Psichologijos žodynas

the lesson being conducted, conducted the lesson in the following sense: “When we say ‘the teacher is conducting a lesson,’ we mean a process; ‘conducted the lesson’ means that it was not completed, whereas ‘completed the lesson’ means that the teacher conducted and finished it” (p. 18). However, the verb complete need not be associated with conducting and finishing a lesson—it can also mean learning, for example: complete homework, assignments. So perhaps “completed the lesson” could also be understood as “attended classes” or “learned the lessons.” In conclusion, it should be said that these remarks in no way diminish the dictionary’s scholarly and standardizing value. This publication encourages interest in and the further development of pedagogical science and its Lithuanian terminology. Nijolė Banevičienė PSYCHOLOGY DICTIONARY The appearance of every new terminology dictionary is a significant event both for the relevant field of science and for terminology in general. This is all the more so if the dictionary is the first of its kind, since it can determine what the terminology of that field will be, while also revealing the discipline’s own orientations and, to some extent, its further development. Interest in psychology and the development of its terminology began in prewar Lithuania. The small dictionaries of philosophy and pedagogy compiled by St. Šalkauskis (the latter, it is true, was never published at the time) also contain quite a number of psychological terms (attitude, consciousness, etc.). Psychology was not forgotten later either: articles and books were published (although perhaps not enough of them), and, naturally, they could not do without the terminology of this field. However, the first dictionary appeared only in 1993. This was the “Psychology Dictionary” published by the Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing House1. According to the dictionary’s own compilers, it is intended for psychologists as well as specialists in other fields and people interested in psychology for their own education. For this reason, the dictionary should have been prepared with particular care. Few 1 Psichologijos žodynas. V: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1993. 368 p. 102 specialists in other fields buy and read dictionaries of physics or mathematical terminology, whereas knowledge of psychology and its terminology is needed by almost all representatives of the social sciences and humanities; consequently, the dictionary’s impact on public language will in any case be greater. The “Psychology Dictionary” is not large (368 pages), but that is entirely sufficient for a start. Nor can its print quality be criticized too harshly (especially if compared with other dictionaries published recently). Its format is small but convenient for the reader. The dictionary’s compilers drew on the Russian-language “Concise Dictionary of Psychology” (Краткий психологический словарь/ Под общей редакцией А.В. Петровского и М.Г. Ярошевского. М., 1985) and materials provided by Lithuanian scholars. Russian and English equivalents are given alongside the Lithuanian headwords; at the end of the dictionary are indexes of terms in these languages and short biographies of prominent psychologists. One might question whether Russian and English equivalents alone are sufficient. If it was not possible to provide French equivalents, at least German ones should certainly have been included. After all, many famous psychologists were German or Austrian. Moreover, with equivalents in more than two languages, the compilers could more easily determine whether the term they propose for use is widespread in other languages as well (in this respect, German could also be of great help, since it is averse to foreign borrowings). One minor criticism of the compilers would be that virtually no instructions are provided on how to use the dictionary. The reader is left, as psychologists themselves put it, to use the trial-and-error method (see the article “trial-and-error method” on p. 166). It is unclear which terms are recommended for use and which may be included merely as existing terms (and perhaps some are in use but could be replaced by much better ones?). Are there words that are in use but not recommended? For this reason, it is somewhat harder to examine the dictionary with sufficient seriousness and thoroughness, so one can only say what inevitably catches the eye when leafing through it. There is probably no field of science that could (or would want to) do without international terms (or at least terms regarded as international). Many scholars consider this feature simply an essential element of scientific language; however, it is difficult to understand a language in which Lithuanian words are often only 103 conjunctions, readers or listeners do not always succeed. So what does the “Psychology Dictionary” offer? After all, both a Lithuanian word and a word borrowed from another language often coexist in usage. Which one is recommended for use, and which is given as its synonym? It should be said that in most cases the dictionary’s compilers favor Lithuanian terms, for example: binocular vision (synonym: binokulinė rega), binaural hearing (binaurinė klausa), Braille (reljefinis šriftas), recall (reprodukcija), restoration (rekonstrukcija), alertness (vigilumas), role-playing game (profesinis žaidimas), work psychology (industrinė psichologija), rapid eye movement sleep (paradoksalusis miegas), obsessive states (obsesijos, anankazmai), suggestion (sugestija), muteness (mutizmas), balance of the nervous system (nervinių procesų balansas), pathological anxiety (bazinis nerimas), finger language (aktalinė kalba), self-expression (saviaktualizacija, savirealizacija), suicide (suicidas), perception (percepcija), short-term memory (operatyvinė atmintis), imagination (fantazija), avoidance (eskapizmas), and so on. There are somewhat fewer cases in which a term borrowed from another language is recommended for use, for example: autoconcept (Aš vaizdas, savivaizdis), egoism (savanaudiškumas), expectation (laukimas), epilepsy (nuomaris), ethnopsychology (tautos psichologija), frigidity (lytinis šaltumas), Gestalt (visybė), ideal self (pageidaujamasis Aš), incest (kraujomaiša), insight (įžvalga), intellect (protas), countertransference (priešpriešinis perkėlimas), oligophrenia (protinės atsilikimas, silpnaprotystė), personification (įasmeninimas), retroactive inhibition (grįžtamasis slopinimas), selectivity (atrankumas), sensory processes (jutiminiai procesai), zoopsychology (gyvūnų psichologija), and so on. Some of the examples given are of mixed origin, so it would be more logical to speak not of choosing the whole term but only of one of its components. Sometimes hybrids are formed quite unnecessarily. For example, pilot study (synonym: exploratory experiment). If two variants are absolutely necessary, perhaps it would be better to have at least one in Lithuanian. The components of these terms practically beg to be switched (giving exploratory study and pilot experiment). It is difficult to say whether the use of terms of non-Lithuanian origin is always sufficiently justified. The fact that the same word is used in Russian and 104 English cannot be considered a sufficiently strong argument: after all, it is precisely from these languages that the greatest number of unnecessary foreignisms are making their way in. Other languages should certainly be considered as well. It is strange that the dictionary’s compilers, even when offering a Lithuanian term themselves, prefer a borrowing from another language even when the Lithuanian term is considerably shorter or at least easier to pronounce. After all, many terminologists regard brevity and ease of use as fairly important requirements, or at least desirable qualities, for a term. Among the examples given, there are quite a few cases where the Lithuanian term is shorter (savivardis, atrankumas, nuománis, grįžtamasis slopinimas, įžvalga, protas, jutiminiai procesai, laukimas, įasmeninimas). The terms kraujomaiša, silpnaprastystė would be more convenient and much more comprehensible. The dictionary gives a short and, it seems, quite apt Lithuanian equivalent, visybė, for the German-derived term geštaltas. But it is unclear why there is such reluctance to show this Lithuanian word: it is not listed as a synonym under geštaltas, but is entered separately with a cross-reference to that word. Understandably, geštaltas is used very widely, since it is also part of many compound terms, but might not the brevity and clarity of the Lithuanian term outweigh that? It cannot be said that the dictionary overuses international words. However, in many places the easiest route has been taken: a word is simply given a Lithuanian form and presented as a term, without even trying to find a suitable Lithuanian word. Clearly, linguists alone cannot create new and truly suitable terms for psychology. Psychologists themselves must also give this some thought. In any case, a few suggestions can be made: 1) ambidexterity (equal control of both hands, left and right) could be called two-handedness or equal-handedness (cf. left-handedness). All the more so since not only ambidexterity but also other terms are given in Russian and English (Russian двуправорукость, English two-handedness); 2) assistance is not very suitable, because the word itself is ambiguous (1. being an assistant; 2. courting). It would be best to replace this word with a Lithuanian one and use courtship as the term. Since this word is often used as a verb, the term to court would also be shorter than to assist. Likewise, flexibility (Russian гибкость, English flexibility) could be called flexibility; causal (attribution, schema) – causal, contamination – blending, cooperation – coo- 105 collaboration, longitudinal study – continuing or ongoing study, succession (the opposite of simultaneity) – sequence or continuity, validity (a quality criterion for experiments and psychological measurement instruments—their suitability, adequacy) – appropriateness. In addition to these remarks, a certain lack of consistency may also be noted. Without delving into problems of terminological systematization or consistency of usage, it is enough to say that the dictionary’s editors cannot make up their minds about whether Soviet psychologists still exist or not. The same A. Luria is called a Soviet psychologist in one place and a Russian psychologist elsewhere (in one case, even on the same page). However, such inconsistencies are very easy to correct. One may assume that, when preparing new editions of the dictionary, its editors will correct quite a few things, including the shortcomings mentioned above. Perhaps more serious attention will also be paid to developing Lithuanian terminology. All the more so since, as the examples given show, Lithuanian terms are often both clearer and shorter. After all, psychologists undoubtedly want as many people as possible to understand them and read their work. Birutė LENKTYTĖ HOW NOT TO COMPILE DICTIONARIES Nowadays, quite a number of different dictionaries are being published, especially glossaries. Looking at the figures, one might exclaim in admiration at both the scale of the work and the large number of lexicographers, dictionary compilers, and publishers involved. After all, it has been known since ancient times that writing dictionaries is the hardest of all linguistic endeavors. And so many people are at work! What great linguistic ambitions—flights, indeed! A true golden age of lexicography. Alas, alas... Leafing through more than a few recent fruits of our lexicographic labors, one soon has to feel disappointed: many compilers and publishers too readily expect to enrich Lithuanian lexicography. There is an abundance of hurried work, peculiarities in compilation and editing, and sheer rubbish. More than one compiler and publisher turns out not to have the faintest idea of how dictionaries should be written and published. One of the most important, fruitful, and authoritative fields of Lithuanian language work is being turned into a lexicographic business, a kind of linguistic Gariūnai. For 106