disliked the book’s title, since the textbook is an overview of the literatures of seven nations, not some introduction to world literature (Voldemaras 1923: 254–255). In addition, he criticized the presentation of material by genre (the textbook consists of four parts—Epic, Lyric Poetry, Drama, and Novel), the theory of the origin of literature, and the restriction to only certain works and authors. A. Voldemaras found numerous factual errors and inaccurate quotations (both those given in the original language and those translated). The reviewer concludes that “Mr. Dubas is not so much in error himself as his sources are bad” (Voldemaras 1923: 260). He assessed the textbook’s language as follows: “Reading his book, one feels as if walking over a bed of sharp gravel” (Voldemaras 1923: 268). It may be added that this edition is rife with various typographical errors. From Introduction to Literature (1927), it is clear that V. Dubas heeded some critical comments but not others. For example, the textbook’s title was changed and explanations of the origin of literature were dropped, but the structure remained the same (incidentally, B. Sruoga criticized the arrangement of material by genre in his review of the second edition (Sruoga 1927: 3)). Nevertheless, it can be said that the 1927 edition differs greatly from the first. 120 First, it is more extensive (over 100 pages longer, 382 pages in total). Second, it is much better linguistically. This was emphasized by J. Jablonskis in his review of the textbook published in Lithuania in 1927: “there are relatively few of them [errors – A.M.], and the author’s language is almost everywhere fluent, correct, and genuinely human” (Jablonskis 1959: 446); B. Kantvydis likewise remarked: “It is rare to find school or non-school publications whose language is so impeccable: Introduction the author, it seems, has worked on this aspect himself and consulted others” (Kantvydis 1927: 3). The reviewers (B. Kantvydis, J. Jablonskis, B. Sruoga) generally gave the 1927 Introduction to Literature a positive assessment. Both B. Kantvydis (1927: 3) and B. Sruoga (1927: 2) considered it the best Lithuanian textbook on world literature of that period. The second and third editions differ relatively little. In most cases, not only entire sentences and paragraphs but also chapters are exactly the same in both books. The third edition is somewhat thicker than the second (408 pages). V. Dubas expanded the third edition with an overview of Slavic literature, but dropped some subsections or paragraphs from the second edition (these most often explained the context of the works). In V. Dubas’s own words, “in revising this third edition of the ‘Introduction,’ the author generally endeavored to take into account the well-founded demands of criticism” (Dubas 1931: 3). Nevertheless, although V. Dubas claimed to have taken the demands of criticism into account, he paid no attention to J. Jablonskis’s corrections (the same errors as in the second edition appear in the third). It has been noted that some typographical errors from the second edition are absent from the third. The differences in content and language between the first and later editions of the textbook, and the similarity between the second and third editions, can be said to determine the use of the same or different terms. Thus, the same terms are most often found in the second and third editions, while some of them are absent from the first. This article examines the variants of terms found in all three editions of V. Dubas’s textbook: phonetic and spelling variants, morphological variants, derivational variants, and syntactic variants. The concept of a term variant Before beginning to examine the term variants in V. Dubas’s world literature textbook, the concept of a variant should be discussed. In Lithuanian ling- 121 uistics, instead of the relatively recently introduced term variant, the terms variant form (variant), alternant, alternative, and others, were and sometimes still are used, while a pair of variants was called a grute (e.g., Būga 1961: 81; Skardžius 1999: 273)3. The Dictionary of Linguistics Terms states that a variant is “a difference in the same linguistic unit”; it emphasizes that variants “usually have an identical function and differ only in expression, which is why they are often said to be different realizations of the same individual linguistic unit” (KTŽ 1990). The term is defined similarly in foreign-language linguistic dictionaries and encyclopedias (STJ 1968; KWST 1975; OCDL 1997; РЯЭ 1998, etc.), although these often limit the concept to phonology (CLT 1960; LST 1988; LE 2004, etc.). Variants are not only a matter of language standardization (Pupkis 1980; Miliūnaitė 1995, 2003, etc.). Lithuanian linguistics examines variants in dialects (V. Vitkauskas’s habilitation thesis Morphonemic phenomena in Lithuanian dialects and their variation, 1999); variation is studied from a sociolinguistic perspective (L. Grumadienė’s doctoral dissertation The problem of the social conditioning of speech variation, 1982). Variation in linguistic units is relevant to lexicography. The Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language (LKŽ) presents variants of various types of words and phraseological expressions (from written sources and dialects) (LKŽ I 1968: VII, XI, XIV–XV; LKŽ instruction 1980: 6, 8–9, 11–12, 15, 19–20, 26, 80, 92, 94, 95, 102–103, 106). The Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian (DŽ) includes accentuation variants of the contemporary standard language, more frequent grammatical and lexical variants, and more frequent dialectal variants (DŽ₅ 2003: 20, 21, 22, 39). From the perspective of stylistics specialists, there is no strict boundary between variants and synonyms (Župerka 1983: 29; Pikčilingis 1988: 46–47). In Russian linguistics, variants receive more attention. The problem of the boundary between variation and synonymy is examined in considerable detail. K. Gorbachevich regards word variants as regular forms of one and the same word whose morphological and derivational structure, and lexical and grammatical meaning are identical, differing only in their phonetic aspect or in the affixes used to form their forms (Горбачевич 1978: 17). L. Graudina argues that word va- 3 On the other hand, grute was also used in linguistics in a non-terminological sense: it denoted any pair of linguistic units (e.g., Būga 1961: 47; Skardžius 1941: 323). 122 Variants are forms of the same word, characterized by identical lexical-semantic function and a partly different phonetic structure of the meaningful part of the word (Грудина 1981: 39). In the Russian Language Encyclopaedia, the article on variants by L. Graudina identifies the following features of grammatical variants: grammatical systematicity, regular substitutability, functional identity of grammatical meaning, and a common root (РЯЭ 1998: 62). In the terminological works of many former Soviet republics, variants of terms are not discussed at all. Variants are mentioned in O. Akhmanova et al.’s book Terminology: Theory and Methods (Akhmanova 1974: 176–177). It distinguishes the following lexical variants of terms: phonetic, spelling, and morphological. Dictionary of Linguistic Terms O. Akhmanova argues that variants of terms must be clearly distinguished from term doublets, although this problem has not yet been resolved (СЛТ 1966). In another important work on terminology, V. Danilenko’s Russian Terminology, variants and synonyms are not strictly distinguished; however, the author emphasizes that some short-form variants of terms should not be regarded as synonyms (Даниленко 1977: 73–79, 174). She bases her view on the fact that some short-form variants of terms are made from the same linguistic material as the long forms, only shortened (Даниленко 1977: 174). Nevertheless, in Lithuanian terminology, variation between short and long forms of terms is classified as synonymy rather than as a phenomenon of variation (see Keinys 1974, 1980). The Latvian terminologist V. Skujiņa classifies such forms as absolute synonyms (Skujina 2002: 49). In her article Types of Variants in Terminological Vocabulary, the Belarusian linguist G. Veštort draws on a broad understanding of variants: here, term variation is understood as the presence of phonetic, word-formation, and lexical doublets (Бевтропт 1985: 39). Variants in terminology are mentioned in A. Superanskaya, N. Podolskaya, and N. Vasilyeva’s General Terminology. The authors state that variants of the same word yield morphological, phonetic, or spelling doublets with the same stem. In General Terminology, synonyms and doublets (variants) are distinguished: only entirely different words (i.e. words with different roots) are considered synonyms, while variants of the same word are considered doublets (Суперанская 1989: 51–52). For S. Grinev, term variants are one type of absolute synonym. Drawing on V. Leichik, he emphasizes, 123 that the concepts of “synonym,” “variant,” and “doublet” meant the same thing in specialized literature, although variants were sometimes considered a type of synonym and doublets—lexical variants (Гринев 1993: 108–109). In Annex 4 of the Lithuanian Republic standard Principles and Methods of Terminology, synonyms of terms are defined as words with different roots, while variants are words with the same root but different endings, prefixes, and suffixes (RST 1115–90: 27). The ISO standard International Terminology Standards—Preparation and Presentation lists the following types of variants: spelling, morphological, and syntactic variants (ISO 10241:1992 (E): 4). The Dictionary of Linguistic Terms distinguishes variants according to the linguistic units that vary: phoneme, morpheme, word, word form, phrase, sentence, and other variants (KTŽ 1990). Thus, single-word terms are variants of words, while multiword terms are variants of phrases. In this article, term variants are understood as different forms of the same term4. Variants are divided here into five groups: 1) phonetic and spelling, 2) morphological, 3) derivational, 4) syntactic, and 5) mixed variants. Long and short forms of terms (e.g., giesmių giedotojai II 8, III 12 – giedotojai II 10, III 14, politinio gyvenimo elementas II 183 – politinis elementas II 1885, and so on) are not considered variants. In V. Dubas’s textbook on world literature, 125 rows of term variants were found. The textbook most frequently contains phonetic and spelling variants (68.8% of all variant rows) and morphological variants (16.8%). Syntactic variants are less common (8%). The rarest are derivational and mixed term variants (3.2% of all variant rows each). The frequency of individual types of term variants is shown in Figure 1. The textbook contains 107 rows (85.6%) of variants of foreign-origin and hybrid terms (or terms whose varying component is international or hybrid)6. 4 This article adopts the understanding of variant and doublet presented in KTŽ 1990 (doublet—“a co-occurring expression of a linguistic unit”; this concept encompasses variants and synonyms with identical meaning). 5 A Roman numeral indicates the edition, and an Arabic numeral indicates the page (rarely, the page is also indicated by a Roman numeral). 6 This figure excludes international terms whose origin has no bearing on variation in the term (e.g., syntactic variants). 124 Fig. 1. Terminological variants in V. Dubas’s textbook Phonetic and spelling variants In terms of expression, phonetic variants of terms generally differ least from other variants. The Encyclopedia of the Russian Language considers variants that differ in the pronunciation of sounds, the composition of phonemes, stress placement, or a combination of these features to be phonetic variants. It distinguishes pronunciation, stress, and phonemic (фонематические) variants (РЯЭ 1998: 62). According to K. Gorbachevich, phonemic variants arose as the language changed, whereas phonetic (pronunciation) variants are a living phenomenon (Горбачевич 1978: 20–22, 123). In this article, phonetic variants of terms are discussed together with spelling variants, since phonetic differences are most often reflected in spelling. Proofreading errors are not considered spelling variants of terms. Unfortunately, it is not always possible to distinguish them strictly from spelling variants. The textbook contains a total of 86 lines of phonetic and spelling variants. The most common variants in V. Dubas’s textbook on world literature are terms (almost all international) that differ in their vowels. Variants with the vowels ė and e. Terms or their components differ in the vowels ė and e relatively often. Such variants are usually found in different editions of the textbook, e.g.: hypothesis I XIV – hypothesis II 196, III 207, poetess I 58 – poetess II 94, III 108 (and didactic poet I 184 – didactic poet II 26, III 31, court poet I 222 – court poet II 112, III 127, epic poet I 41 – epic poet II 269, III 279, lyric poet I 54 – lyric poet II 89) (but poet I 9 – poet I 98 varies within the same edition as well 125 itself), poetics I XV – poetics II 4, III 131 (and Minnesinger poetics I 77 – Minnesinger poetics II 124, III 138), poetic creativity I 70 – poetic creativity II 160, III 178, poetic genre I XIV – poetic genre II 32, III 37, poetry I XIV – poetry II 7, III 11 (and ancient idyllic poetry I 220 – ancient idyllic poetry II 313, III 323, Goliard poetry I 82 – “Goliard” poetry II 125, III 138⁷, lyric poetry I 53 – lyric poetry II 88, III 102, melic poetry I 51 – melic poetry II 7, III 11, patron of poetry I 59 – patron of poetry II 95, III 109, patron of poetry I 52 – patron of poetry II 87, III 101, kind of poetry I XIV – kind of poetry II 269, III 279, rules of poetry I 153 – rules of poetry II 116, III 131, theory of poetry I 153 – theory of poetry II 237, III 247, poetic genre I 4 – poetic genre II 88, III 102, political poetry I 89 – political poetry II 150, III 165, Romantic poetry I 87 – Romantic poetry II 148, III 163, troubadour poetry I 68 – troubadour poetry II 106, III 121, vagant poetry I 82 – “vagant” poetry II 125, III 138), “threnos” II 89, III 103 – threnos I 53. As these pairs of variants show, variants with ė appear in the 1923 edition of the textbook, but are replaced in later editions. These are historical matters, attested in other works on literary studies and dictionaries from the first half of the 20th century as well. The terms poetas, poezija are listed in J. Šlapelis’s Glossary of Foreign and Unfamiliar Words, compiled and published in Tilsit in 1907 (hereafter SNŽŽ 1907). The terms poetiška kalba (17) and poezija (18) were already used in the first Lithuanian textbook on literary theory for secondary schools, K. Bizauskas’s Theory of Writing and Literature (part 1, 1918), published somewhat earlier than the first edition of V. Dubas’s textbook; J. Norkus’s 1924 Glossary of Foreign and Unfamiliar Words (hereafter SNŽŽ 1924) lists poetas, poezija. As St. Keinys established, in Maironis’s A Short History of World Literature, published in 1926 (i.e., three years after V. Dubas’s Introduction to General Literature), the terms poezija, poėta and poetė were still used, and only rarely— 7 Some terms or their components in V. Dubas’s textbook are written in quotation marks. It was observed that this is how terms or components of foreign origin that have not been adapted to Lithuanian, Lithuanian equivalents for such terms, and other items are presented. The use of quotation marks for some terms is difficult to explain. 126 čiais poezija, poeta (žr. Keinys 2002: 40). 1928 m. V. Kamantausko Trumpas kalbos netaisyklingumų ir barbarizmų žodynėlis liudija po-ėto(s) keitimą poetu. Tarpukario Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas (1936 m., red. J. Žiugžda) (toliau – TŽŽ 1936) įtvirtino žodžius hipotezė, poetas, poetika, poetinis, poezija. Maironis, kaip ir V. Dubas 1923 m., rašė trenas (žr. Keinys 2002: 31). Nevertheless, cases can be found in which the terms su e ir e were used at the same time. The 1923 edition contains only the term tema, whereas the 1927 and 1931 editions contain ir tema II 101, III 142, and téma II 40, III 45. It has been observed that in the second edition of the textbook, from page 101 onward, only tema appears and is used, while in the third edition these variants continue to compete (cf. also erotinė tema II 102, III 284 – erotinė téma III 117, satyrinė tema II 102 – satyrinė téma III 117). K. Bizauskas used the term tema (6); SNŽŽ 1924 gives tema. Maironis’s textbook has tematas, but tėmos platumas (see Keinys 2002: 33, 35); TŽŽ 1936 has tema. In addition to the variants already mentioned, poetas and poetas (the second variant is less frequent than the first in the first edition), only the first edition of the textbook has the competing forms tezė I 152 and tezė I 92, although the terms hipotezė I XIV and antitezė I 19 are used. In later editions, the variants have become established: poetas II 8, III 12, tezė II 107, III 143⁸ (TŽŽ 1936 also has tezė; SNŽŽ 1924 includes the variant tezis, morphologically formed differently). Variants with short and long vowels. In V. Dubas’s textbook, pairs of terms that differ in vowel length vary, for example: kalambūras I 63 – kalambūras II 99, III 114, naturalistinė drama I 173 – natūralistinė drama II 256, III 267, naturalistinė mokykla I 252 – natūralistinė mokykla II 259, III 269, naturalistinis romanas I 246 – natūralisti- 8 The terms literatūrinė revoliucija I 163 (cf. literatūrinė revoliucija II 242, III 252), lyrinė poema I 90 (cf. lyrinė poema II 141, III 154), in which the components meaning ‘literary’ and ‘poem’ are written with ė, are probably typographical errors. Although these terms are used only once each in the first edition, the presence of typographical errors can be inferred from terms containing the components literatūrinė, poema, for example: literatūrinė kryptis I 100, literatūrinė mokykla I 97, literatūrinė srovė I 175; poema I 11 (!), ciklo poema I 33, dramatinė poema I 166, and so on. 127 nis romanas II 351, III 358, naturalistinis teatras I 173 – natūralistinis teatras II 256, III 267 (cf. also natūralistas II 368, III 369, natūralizmas II 160, III 178), preliudija I 137 – preliūdija II 206, III 217, satira I 43 – satyra II 98, III 113 (and plakama romėnų satira I 65 – plakamoji romėnų satyra II 103, III 118), satirikas I 63 – satyrikas II 98, III 113, satirizmas I 115 – satyrizmas II 173, III 191, satirinė daina I 82 – satyrinė daina II 125, III 139, satirinis elementas I 126 – satyrinis elementas II 184, satirinis romanas I 188 – satyrinis romanas II 274, III 283, Šekspiro laikų teatras I 149 – Šekspyro laikų teatras II 209, III 220, Šekspirologas I 145 – šekspyrologas II 210, III 221, Šekspirologija I 145 – šekspirologija II 210, III 221, trubaduras I 73 – trubadūras II 115, III 129 (and trubadūrų lyrika I 73 – trubadūrų lyrika II 52, III 55, trubadurų poezija I 68 – trubadūrų poezija II 106, III 121). In all these term pairs, the variant with a short vowel is used in the first edition of the textbook. SNŽŽ 1907 gives naturalistas, natūrališkas; SNŽŽ 1924 already has natūralistas, natūrališkas. Maironis still wrote naturalizmas (although natūrali kalba occurs), kalambūras. In addition, this textbook also has the competing forms trubadūras ir trubaduras (see Keinys 2002: 30, 33, 37, 40). Maironis, however, already used variants with long vowels: satyra, satyrikas, satyriškas romanas, satyrizmas (see Keinys 2002: 31, 32, 35). Nevertheless, in V. Kamantauskas’s 1928 glossary, the variant satyra is changed to satira. The terms mytas I 7 and mitas I 61 are worth noting; they compete in the first edition (cf. also mytinis turinys I 5 and mitinė drama I 121), whereas the 1927 and 1931 editions contain only mitas II 90, III 104. SNŽŽ 1907 gives the word mitai; in 1926 Maironis wrote mytas (see Keinys 2002: 31); in V. Kamantauskas’s 1928 glossary, mytas is corrected to mitą. As can be seen, the variants with a long vowel found in later editions of the textbook have now become established (as in TŽŽ 1936: kalambūras, satyra, trubadūrai; cf. also natūralizmas, natūralistas, natūralus). The only exception is preliudija, used in the first edition rather than the variant preliūdija (TŽŽ 1936 also has preliudija). Of the terms tobula forma II 90, III 89 – tobūla forma I 68, formos tobulumas II 106, III 121 – formos tobūlumas I 65, the variant with the long vowel was used in the first edition. These terms, from the begin- 128 The terms listed above also differ in that the varying components are Lithuanian. K. Bizauskas was inconsistent in his usage: tobulumas ‘perfection’ (5) is used, but so is tobūlas perijodas ‘perfect period’ (20). In Maironis’s textbook, only tobula forma, kalbos tobulumas ‘perfect form, perfection of language’ was found (see Keinys 2002: 36, 37). Instead of tobūlas, V. Kamantauskas proposed using tobulas, for which J. Jablonskis criticized him in 1928 (see Jablonskis 1959: 474). Nevertheless, J. Jablonskis’s proposed pronunciation and spelling of this word with ū did not gain currency in the standard language. LKŽ XVI 1995 records that K. Būga also used the word tobū lumas. P. Skardžius preferred the variant tobulas (Skardžius 1941: 95, 186, 371). As Z. Zinkevičius writes, after the First World War, under the influence of Slavic languages, the clearer distinction between ė and e was disappearing in cities, and long and short vowels were no longer distinguished (Zinkevičius 1992: 277). This may have influenced the emergence of most of the variants discussed. Variants with i and j. Another subgroup of terms consists of variants that differ in i and j, e.g.: iambas II 89 – jambas I 53, III 103 (and pajuokiamas iambas II 92, III 106 – pajuokiamas jambas I 54), iambinė poezija II 87, III 104 – jambinė poezija II 87, III 101, romanisto kariera I 224 – romanisto karjera II 321, III 330. In the pair romanisto kariera – romanisto karjera, the variant with j is later, i.e. it was used in 1927 and thereafter. The spelling kariera may have arisen through the influence of the original (French carrière). Both SNŽŽ 1907, published at the beginning of the 20th century, and TŽŽ 1936, from the fourth decade of that century, have only kariera. The 1923 edition used the international term jambas (and secondary components or terms derived from it, e.g. jambinė lyrinė poezijos rūšis I 53, jambistas I 54, etc.), which competes with iambas in the second and third editions (probably due to the influence of the Greek original iambos). K. Bizauskas and Maironis used only the variant jambas (see Keinys 2002: 36) (cf. also jambinės eilės (57)), which is also included in TŽŽ 1936. Thus, based on these variants, it is difficult to identify clearer patterns as to when (in 1923 or 1927) terms were written with j and when without it. The simplest conclusion is that V. Dubas’s textbook reflects this aspect of the history of spelling (cf. perijodas ‘period’ in “Sturm und Drang” I 85, “audros ir varžto” (‘storm and tension’) periodas I 163, II 242, III 252, keliaujantis komediantas ‘travelling comedian’ II 212, III 223, poezijos žanrų diferenciacija ‘differentiation of poetic genres’ I 1). In 1922, J. Jablonskis wrote about similar cases of spelling with j: 129 “I find this kind of spelling of those words... quite strange, still unfamiliar” (Jablonskis 1934: 113). Variants with consonants of foreign origin and their substitutes. The term variants in V. Dubas’s textbook also differ in whether the non-Lithuanian sounds h and ch occur in the terms used. In some cases (chronika I 196, II 35, III 39 – kronika I 204, III 302, heroldas II 196, III 206 – geroldas I 136), a consonant of foreign origin is replaced with a native one, while in other cases (elenizmas I 97 and helenizmas II 149, III 164) the consonant is absent altogether. In the first edition, the term variants elenizmas, geroldas were found, omitting h or ch, although chronika and kronika vary in that edition. The second edition of the book contains only the variant chronika, which was replaced by kronika at the end of the third edition. SNŽŽ 1907 and 1924 have chronika; Maironis already used this term without the foreign sound, namely kronika (see Keinys 2002: 31). TŽŽ 1936 also gives the latter variant (as, incidentally, do the variants with h in other later editions of V. Dubas’s textbook—heroldas and helenizmas). The phonetic counterparts of terms with consonants of foreign origin—humoras I 65, humoristika I 131, humoristinis charakteris I 83—are jumoras I 227, II 102, III 117, jumoristika II 188, jumoristinis charakteris II 126, III 139. The variants humoristika, humoristinis charakteris occur only in the first edition of V. Dubas’s textbook, but in it humoras and jumoras vary (cf. also humoristinė ten­sena I 73, jumoristinis elementas I 138). Maironis, like V. Dubas in later editions, wrote only jumoras, jumoristinis pasakojimas (see Keinys 2002: 36, 43); V. Kamantauskas’s glossary gives the variant humoras, while TŽŽ 1936 includes humoras with a cross-reference to jumorą. The pair “chornada” II 203, III 213 – jornada I 138 is distinctive in that the variant beginning with j corresponds to the original (Spanish jornada—‘action’ (theatr.)). The appearance of the variant “chornada” in later editions is connected with Spanish pronunciation: in Spanish the letter j is pronounced like ch. Differences in the Lithuanian adaptation and spelling of loanwords in the third decade of the 20th century are illustrated by the variants in the first edition verterizmas I 233 / “verterizmas” II 333, III 340 and werterizmas I 223 (Maironis wrote verterizmas (see Keinys 2002: 33)). Variation in the terms of this subgroup reflects the state of the written language is- 130 …period, when the pronunciation and spelling of words with consonants of foreign origin had not yet become firmly established. Variants with hard and soft consonants. The variants epistoliarinė forma II 321, III 330 – epistoliarinė forma I 232 differ in the hardness of the consonant in the secondary element of the borrowed root. As can be seen, the term with a soft consonant was used in the first edition. K. Bizauskas’s textbook has epistularinė forma (12), that is, another variant with a hard l (cf. Greek epistolē – letter). Variants with double consonants. In different editions, the variants atinė komedija I 121 – attinė komedija II 180, III 197 (and naujoji atinė komedija I 115 – naujoji attinė komedija II 186, III 198, vidurinė atinė komedija I 115 – vidurinė attinė komedija II 173, III 191, vidurinioji atinė komedija I 128 – vidurinioji attinė komedija II 186, III 198, senoji atinė komedija I 128 – senoji attinė komedija II 186), impresionizmas I 252 – impresionizmas II 361, III 383, neorusoistas I 256 – neorussistas II 365, III 387, and the previously mentioned elenizmas I 97 and hellenizmas II 149, III 164. Variants in this subgroup also include Minesingeris I 73 / minesingeris I 76 – minnezingeris II 122, III 135, and minesingerių lyrika I 73 – minnezingerių lyrika II 122, III 135, minesingerių poetika I 77 – minnezingerių poetika II 124, III 138 (also s–z variation). Terms with double consonants were used only in the second and third editions of V. Dubas’s textbook. In Maironis’s 1926 literature textbook, double consonants are either written (minnezingeris) or not (impresionizmas) (see Keinys 2002: 33, 34), whereas the 1936 TŽŽ does not use them (helenizmas, impresionizmas, minezingeriai ir minezengeriai). Interestingly, in later editions minnezingeris is written with double consonants, as in the original language (German Minnesinger), but with z (following pronunciation); the word is likewise used with z in Maironis’s textbook and the 1936 TŽŽ. In the first edition, when Lithuanianizing the term, its spelling with s was retained, but the double consonants were omitted. Variants with voiceless and voiced consonants. Besides the previously discussed variants with s and z, different editions of V. Dubas’s textbook also have the competing forms anekdotas I 206 and anegdotas II 297, III 306. They probably arose from spelling based either on etymology or on pronunciation. Both the 1907 and 1924 SNŽŽ, Maironis’s textbook, and the 1936 TŽŽ spell the word according to the original: anekdotas (Greek anekdotos). 131 Variants with uppercase and lowercase letters. Another group of variant terms likewise consists of purely orthographic variants—terms written with either an uppercase or a lowercase letter. The varying element may be an adjective within the term, for example: Aleksandrinė mokykla I 63 – aleksandrinė mokykla I 18, Provansalinė poetika I 74 – provansalinė poetika I 73, Šventasis raštas III 65 (Šventas Raštas I 219) – šventasis raštas II 60, or a noun, for example: Biblija I 47, III 79 – biblija I 218, II 77, III 321, Mecenatas I 150 – mecenatas II 218, III 229, and the previously mentioned Šekspirologas I 145 – šekspyrologas II 210, III 221, Šekspirologija I 145 – šekspyrologija II 210, III 221. It has been observed that in the 1927 textbook the names of sacred books tended to be written with lowercase letters, whereas in other editions they were usually written with uppercase letters. Terms or term elements derived from proper nouns were written with an uppercase letter in the first edition of the book (Šekspirologas, Šekspirologija) or with either uppercase or lowercase letters (Aleksandrinė mokykla ir aleksandrinė mokykla, Provansalinė poetika ir provansalinė poetika; cf. also Mecenatas ir meco mecenatas I 52, poezijos mecenatas I 52). The spelling of the term Minesingeris I 73 (alongside minesingeris I 76 and minnezing eris II 122, III 135) could be explained by the influence of German, where nouns are written with an uppercase letter. Variants with and without a hyphen. The compound term artistas mėgėjas I 124, II 182, III 198 – artistas-mėgėjas I 124 displays orthographic variation. Inserting a hyphen (or dash) between the elements of terms was more common in the first edition of the textbook (cf. epo specialistas-dainininkas I 30, klajojantis dainininkas – poetas I 200, poetas–dainius I 73). Specific orthographic variants are leitmotyvas I 49, II 102, III 117 – leit-motyvas I 221 (there is also leit - motyvas I 39, probably a proofreading error), which compete in the first edition of the textbook. Variants in the original language. Writing terms with uppercase or lowercase letters is characteristic of some terms used in the original language, for example: Chanson de geste I 27 – chanson de geste I 23, II 31, III 36, Deus ex machina I 103 – “deus ex machina” II 159, III 177, Fascenina I 125 – “fascenina” II 183. The variants borrowed from French, fableau I 191 and fabliau II 277, III 281 (“short popular verse narratives in 13th–14th-century France”), differ both in spelling and pronunciation. The term currently used in Lithuanian literary studies is fablio. 132 As this overview of phonetic and spelling variants shows, some variant terms differ in several features, e.g.: elenizmas and hellenizmas; Minesingeris, minesingeris – minnezingeris, minnesingerių lyrika – minnezingerių lyrika, minesingerių poetika – minnezingerių poetika; Šekspirologas – šekspyrologas, Šekspirologija – šekspyrologija; trubadūrų poezija I 68 – trubadūrų poezija II 106, III 121. According to St. Keinys, in the third decade, “the way of adapting and writing so-called international words into Lithuanian, which became established later, had not yet fully settled” (Keinys 2002: 40–41). It is therefore unsurprising that V. Dubas’s textbook contains a considerable number of terms of foreign origin and hybrid terms with variant pronunciations and spellings. Most variants (81.2%) were used by V. Dubas in different editions of the textbook (1923 and later), for example, most or all variants differing in ė and e, vowel length, the presence of j, doubled consonants, and so forth. It may be assumed that such terms reflect stages in changes in the pronunciation and spelling of words (almost all of them loanwords). Morphological variants Šiame darbe morfologiniais variantais, remiantis K. Župerka (1983: 28), laikomi formų darybos ir kaitybos variantai. V. Dubo vadovėlyje rasti morfologiniai variantai (21 eilutė) skirstomi į 1) terminų galūnių ir baigmenų, 2) skaičiaus, 3) giminės, 4) dalyvio formų, 5) dalyvio rūšies ir 6) laiko variantus. Prie morfologinių variantų šiame straipsnyje priskiriami ir sudėtiniai terminai. Variants of term endings and final elements. Variants of term endings and final elements (52.3% of morphological variants) arose in V. Dubas’s textbook as the same loanwords were given different morphological forms. Some variants of this type were used in different editions of the textbook, e.g.: formulė I 35 – formula II 228, III 237 (and epinė formulė I 30 – epinė formula II 8, III 12), genijus I 54 – genijas II 58, III 62 (and audringas genijus I 166 – „audringas genijas“ II 245, III 256 (the singular instrumental in later editions is of the -us type – genijum II 92, III 107), komiškas genijus I 116 – komiškasis genijas II 173, III 191), herojus I 15 – herojas II 7, III 11 (and epo herojus I 48 – epo herojas II 78). These variants thus reflect changes in the morphological adaptation of terms into Lithuanian. Formula 133 The emergence of this form in later editions could be explained by a desire to keep the term closer to the original (cf. Latin formula) or by other reasons. J. Šlapelis had proposed this variant much earlier; it was included in SNŽŽ 1924. SNŽŽ 1907 and 1924, Maironis (see Keinys 2002: 34), and V. Kamantauskas’s glossary give genijus. In current terminology, however, the variants from the first (1923) edition are used (formulė, genijus, herojus). They are also listed in TŽŽ 1936. Variants in term endings arise not only over time, as in the examples just discussed, but are also used within the same edition. For example, the first edition contains both psichologinė analizė I 227 (cf. analizė I 54, charakterių analizė I 174, literatūrinių reiškinių analizė I XIV), and psichologinis analiz as I 233. Later editions use only psichologinė analizė II 323, III 333. In Z. Žemaitis’s Collection of Geometrical and Trigonometric Terms, two variants are recorded—analizis (analizė). At the beginning of the 20th century, the form analizas was apparently used (it appears in SNŽŽ 1907; this variant was recorded later in SNŽŽ 1924), and in V. Kamantauskas’s 1928 glossary it was changed to analizė. Nevertheless, TŽŽ 1936 gives analizis. In the 1923 edition, the term novela was used perhaps just once (the first time), while about 40 pages later only novelė is used consistently (as in later editions), I 183, II 204, III 214. Both variants are also written in SNŽŽ 1907 and in Maironis’s textbook (the latter also has the phonetic variant novelė) (see Keinys 2002: 40). The morphologically distinct forms idilė I 10 and idilija II 24, III 28. As can be seen, these variants were used at different times. The second variant appears already in SNŽŽ 1907, as well as in SNŽŽ 1924. Its emergence (probably under the influence of Russian идиллия) in later editions of V. Dubas’s textbook was not accidental. Maironis also used the term idilija (see Keinys 2002: 30). That the form of this term varied in interwar Lithuania is attested by TŽŽ 1936, which includes both variants idilija, idilė. Nevertheless, the form idilė is now established. Variants adapted to Lithuanian to differing degrees can be classed as variants in final elements: epas I XV, II 3, III 9 and eposas I XIV. The ending of the latter form was added to the Greek epos without alteration. Only one instance of this variant was found (in the preface to the first edition, although epas occurs on the adjacent page). It should nevertheless be noted that eposas, ma- 134 …tyt was used until V. Dubas. This Greek-derived term in this form is found in K. Bizauskas’s 1918 textbook (p. 64). Maironis used the variant epas (see Keinys 2002: 30). Number variants. Number variants make up 14.3% of all morphological variants. In V. Dubas’s textbook, viduramžis III 66 and viduramžiai II 27, III 31 vary. These variants compete only in the third edition of the book (cf. also ankstybi viduramžiai III 55, viduramžių literatūra III 286, viduriniai amžiai III 35, and viduramžio idealas III 66). It has been observed that the plural form viduramžiai most often occurs as a dependent component of terms. Maironis also used viduramžis, although the variant viduramžiai is nevertheless more frequent in his textbook (see Keinys 2002: 42). The material presented in LKŽ XIX 1999 shows that the singular form of this term was used in Aušra, by K. Būga, and others (apparently mostly in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries). Number-based morphological variants include the competing forms anekdoto elementas I 35 – anekdotų elementas I 30 in the first edition, and the noncontemporaneous variants miesto kultūra II 52, III 55 – miestų kultūra I 191. The members of these term pairs differ in the number of the nouns functioning as modifying attributes: the singular–plural opposition is neutralized. Gender variants. Three different pairs of gender variants were also found. One is koturnos I 104 – koturnai II 160, III 178. These variants were used at different times, that is, in different editions. TŽŽ 1936 gives the feminine-gender term koturnos. TŽŽ 2001 includes both term variants (giving preference to the feminine-gender word), whereas VaitkTŽŽ 2001 includes only koturnos. Apparently, the question of adapting this term to Lithuanian remains unresolved. Morphological gender variants probably include the forms grožė I 81 and grožis II 61, III 66, formed with different endings (and, accordingly, grožės kultas I 252 – grožio kultas II 61, III 66). K. Bizauskas in 1918 (p. 9) and Maironis used grožį (see Keinys 2002: 32). Participial form variants. Participial form variants include keliaujantysis dainius II 35, III 39 – keliaująs dainius II 41, III 45, and keliaujantysis siužetas I 36 – keliaująs siužetas I 30, used in the same editions. The participial dependent components differ primarily in the long and short nominative forms: keliaujantysis and keliaująs. 135 The latter nominative form cannot be definite, so a contrast between definite and indefinite forms cannot arise here. Voice variants of participles. Veikiamasis asmuo I 185 and veikiantysis asmuo I 129, used in the first edition of V. Dubas’s textbook, differ in participial voice. In this case, both phrases denote the same concept, but the voice opposition cannot be neutralized here because the passive voice is unsuitable: veikiamasis asmuo seems ambiguous (veikiamasis means “one who is acted upon,” whereas veikiamasis asmuo means “a person who acts; an agent”). Tense variants. The variants neribojama fantazija I 90 – neribota fantazija I 90, also found only in the 1923 edition of the textbook, differ in participial tense. It should be noted that, taken out of context, neribojama fantazija – neribota fantazija would not be understood as variants, but in V. Dubas’s textbook their tense opposition is neutralized. This overview shows that the most frequent variants in V. Dubas’s textbook are variants of term endings and suffixes (52.3% of all morphological variants). There are far fewer other morphological variants. Number and gender variants each account for 14.3% of morphological variants; participial form variants account for 9.5%; and participial voice and tense variants each account for 4.8%. Fewer than half (42.8%) of the variants compete within the same edition of V. Dubas’s textbook (even if only one). Pseudovariants. In theory, definite and indefinite forms cannot be considered variants, since in the language system they are linguistic units with different meanings. Terms of the same meaning competing with one another and formed from these forms could be discussed as pseudovariants, for example: baironiška poema II 85 – baironiškoji poema II 84, jausminga mokykla I 84 – jausmingoji mokykla II 135, III 149, komiškas elementas I 135, II 190, III 202 – komiškasis elementas II 203, III 214, pirmas artistas I 102 – pirmasis artistas II 158, III 176, poetiška priemonė II 275, III 284 – poetiškoji priemonė II 28, III 32, svarbiausias veikėjas I 116, II 175, III 192 – svarbiausiasis veikėjas I 116, II 40, III 250, vyriausias herojus II 83, III 83 – vyriausiasis herojus II 61, III 66, and so on. 136 Derivational variants O. Akhmanova regards words with the same root and meaning that can replace one another as variants (Ахманова 1957: 213–217). This view gave rise to a discussion in Russian linguistics about distinguishing derivational variants and their relationship to synonyms. F. Filin, for example, takes the opposite view: the derivational affixes of words with the same root and meaning do not lose their functions, and therefore such words are not variants (Филин 1963: 131–133). The Russian Language Encyclopedia states that derivational variants are grammatical variants with variant derivational affixes (РЯЭ 1998: 62). V. Urbutis, a specialist in Lithuanian word formation, takes a different approach to derivational variants in Word Formation Theory: he discusses not derivatives, but variants of word-formation devices—suffixes. J. Vaskelienė wrote about the difference between derivational variants and derivational synonyms. She states that “variants of the same word are considered to be forms that differ from one another in nonessential phonetic or morphological features that do not change their meaning.” However, the linguist notes that in practice it is not always easy to distinguish these linguistic units (Vaskelienė 2000: 11–13). In this article, derivational variants are understood as differences between forms of the same term arising from variants of word-formation devices. These differences do not change the meaning of the term; it is understood as the same word. Pairs of compound terms whose components are derivational variants are also treated here as derivational variants. Only four pairs of derivational term variants were found in V. Dubas’s textbook, for example: classical comedy II 173, III 191 – classical comedy I 116, classical tradition II 61, III 66 – classical tradition I 43, classical work II 251, III 261 – classical work I 169, “pseudoclassical tragedy II 255, III 265 – pseudoclassical tragedy I 171. The adjectives classical, -ė, and pseudoclassical, used as subordinate components, contain the suffix -ik-, whereas classical, -ė, and pseudoclassical do not. In forming adjectives with the suffix -inis from international nouns ending in -ika, the base word’s suffix -ik- is omitted. The adjectives classical, -ė, and pseudoclassical were formed in this way. However, omitting this suffix may cause ambiguity (they may resemble derivatives of the noun class). Perhaps for this reason, terms began to be used from the second edition of the textbook onward 137 classical comedy, classical work, classical tradition, “pseudoclassical” tragedy (cf. also classical dramatic tradition I 143, pseudoclassical comedy I 157 and classical poetry II 23, III 28, “pseudoclassic” drama II 255, III 250). SNŽŽ 1924 lists the synonymous terms classical, or classic, literature. Maironis also used classic drama “classical drama” and classic literature “classical literature” (see Keinys 2002: 30, 42), that is, terms whose subordinate-component adjectives are formed by omitting -ik-. In 1926, J. Jablonskis corrected classical to classical (see Jablonskis 1959: 395). In 1928 he wrote: “‘Class’ (of a class) subject here [in A. Vireliūnas’s Development of Our Language. – A.M.] is unnecessarily not distinguished from a ‘classics (classical)’ subject” (Jablonskis 1959: 463). TŽŽ 1936 gives classical, but classic. Syntactic variants Syntactic variants are syntactic constructions with exactly the same meaning (Župerka 1983: 28). The Russian Language Encyclopedia classifies variants of government, agreement, and adjunction as syntactic variants (РЯЭ 1998: 62). Syntactic variants differing from one another in the order of their components were found in V. Dubas’s textbook. Such variants form 10 variant series in the textbook. Appositional terms vary in the textbook, for example: singer specialist I 134 – specialist singer I 34, song hymn II 17, III 21 – hymn song II 88, III 102, realist writer I 246, II 352, III 359 – writer realist I 246, II 351, III 358. These variants are concurrent. Three pairs of variants arose from the use of a modifier after, rather than before, the word it modifies, which is atypical of Lithuanian, for example: material symbolism I 173, II 259, III 270 – symbolism material II 259, III 270, drama liturgical II 194 – liturgical drama I 133, II 190, III 202, ideational symbolism I 175 – symbolism ideational II 259, III 270. Only ideational symbolism and symbolism ideational were found in different editions of V. Dubas’s textbook. The variant drama liturgical is used only in the second edition. In the 1931 edition, it was replaced by liturgical drama, cf. “Drama liturgical developed not as rapidly in France” II 194 and “Liturgical drama developed not as rapidly in France” III 204. 138 Variants choral lyric poetry II 87, III 101 – lyric choral poetry II 90, III 105 differ in the ordering of the governed and agreeing modifiers. Of this pair of simultaneous variants, the second member would be preferable, since the usual position of an agreeing modifier is before the governed modifier. V. Dubas’s textbook also contains multiword compound terms characterized by the opposite ordering of modifiers. In the first edition, “cloak-and-sword comedy” II 202, III 212 / cloak-and-sword comedy I 139 competes with – “sword-and-cloak comedy” I 137; in the second edition, color of time and place II 225 competes with – color of place and time I 186, II 180, III 197; and in the second and third editions, “poetry school of the pleasant new style” II 28, III 142 competes with – “poetry school of the new pleasant style” II 56 / poetry school of the new pleasant style III 60. As can be seen, the positions of both governed and agreeing modifiers can vary within a term. The varying terms “cloak-and-sword comedy” / cloak-and-sword comedy and “sword-and-cloak comedy” are translations of the term “comedia de capa y espada” I 137, II 198, III 210, while “pleasant new style” poetry school, “new pleasant style” poetry school / new pleasant style poetry school are translations of “dolce stil nuovo” II 127, III 140. As can be seen, in V. Dubas’s textbook the ordering of components varies in both two-word terms (60% of syntactic variants) and multiword terms (40%). 80% of the variants compete within the same textbook edition. Mixed variants V. Dubas’s textbook uses variants of terms belonging to several variant types, for example, orthographic and syntactic construction variants: dainius poėtas I 37 – poėtas–dainius I 73, literatūra fableaux I 198 – fabliaux literatura II 286, periodas „Šturm und Drang“ I 85 – Šturm und Drang periodas I 235. The competition between variants in the last pair is not accidental. SNŽŽ 1907 records only periodas, while TŽŽ 1936 lists periodas. Maironis wrote periodas – Šturm und Drang periodas (see Keinys 2002: 51). The textbook features not only two, but also three competing variants of a term, belonging to two variant types: the orthographic variants are dramatur- 139 gas simbolistas II 264, III 274 – dramaturgas – simbolistas I 180, which compete with simbolistu dramaturgu II 259, III 270 as syntactic variants. The use of a dash rather than a hyphen in the second variant is probably a typographical error (cf. also poetas–redaktorius I 20 – poetas-redaktorius I 30). Conclusions 1. Traditionally, a variant is defined as a different form of the same linguistic unit with the same meaning. Variants have scarcely been studied in Lithuanian terminology. 2. V. Dubas’s textbook on world literature is a useful source for studying changes in the terminology of interwar Lithuanian literary studies and related fields. The terminology in the 1923, 1927, and 1931 editions of the textbook is characterized by variation in single-word and compound terms (125 variant sets). The textbook contains variants of all term types distinguished by linguistic level: phonetic and orthographic, morphological, derivational, syntactic, and mixed variants. Phonetic (and orthographic) and morphological term variants predominate, together accounting for as much as 85.6% of all variants. Most such variants result from differing degrees of Lithuanian adaptation of loanwords (for example, poezija and poezija, formulė and formula). Variation in terms of Lithuanian origin is rare (for example, keliaujantysis dainius – keliaująs dainius). 3. If only the terms in a single edition had been examined in this article, far fewer variants would have been found. Variant sets in V. Dubas’s textbook have most often emerged over time—that is, one variant was used in one edition and another in a different edition. Such variants account for more than two thirds (70.4%) of those in the textbook. Since variation in some terms (for example, trubadūras and trubadūras, epas and eposas) is attested in other publications from the first half of the 20th century, such variants are undoubtedly a reflection of changes in language norms (or their failure to become standardized), a result of language in flux. The term variants examined in the textbook reveal an effort to seek more correct forms of expression and to adapt loanwords into Lithuanian more consistently. Nevertheless, there are a few cases in which the variant from the first edition, rather than those in later editions, has become established today (for example, preliudija, idilė). 140 It cannot be ruled out that variation in terminology (especially when term variants compete within a single edition) may have been caused by editorial lapses (in later editions), or perhaps even by the absence of editing (in the first edition). LITERATURE AND SOURCES A k h m a n o v a O. et al. 1974: Terminology: Theory and Method, Moscow. B a r t k u s G. 1987: Vladas Dubas – literatūros ir kultūros istorikas. – Kultūros ba-rai 6, 56–57. B i z a u s k a s K. 1918: Theory of Writing and Literature 1, Kaunas. B ū g a K. 1961: Rinktiniai raštai 3. Sudarė Z. Zinkevičius, Vilnius. D u b a s V. 1923: Įvadas į bendrąją literatūrą, Kaunas–Marijampolė. D u b a s V. 1927 [1931]: Introduction to Literature, Kaunas–Marijampolė. DŽ 2003: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas. Vyr. red. St. Keinys, Vilnius (e. leidimas). ISO 10241:1992 (E): International terminology standards -- Preparation and layout. J a b l o n s k i s 1934: Jablonski’s writings. Ed. J. Balčikonis, Kaunas. J a b l o n s k i s J. 1959: Selected writings 2. Compiled by J. Palionis, Vilnius. K a m a n t a u s k a s V. 1928: A brief dictionary of language irregularities and barbarisms, Kaunas. K a n t v y d i s B. 1927: Doc. V. Dubas. Introduction to Literature [Review]. – Lithuania 190, 2–3. K e i n y s St. 1966: Working synonyms in terminology. – Science and Technology 2, 48; 3, 29; 4, 28–29; 5, 29. K e i n y s St. 1974: Terminų sinonimijos klausimu. – Leksikos ir sintaksės klausimai, Šiauliai, 44–51. K e i n y s St. 1980: Terminology Alphabet. Vilnius. K e i n y s St. 2002: Maironis ir mūsų literatūros mokslo terminologija. – Terminologija 9, 26–54. K n i ū k š t a P. 1976: Priesagos -inis būdvardžiai. Daryba, reikšmės, gramatiniai sinonimai, Vilnius. KTŽ 1990: G a i v e n i s K., K e i n y s St. Dictionary of Linguistic Terms, Kaunas. KWST 1975: Kleines Wörterbuch sprachwissenschaftlicher Termini. Hrsg. R. Conrad, Leipzig. LKŽ I 1968, XVI 1995, XIX 1999: Lietuvių kalbos žodynas, Vilnius. LKŽ instrukcija 1980: „Lietuvių kalbos žodyno“ instrukcija, Vilnius. LE 2004: The Linguistics Encyclopedia. Ed. K. Malmkjær, London. LLE 2001: Lietuvių literatūros enciklopedija. Red. V. Kubilius, V. Rakauskas, V. Vanagas, Vilnius (e. leidimas). LST 1988: Lexicon sprachwissenschaftlicher Termini. Hrsg. R. Conrad, Leipzig. OCDL 1997: M a t t h e w s P. H. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics, Oxford, New York. 141 Miliūnaitė R. 1995: Variantiški bendrinės kalbos vartosenos reiškiniai (fiksavimas ir vertinimas). – Kalbos kultūra 67, 39–49. Miliūnaitė R. 2003: Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos norminimo pagrindai, Vilnius. PetrlLKŽ 2001: Petrauskas V. V. Ispanų–lietuvių kalbų žodynas, Vilnius. Pikčilingis J. 1988: Sinonimika. Kalbos figūros, Kaunas. PLKŽ 1992: Prancūzų–lietuvių kalbų žodynas. Sudarė A. Juškienė, M. Katilienė, K. Kazlauskienė, Vilnius. Pupkis A. 1980: Kalbos kultūros pagrindai, Vilnius. RST 1115–90: Principles and methods of terminology. Lithuanian RST 1115–90 (ISO 704–87), Vilnius. Skardžius P. 1941: Lietuvių kalbos žodžių daryba, Vilnius. Skardžius P. 1999: Rinktiniai raštai 5. Sudarė A. Rosinas, Vilnius. Skujiņa V. 2002: Latviešu terminoloģijas izstrādes principi, Rīga. Sruoga B. 1927: Literatūros vadovėliai. Doc. V. Dubas. Literatūros įvadas [Rec.]. – STJ Lietuvis 213, 2–3. STJ 1968: Gołąb Z., Heinz A., Polański K. Słownik terminologii językoznawczej, Warszawa. SNŽŽ 1907: Svetimų ir nesuprantamų žodžių žodynėlis. Skaitytojams palengvinimas. Sudarė J. Šlapelis, Tilžė. SNŽŽ 1924: Norkus J. Svetimų ir nesuprantamų žodžių žodynėlis, Kaunas. TD 1973: Terminologinis darbas, Vilnius. TŽŽ 1936: Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas. Sudarė K. Boruta, Pr. Čepėnas, A. Sirutytė-Čepėnienė, Klaipėda. TŽŽ 2001: Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas. Ats. red. A. Kinderys, Vilnius. Urbutis V. 1978: Žodžių darybos teorija, Vilnius. VaitkTŽŽ 2001: Vaitkevičiūtė V. Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas, Vilnius. Vaskelienė J. 2000: Darybiniai sinonimai, Šiauliai. Vitkauskas V. 1999: Lietuvių kalbos tartimi morfoneminiai reiškiniai ir jų svyravimas. Habilitacinio darbo autoreferatas, Vilnius. VLE V 2004: Visuotinė lietuvių enciklopedija, Vilnius. Voldemaras A. 1923: Docentas V. Dubas. Įvadas į bendrąją literatūrą [Rec.]. – Švietimo darbas 3/4, 253–268. Zinkevičius Z. 1992: Lietuvių kalbos istorija 5. Bendrinės kalbos iškilimas, Vilnius. Žemaitis Z. 1920: Geometrijos ir trigonometrijos terminų rinkinelis, Kaunas. Župerka K. 1983: Lietuvių kalbos stilistika, Vilnius. Ахманова О. С. 1957: Очерки по общей и русской лексикологии, Москва. Вепшторт Г. Ф. 1985: Типы вариантов в терминологической лексике. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 24. Mokslo kalbos kultūros ir terminologijos problemos, 39–45. Горбачевич К. С. 1978: Вариантность слова и языковая норма, Ленинград. Граудина Л. К. 1981: К истории нормализации вариантов в грамматиках 142 (early 20th century–1960s). – Literary norm and variation, Moscow, 39–69). Гринев С. В. 1993: Введение в терминоведение, Москва. Грумадене Л. 1982: Проблема социальной обусловленности речевого варьирования (на материале литовского языка). Автореферат диссертации кандид. филол. наук, Москва. Даниленко В. П. 1977: Русская терминология. Опыт лингвистического описания, Москва. РЯЭ 1998: Русский язык. Энциклопедия. Гл. ред. Ю. Н. Караулов, Москва. СЛТ 1960: Марузо Ж. Словарь лингвистических терминов, Москва. СЛТ 1966: Ахманова О. С. Словарь лингвистических терминов, Москва. Суперанская А. В. 1989: Суперанская А. В., Подольская Н. В., Васильева Н. В. Общая терминология. Вопросы теории, Москва. Филин Ф. П. 1963: О слове и вариантах слова. – Морфологическая структура слова в языках различных типов, Москва, Ленинград, 128–133. VARIANTS OF TERMS IN V. DUBAS’ TEXTBOOK OF UNIVERSAL LITERATURE Summary This article deals with the variants of terms in three editions of V. Dubas’ textbook of universal literature Introduction to General Literature (An introduction to universal literature) (the second and the third edition – Introduction to Literature (An introduction to literature)). In Lithuanian terminology variants of terms were hardly ever researched. Traditionally the variant is defined as a different form of the same language unit with the same meaning. In this textbook there are variants of terms in all language levels: phonetics and orthography (68.8% variants), morphology (16.8%), word formation (3.2%), syntax (8%) and also some mixed variants (3.2%). The biggest part of those variants is the result of the Lithuanization of borrowings (for instance, poezija and poėzija). Variation of terms of the Lithuanian origin is quite rare (for instance, keliaujanysis dainius – keliaujas dainius). Variants of terms in V. Dubas’ textbook of universal literature most frequently appeared over time (in one edition one variant is used, in another one – another). Such variants make up more than two thirds of the total. Variability of some terms (for instance, trubadūras and trubaduras) is present in other publications of literary science or dictionaries from the first half of the 20th century. Asynchronous variants are the reflection of changes in language norms (or a lack of their stability), a result of language development. The researched variants of terms in the textbook show an attempt to look for more precise expression of a term and to Lithuanize borrowings in a more orderly fashion. 143 There could be an assumption that variability of terms (especially cases when there are competing variants in the same edition) was predetermined by faults of editing (later editions) or even a lack of it (the first edition). Asta MITKEVIČIENĖ Received 2004-10-15 Institute of the Lithuanian Language, P. Vileišio St. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius. Email: [email protected] 144