Academic literature on the topic 'Latvian language Lexicography'

Translation needs tools, the oldest and most widespread of which are (bilingual) dictionaries. In the absence of the necessary language pair dictionary, translators seek advice in foreign language dictionaries. Translators have frequently been the authors of dictionaries themselves. Latvian and Lithuanian nations and languages, though kindred, have had a rather different history. Both historically and politically, developments in Latvian have been more parallel to Estonian than Lithuanian as both fell under German and Lutheran influence while Lithuanian had a Polish-bound Catholic history. Yet the development of their writing, translation and lexicography has followed a remarkably similar process and testifies to the common space of knowledge (Wissensraum). As with their lexicography, their bilingual dictionaries grew out of a connection between translation and religion. Both countries underwent a national awakening/awareness in the 19th century that led to a greater variety of translations and dictionaries. Notably, monolingual Latvian and Lithuanian dictionaries appeared only in the 20th century, testifying to the importance of bilingual lexicography in ensuring language contact. Bilingual dictionaries have dominated the lexicography scene of Latvia and Lithuania from the start until the present day. The twentieth century, with its expanding translation needs, produced an even greater variety of translations and bilingual dictionaries in both countries.

Szilárd Tibor Tóth, PhD, Finno-Ugrist, Executive Editor of the Yearbook of Finno-Ugric Studies, lecturer at Narva College of Tartu University turned 50. He founded the journal “Finnugor Világ” in 1996. He has taught Hungarian in Tartu, Izhevsk, Kudymkar and Riga. His scientific interests include Estonian philology, contacts between Latvian and Finno-Ugric languages, Permic languages, lexicology, lexicography and culinary linguistics. In his dissertation, he gave his first overview of the history of the South Estonian Tartu literary language.

The objective of the paper is to illuminate the interpretation of the term „Applied Linguistics” in Latvia and abroad (in Western Europe, the USA and Russia), and thereby identifying possibilities and grounds for the research of Latvian as a second language in the context of the development of applied linguistics in Latvia. Apart from theoretical literature, the author also uses data from observations of classroom discussions, which were obtained in three secondary schools and one elementary school (two schools in Rezekne, one in Rezekne region and one in Balvi). The author of the paper conducted a discourse research of Grade 9 pupils who learn Latvian as a second language (LAT 2). These research data are also important for problems of the development of methodology of applied linguistics in Latvia, because they enable the identification of new data and research methods. Applied linguistics as a field is based on the research of language and its role in human activities. Modern research of applied linguistics in Western Europe shows that attention is paid to areas such as second language acquisition (SLA), cognition, language policy and planning, lexicography, translation theory, corpus linguistics, etc. In Russia, when defining the areas and functions of applied linguistics, emphasize is put on the close connection of linguistics with information technology, artificial intelligence and logics. Russian linguists link the emergence of applied linguistics to the development of science and technology, which have made it necessary to observe language in action. The term „Applied Linguistics” is usually opposed to theoretical linguistics, which studies language in a system under a particular condition. To identify the interpretation of the term „Applied Linguistics” in Latvia, two sources were used for the paper: The „Interpretative Dictionary of Basic Terms of Linguistics” (IDBTL), published in 2007, and the description of the branches and sub-branches of science available on the home page of the Latvian Council of Science (LCS). The comparison of these sources reveals two differences in the definition of „applied linguistics”. IDBTL does not mention sociolinguistics among the areas of applied linguistics. Sociolinguistics is mentioned separately in the dictionary, but there is no link to applied linguistics. The second difference is that IDBTL does not refer to language teaching or learning – neither in the definition of applied linguistics, nor in the description of its areas, whereas it is mentioned in the LCS description of sub-branches. These findings show a lack of consistency in introducing the problem of second language acquisition into the context of the development of applied linguistics. The second part of the paper gives an insight into the research of the Latvian language as a second language. The research data were obtained through structural observations of class discourse and by analyzing them with the help of check lists and tables. The data of the class discourse research is important for the research of the actual situation of language acquisition. The task of an applied linguist is to be a mediator between the theory of linguistics and language pedagogy (linguodidactics). Even for studying problems of mastering the Latvian language as a second language, there is still a lack of systemic research which would provide a deeper analysis of the difficulties that LAT2 pupils deal with while learning Latvian, as well as while studying other subjects bilingually or in Latvian. There is an on-going need for class discourse research and for research of a individual language acquisition processes by means of interviews, questionnaires, and pupils’ reports about the accomplishment of some cognitive or linguistic tasks, as well as by other methods.

The article presents the conclusions the author has come to during the implementation of the project “Development of Research Infrastructure for Education in the Humanities in Eastern Latvia, Lithuania”) the code name of which is “LLIII-207 HipiLatLit”. On the basis of 1,000,000 (one million) word usage instances of “Frequency Dictionary of the Written Sources of the Lithuanian Language” (“Dažninis rašytinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas” (Compiler A. Utka; http://donelaitis.vdu.lt/publikacijos/Dazninis_zodynas.pdf) an original translating dictionary containing 10,000 units has been compiled. For the most frequently used words of the base (Lithuanian) language the counterparts have been given in the two standardised variants of the Latvian language – the Latvian literary language and the Latgalian written or literary language. The ways of searching and possibilities of fi nding the equivalents are shown by the insight into the laboratory of creation of the electronic “Lithuanian-Latvian- Latgalian Dictionary”, focusing on the Latgalian part of the dictionary in more detail. Since a wide-scale and linguistically correct collection of the Latgalian vocabulary is still not available, in the process of the development of the dictionary it was necessary to deal with a number of theoretical and practical problems. For solving of these problems the conclusions of the Latvian (Alīse Laua, Ruta Veidemane, Liene Roze, Inta Freimane) and non-Latvian (Valery Berkov, Vladimir Dubichinski, Evalda Jakaitienė) lexicologists and lexicographers have been applied. In the project much has been done for clearing up and specifying the semantic counterparts of the base language in accordance with the qualities of the corpus. The linguistic processing of the selected lexemes and homogeneous interpretation of the material needed multiple checking of the material as it is given in dictionaries and scrupulous comparison. The semantic structure coincides for unambiguous words, i.e. vocabulary of general use, for other cases translating and explaining equivalents have been searched for. Nowadays not everything corresponds any longer to the recordings in the earlier lexicographic sources (“The Lithuanian-Latvian dictionary” (1995), “The Latvian Literary Language Dictionary” (1972–1996)) – the languages have been changing. Also the Latgalian part of the dictionary presents the changes of the lexical composition and word meanings. It has been tried to display it with appropriate markings as to the restrictions of the word usage. Although in the Latgalian language at times there are no necessary terms or names for the abstract concepts, however, it is possible to find the necessary counterparts for everything. The lexicographic finish of the material enclosed is explained in more detail. The most important dictionaries for the project under implementation have been actualised. Up to now, two translating trilingual dictionaries have been published (Jānis Kurmins “Słownik polsko łacinsko łotewski” (1858) and Eduards Kozlovskis “Krìwu- Latgališu-Wòcu wòrdinica” (1918)) where one of the languages is Latgalian; topical entries of these dictionaries have been dealt with in more detail. Also other developments have been analysed, namely those containing the Latgalian vocabulary, critical comments being given on potential neologisms, namely nonce-words. The majority of the collections of the Latgalian vocabulary are not extensive, and their producers have generally not been the Baltic linguists. The two former lexicographic sources have a normative nature: Pīters Strods “Pareizraksteibas vōrdneica" (1933) and Mikelis Bukšs and Juris Placinskis “Latgaļu volūdas gramatika un pareizraksteibas vōrdneica” (1973). In selecting the Latgalian counterparts for the new dictionary both the former normative sources have been taken into account and traditions have been observed, the area of the usage of lexemes, the significance of the word or the form, the frequency of the usage, etc. have been respected. The possibilities of the Latgalian language to present the semantic counterparts for the relevant lexemes of the Lithuanian and Latvian languages have been characterised in more detail. In compliance with the base language both the equivalent Latgalian vocabulary and that one having no direct equivalent have been shown, the principles for selection of synonyms and word variants have been explained, the necessity of inclusion of the word variants in the translating dictionary has been substantiated. The less the language has been cultivated, the higher number of variants it has, although the option of choice of variants is unsatisfactory mostly for practitioners. Some uncertainty in the Latgalian language at the moment is inevitable: due to uncertain status of the language and the variable use as regards the intensity of utilisation, the language has been standardised and codified deficiently up to now. In this article a special attention has been paid to the analysis of the very material of the Latgalian language, to the synonyms of the Latgalian equivalents, the explanations as regards indications of the restrictions on the word usage. Occasionally more detailed comments have been given for the relevant examples. Due to the rich use of marking “The Lithuanian-Latvian-Latgalian Dictionary” differs from the traditional translating dictionaries where appropriate signs are used less frequently, however, cultivation of the language is promoted just by evaluation of the vocabulary layers, analysis of potentials, predictions of the further changes. Such problem situations as, for example, usefulness of inclusion of a greater number of Slavisms, a lack of consequence as to indications of the stylistic shade of colloquial speech, the uncertain coherence between the colloquialisms and barbarisms have been discussed in the article. The place of the literarisms has been dealt with in the system of the Latgalian language, their fitting and “inevitability" nowadays have been analysed. Some of the uncertainties remained in the development of the dictionary have been outlined. Evaluation has also been provided for the selection of the Latgalian vocabulary, thus giving new, clearer and more certain impulses as to the content for cultivators of the Latgalian language. The compiled electronic “Lithuanian-Latvian-Latgalian Dictionary” will be useful both for practical use and research in lexicology and lexicography. Its Latgalian part can be used as a basis for the further lexicographic developments.

While studying the state of contemporary Latvian terminography, it must be acknowledged that terminological dictionaries are issued very often. The present research examines 450 Latvian terminological dictionaries that have been published in the last 30 years. Terminological dictionaries represent 30–40 % of the entire Latvian lexicography. Their characterization has a wide variety, both in terms of the authors and publishers, in terms of language selection and in terms of target audience. In addition, there are dictionaries approved by the Terminology Commission and dictionaries that are not approved by any official institutions. There is a lack of studies on the habits and needs of term dictionary users. In addition, publications of criticism or analysis about the qualitative performance of such dictionaries are also rare and no criteria has been developed to fully analyse and evaluate the development of terminology’s theory and practice. In this article, the authors have focused on exploring the situation in order to clarify the main trends in the characteristics of the terminography of Latvia. This was done through interviews with representatives of leading publishers who confirmed that the publishing houses are losing interest in issuing terminological dictionaries and discussion with the Chairman of the Terminology Commission of the Latvian Academy of Sciences. The authors have identified the main issues in organising the terminology process and determined answers to specific questions: what determines the dictionaries’ choice and credibility factor; how is feedback sought after a new dictionary is issued; what alternatives exist in areas where terminological dictionaries have been missing for decades, etc. Finally, the study analyses the new Latvian National Terminology Portal, which has been in operation for two years, with an aim to provide information on terms and to allow everyone to participate in the process of creating new terms.

Determination of the ethnonymic lexical semantics can be considered as one of the aspects of ethnic studies in linguistics. Who are the Latgalians, Latgals, Suits, Selonians and other ethnographic groups, according to the modern concepts? The answer to this question can be found in the Dictionary of Contemporary Latvian Language (MLVV), which is fully available on the Internet since 2014.The aim of the paper is to analyse the names of Latvian ethnographic groups and the principles of defining meanings in MLVV, especially focusing on issues related to names of Latgalian Latvians. Lexicographic data analysis and contextual approach are applied in this research with the help of which extralinguistic factors (linguistic and situative context) are revealed.One of the most important tasks in lexicographic work is the inventory of the material, in other words, selection of word entries, illustrative texts, collection and classification of information from preceding dictionaries. In the present paper, the electronic version of the eight-volume Dictionary of the Literary Latvian Language (1972–1996) has been used for comparison. The Balanced Corpus of Modern Latvian, consisting of ~4.5 million word use cases, is applied to determine the contextual semantics and the usage frequency of the names of ethnographic groups.MLVV materials show that there is a lack of consequence in the designation of ethnographic groups and definition of their meaning. The names of ethnographic groups (as well as other ethnonyms) as entries are mostly provided in the plural, for instance, latgalieši, suiti, zemgalieši (Latgalians, Suits, inhabitants of Zemgale), etc., some of them in singular forms: kurzemnieks, vidzemnieks (inhabitant of Kurzeme, inhabitant of Vidzeme). In the previously published Dictionary of the Literary Latvian Language, the names are provided in the plural, and the data of the modern Latvian language corpus show that all the analysed lexemes are used in plural form more often.The definitions of the meanings are lacking consistency. Firstly, the scope of definitions is broad: the territorial belonging to a certain Latvian ethnographic region is taken as a basis for all the explanations of the meaning; some definitions have references to linguistic and cultural peculiarity. Secondly, none of definitions has a reference that it is an ethnographic group of Latvians; only in one case, the designation of ethnic origin latvieši (Latvians) is provided. The explanation ‘inhabitants’ (of the region) is applied most often, which indicates the belonging of the lexeme to katoikonyms, not ethnonyms; also, the explanation ‘indigenous inhabitants’ (of the region) indicates indirectly that they might be Latvians.The novelty of the dictionary is that there are two meanings for the lexemes latgaļi (Latgalians) and sēļi (Selonians): the first one characterizes the Baltic tribes, the second – inhabitants/ natives of the cultural historical region (more precisely – ethnographic group of the Latvian nation). At the same time, it is not considered that lexemes latgalieši, kurzemnieki, vidzemnieki, zemgalieši (Latgalians, inhabitants of Kurzeme, Vidzeme, Zemgale) in contemporary Latvian also have at least two meanings: the meaning of ‘ethnographic group of the nation’ in modern texts, especially in the media, is complemented by a more general meaning of ‘inhabitant of the region’, in other words, the ethnonym becomes a katoikonym.The advantage of the electronic dictionary of contemporary Latvian is the possibility to edit it constantly; therefore, it is worth to pay attention to separate lexical semantic groups when developing the dictionary. In that way, it will be possible to avoid inconsistency in definitions of meanings. In order to separate ethnonyms from katoikonyms, in the definitions of the ethnonyms analysed in the paper, the designation of ethnic community ‘ethnographic group of Latvian nation’ can be applied as the main component, supplemented by semes indicating the connection with a certain territory, and possibly, the characterization of cultural, religious and linguistic peculiarity.

<p>Market as a cultural and historical social phenomenon enchains researchers in many respects. There must be mentioned significant studies on the market in Latgalian and Lithuanian culture, carried out by Angelika Juško-Štekele, Daina Kraukle and Gintautas Mažeikis, but Sylvia Papaurėlytė has focused on the market in the aspect of language world, particularly paying attention to trade-related Belarusian lexicon in transaction documents of the 15–17th century. The goal of the study is applying linguo-cultural approach to compare contrastively the designation of trading process, the persons, involved in trade, currency, as well as related phraseology parallels in Latgalian, Lithuanian and Belarusian language. The selected sources are most significant lexicography literature, modern electronic dictionaries and contemporary text corpora and Latgalian press.</p><p>The lexeme торгъ ‘market’ frequently used in Belarusian transaction documents of the 15–17th century maintains its topicality in Latgalian and Lithuanian literature.The lexeme of the same root torgi ‘auction’ is frequently used in Latgalian press in the 20s–30s of the 20th century. With the strengthening of Catholicism, in the 17th century market process was related to the church rebate and the Belarusian word кiрмаш ‘market’ (&lt; German Kirchmesse) was introduced into Latgalian language.</p><p>The synonyms of the designation of the person, who is engaged in trading, form several lexical thematic groups (distinguished as a basic occupation, by the sold goods, by trading type, by the function to be performed). Trade-related denotative components do not appear in Latgalian lexicon, but the lexical meaning of Latgalian lexeme žyds ‘Jew’ is associated with the Jewish basic occupation.</p><p>Both in archaeological and ancient texts there can be found the names of the coins, which demonstrate a great diversity of monetary units, but only a few historical monetary unit names are used in the recent time language and are well-established in phraseology. The most popular name in Latgalian, Lithuanian and Belarusian language is grass–grošis–грош ‘groat’.</p><p>The word index of the first Latgalian book “Evangelia toto anno 1753”, which is the New Testament excerpta, shows, that the word grass, that is indistinctive to biblical texts, is found 12 times. This lexeme can also be found in Jan Kurmin’s Polish-Latin-Latvian dictionary: Grosz. Nummus. Groszys, v. Dzienuszka (Kurmin 1858: 36). In Latgalian and Lithuanian texts the word grass–grošis is used with the meaning ‘small amount of money’.</p><p>A phraseological component grass–grošis–грош maintains the semantics of a small amount of money and something worthless. There can be found parallels of a variety of phraseological units in all three languages, which most directly shows the common understanding of the value of money. The word skatikas appears in Lithuanian phraseological units as a synonym of the same semantics of worthless money.</p><p>A kopeck–kapeika–капейкa unlike grass–grošis–грош is a small unit, but a ruble, rublis–rublys–рубль is a large monetary unit (sova kapeika lobuoka par cara rubli ‘own kopeck is better than the tsar’s ruble’). In phraseological units with the component kopeck–kapeika–капейкa there appears the motive of saving and earning money, though it is a small amount of money (sova kapeika teik ‘some kopeck is gotten’; kapeika įkrito į delną ‘a little money is earned’; капейкa ў капейку ‘kopeck to kopeck’; жывая капейкa ‘profitable’).</p><p>Historicisms such as červoncs ‘tenner’ and dukats ‘ducat’ are less popular in Latgalian texts.</p><p>There can be concluded, that Latgalian language of three languages discussed above reflects the least trade-related nuances and Latgalians feel themselves as passive victims of transactions done by others.</p>

Latvian literary terminology and folklore studies terminology have many connections. Both areas have been comparatively understudied; especially, systemic and comprehensive analysis of folklore terminology should be carried out in broader research, which would require in-depth studies of emergence, loan, choice, use, inheritance, and succession of terms. This article mostly deals with historical or chronological aspect, providing a view into some essential lexicographic, monographic, and other resources of terms. The article aims to provide a view into the development of Latvian terminology in the 20th century (more precisely – from the beginning of independent Latvia until the restoration of independence after the Soviet occupation), paying attention to several resources of terminology. To reach the aim, a number of essential term sources of the field, which have had an impact on future terminology use and development, have been selected; characteristic of the resources is given, and specific examples are provided to illustrate the tendencies of the field’s terminology development. The publications, personalities, events, and discussions of the time help to understand what has happened in the newest terminology development period. The article draws from the following essential resources of terminology, which have had an impact on the Latvian folklore studies terminology: “Latvian Encyclopaedia” (Latviešu konversācijas vārdnīca, 1927–1940), “Introduction into Latvian Folk Poetry” (Ievads latviešu tautas dzejā, 1940) by Ludis Bērziņš (1870–1965), “General Conceptions about Folk Poetry” (Pamatjēdzieni par tautas dzeju, 1937) by Anna Bērzkalne (1891–1956), “Latvian Folklore” (Latviešu folklora, 1948) by Jānis Niedre (1909–1987), the Terminology Commission’s 8th Bulletin (1950), “Language of Latvian Folk Songs” (Latviešu tautasdziesmu valoda”, 1961) and “Works in Folklore Studies” (Raksti folkloristikā, 1968) by Arturs Ozols (1912–1964), “History of Latvian Folklore Studies” (Latviešu folkloristikas vēsture, 1989) by Ojārs Ambainis (1926–1995). The theoretical framework of the research consists of the studies in terminology theory and history by Māris Baltiņš and Valentīna Skujiņa, and the folklore studies history research by researchers at the Institute of Literature, Folklore and Art of the University of Latvia (Māra Vīksna, Dace Bula, Rita Treija, Anda Kubuliņa, Baibas Krogzeme-Mosgorda). Also, the minutes of the Latvian SSR Academy of Sciences Terminology Commission available at the Latvian Academy of Sciences archive have been studied.

Abstract This contribution researches various translation dictionaries – mobile apps with Latvian that are available for free on the Google Play Store and sets out the experience of developing specialised translation dictionaries at Ventspils University of Applied Sciences (VUAS). The results encounter three different dictionary models that are compiled for the acquisition of Languages for Special Purposes (LSPs) to support vocabulary (term) learning, translation, reading, listening and writing skills during the foreign language-learning process. Dictionaries with grammatical information and rich, supportive data or encyclopaedic information added are more useful for understanding specific domain concepts and content, as well as for the translation practice. Thus, the dictionary user does not have to look for another application or other source to get this additional information. Each new app takes up some space on the user’s smart device; therefore, it is important to maximise the support provided by a single dictionary. The research provides insight into the range of dictionaries with Latvian available on the Google Play Store, gives a brief description, and explains the practical experience of VUAS when working on developing such dictionaries and applying them for language-learning purposes and specialised terminology courses for students. The study also provides an overview of challenges, problems and lexicographic and information technology solutions for mobile applications. The goal of the research is analysing and characterising those free-of-charge dictionaries in the form of mobile apps with Latvian as one of the translation languages. Surveys were used to gather and analyse research data. A survey of dictionary users and a survey of language learners using dictionary apps were carried out after the development of the specialised dictionaries.

The means of creating the cohesion of the text have not been looked at in the research of Latvian scientific texts. Since it is important within the context of academic writing and language learning, the purpose of this article is to update the research on the linkage of propositions in Latvian scientific texts and, having studied the usage of various linguistic approaches, present the results of the feasibility study on the use of linguistic means, while also identifying issues that need further research. The research carried out is based on an analysis of the cohesion tools in two social and natural science articles, followed by quantitative research of the texts of six scientific disciplines (600 texts in total) in order to selectively examine the frequency of use of connectors and the differences in texts of different fields of science using AntConc software. The results of the study show that the binding elements that make up the cohesion of the text are a heterogeneous group in terms of belonging to different word classes, as already concluded in previous text syntax studies, as well as in relation to the use of grammatical forms (e.g. future form, participles). Part of the established binding elements of proposition (pronouns and nouns) relate mainly to the provision of referential identity, while others, on the other hand, are signs of an interactive metadiscourse and implement various semantic attitudes that allow them to be interpreted in this context. According to the results of the analysis on the frequency of use of connectors, there are differences between the texts of different fields of science. A further systemic study of these could form the basis for determining the specific characteristics of scientific reasoning by means of a quantitative method. Further systemic research of connectors could be partly based on the analysis of semantic attitudes carried out in syntax research (Latvian and other languages), the basis of text linguistics in cohesion research, as well as research on the interactive features of metadiscourse. At the same time, in connection with the analysis of semantics, text, discourse, and metadiscourse, it is necessary to focus on the development of the terminology of the topic in Latvian in the future. This, combined with a systemic continuation of research in the future, would have a practical role in the development of the classification of connectors, a catalogue, a lexicographic description, and teaching tools for academic writing.

The author considers various aspects of reflection of the functioning of the Russian language as a contact language in the national lexicographic tradition of Latvia. The composition and characteristics of Russicisms in monolingual and multilingual dictionaries of the Latvian language are analyzed. It allows to conclude about the main trends in the history of language contacts in Latvia. The author analyzes how the lexical features of the regional variety of the Russian are reflected in the dictionaries. Some general lexical and grammatical categories of two languages also are considered, the differences in the functioning of which are significant for analyzing the processes of interferent influence in both languages.