Go to originalLocalized version was produced by AI. It may contain inaccuracies.
Preparing document pages…
Page 1
RITA MILIŪNAITĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language ORCID id: orcid.org/0000-0002-2292-1818
Research areas: neology, prescriptive linguistics, sociolinguistics, language technologies.
DOI: doi.org/10.35321/all91-07
NOUNS WITH THE SUFFIX -ISTAS, -Ė FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF VARIATION, NORMS, AND THE SUBSTANDARDIZATION OF CONTEMPORARY STANDARD LITHUANIAN¹
Nouns with the Suffix -istas, -ė in the Aspect of Variation, Norm and Substandardization of the Current Standard Lithuanian Language
A B S T R A C T
The subject of this article is words with the suffix –istas, –ė denoting personal names and characterized by variation, fluctuations in norms, and innovations in contemporary Lithuanian usage. The aim is to identify possible connections between the use of new hybrid derivatives with this suffix and the process of substandardization of Standard Lithuanian, which bears considerable similarities to models of the dynamics of European standard languages.
Until the beginning of the 21st century, the suffix –istas, –ė in Lithuanian could be identified primarily in loanwords (international words) used to name persons according to their profession, activity, and so on. An examination of neologisms of this type recorded in the Database of Lithuanian Neologisms, together with their derivational and semantic features and contexts of use, reveals structural and functional innovations. First, hybrid derivatives—formed from a native root and the borrowed
¹ Thanks to the article’s reviewers for providing valuable comments and additions and for not questioning the very idea of substandardization.
Straipsniai / Articles
177
Page 2
RITA MILIŪNAITĖ
suffix –istas, –ė—are increasing in unregulated Lithuanian usage with lower prestige than the standard language (the substandard). Second, approximately two-thirds of such hybrids are used to name persons according to undesirable, useless, or harmful activities and have a negative connotation. Their penetration into Standard Lithuanian usage (the media) may be regarded as one of the signs of the substandardization of the standard language.
KEYWORDS: substandard, substandardization, standard language, suffix, neologisms.
ANNOTATION
The article examines nouns with the suffix –istas, –ė used to denote persons. These words are characterised by variation, norm fluctuation and innovation in the current Lithuanian language. The article aims to determine potential connections between the usage of new hybrid derivatives with this suffix and the process of sub-standardization of the standard Lithuanian language, which bears significant similarities to the dynamics observed in European standard languages.
Until the beginning of the 21st century, the suffix –istas, –ė in Lithuanian was mostly found in loanwords used to name people based on their profession, activity, etc. After examining neologisms of this type recorded in the Lithuanian neologism database, as well as their semantic features and usage contexts, structural and functional innovations are found. First, in lower-prestige usage of Lithuanian (sub-standard), there is an increase in hybrid derivatives that combine native roots with the borrowed suffix –istas, –ė. Second, about two-thirds of these hybrids carry negative connotations and are used to denote persons engaged in undesirable, unproductive, or harmful activities. Their entering into the standard Lithuanian language (mainstem media) can be seen as one of the indicators of sub-standardization of the standard Lithuanian.
KEYWORDS: sub-standard, sub-standardization, standard language, suffix, neologisms.
INTRODUCTION
In European countries—for example, Germany, Denmark, Italy, Belgium, and others—similar, though not identical, processes in the dynamics of languages and their varieties have been observed since the beginning of the 21st century, owing to differences in the history and development of the respective societies. The relationship between standard-language norms and variation is changing (Kristiansen 2021: 667): the traditional codified norm is weakening, while public usage is becoming increasingly variable. It is therefore reasonable to ask how these processes should be assessed: as the popularization of the standard language (demotization, that is, the supplementation of standard-language norms with socially and functionally marked lower-prestige variants), or as destandardization—the weakening of the position of the standard language (which would be the opposite of
178
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XCI
Page 3
Daiktavardžiai su priesaga –istas, –ė variantiškumo, normų ir dabartinės bendrinės lietuvių kalbos substandartizacijos aspektu
standardization—the process whereby the standard language is created by eliminating excessive variation) (cf. Kristiansen 2021: 684–686).
Moreover, alongside the standard language, in some countries—including, it may be assumed, Lithuania (see Miliūnaitė 2022: 641–668)—a new unofficial free-style variety is emerging. A large part of society uses it in both speech and writing; it is known as the new standard, or neostandard (English neo-standard) (cf. Auer 2017: 265–366). It is not the same standard language merely renewed as a result of restandardization (see Berruto 2017: 33–56). The traditional standard language continues to function and is regarded as prestigious despite the narrowing of its use in public communication. Thus, the ideology of the standard language (for a broader discussion of the concept, see Miliūnaitė 2018: 183–196) often remains strong, but the context in which this variety functions is changing.
Although various models of the dynamics of European standard languages are being developed (cf. Auer, Spiekermann 2011: 161–176; Coupland, Kristiansen, 2011: 11–35; Auer 2017: 365–374; Kristiansen 2021: 668–669), research on the new standard remains limited because of a lack of data. Nor has the terminology designating the fundamental concepts for describing these processes become established. It is therefore still difficult to characterize the new standard and predict its possible further interaction with the standard language or the status it will acquire in speech communities. The new variety is sometimes described as freer, more personal, more subjective, more creative, and more modern than the standard variety (Auer 2017: 366). In the long term, its interaction with the standard language may also alter the prestige of the standard language: the standard language may increasingly be associated with tradition, conservatism, officialdom, and impersonal speech, while the new variety is associated, conversely, with freedom, individuality, and innovation (cf. Auer 2017: 373), that is, with features regarded as signs of social dynamism and progress.
In Lithuanian scholarly literature, this variety is sometimes hypothetically called the substandard (for a broader discussion, see Miliūnaitė 2022: 29–30), although in some languages, such as German, the new standard and the substandard may be regarded as
2 It is precisely in this variety that the greatest language experiments take place and most innovations, including neologisms, emerge. Only some such experiments spread and, if they correspond to the needs and tendencies of the standard language, may eventually be codified. For example, the contaminational calque darbostogos ‘a period when work is combined with holidays and recreational trips outside the workplace’ (ND), which has become established in public usage over the past decade, was also included in BLKŽ as of September 2024.
Straipsniai / Articles
179
Page 4
RITA MILIŪNAITĖ
different varieties: the former has adopted many features from the substandard and is closer to the standard language (cf. Stoeckle, Svenstrup 2011: 83; Auer 2017: 372)3.
The substandard is a variety of the national language that has lower prestige and greater variation than the standard language, is used (and understood) by the entire speech community, and is not directly associated with specific geographically defined dialects or with geolects and regiolects more extensive than those dialects4. It is characterized by a free spoken and written style and by a variety of sociolects and functiolects (cf. Auer 2017: 370 on diastratic and diaphasic variation). The substandard is also characterized by linguistic phenomena that fall outside the standard-language norm but are widespread in general usage, as well as by a much freer relationship with other languages and with borrowed or translated linguistic phenomena entering Lithuanian usage from them. On the other hand, the substandard is not structurally or functionally very distant from the standard language. For example, it has been claimed that in the case of Italian, presenters use the standard variety in national television and radio news programs (this is also related to written texts read aloud), whereas the new standard functions predominantly in various talk shows (Berruto 2017: 31–60).
The formation of the substandard, its interaction with the standard language, its competition with standard-language norms, and its influence on standard-language usage may be called substandardization. The process of substandardization in Lithuanian has been little studied (or at least has not been designated in a similar way); research is based mainly on hypothetical assumptions (for a broader discussion, see Miliūnaitė 2022: 646–648).
Thus, as these interesting processes unfold—driven both by the multidimensional interaction of the standard language, regional variants, and other languages, and by the spread of public electronic communication—it is high time to investigate various manifestations of new varieties and their interaction with traditional varieties.
The study focuses on borrowed and hybrid words with the suffix –istas, –ė that are characterized by variation, fluctuations in norms, and semantic and derivational innovations in contemporary Lithuanian usage. Specifically, the study examines derivatives from
3 Because of the unsettled terminology, the substandard may also be understood much more broadly (especially in the Slavic linguistic tradition): it may include everything that is not standard, that is, everything extending beyond the boundaries of the standard language, such as jargon, argot, and slang, and sometimes dialectal usage as well (cf. Walter 2018: 13–32).
4 Alongside this new formation of varieties, another long-standing process can be observed in parallel: the transformation of traditional dialects and larger regional variants into varieties closer to the standard language—regiolects or regional language standards (see Auer 2017: 366; Mikulėnienė 2020: 2–4). In exceptional cases, some dialects are revitalized when they are viewed not as relics used by less educated people but as unique expressions of the identity that binds a community together (cf. Auer 2017: 366).
180
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XCI
Page 5
Nouns with the suffix –istas, –ė from the perspective of variation, norms, and the substandardization of contemporary Standard Lithuanian
Hybrid neologisms with this suffix recorded in the Database of Lithuanian Neologisms (ND⁵) since the beginning of the 21st century. Assuming that these may be substandard phenomena, it is important to determine what the contexts of use of these derivatives reveal, what situations, styles, and media they are characteristic of, and what their relationship is to the standard language. Thus, the aim of the article is to investigate, from the perspective of variation, the functioning of new hybrids with the suffix –istas, –ė in contemporary Lithuanian usage and to identify their possible connections with the formation of the Lithuanian substandard and the process of substandardization of Standard Lithuanian. The hypothesis is that some derivatives with the new suffix –istas, –ė considered nonstandard enter Standard Lithuanian usage, represented by the mainstream media, from a publicly used free-style variety that could be regarded as an emerging substandard. The aim of the study is pursued through the following objectives:
1) to describe the most important features of the use of words with the suffix istas, –ė in Lithuanian from the perspective of variation and their relationship to the standard-language norm; 2) to conduct a preliminary analysis of the origin and derivation of the neologisms recorded in ND that have the suffix –istas, –ė, distinguishing correlative and genuine derivatives (i.e. hybrids, including calques); 3) to conduct a semantic and variation analysis of hybrids formed in Lithuanian with the suffix –istas, –ė, recording possible connotations of these neologisms⁶; 4) to assess the semantic and functional innovations of the new hybrids.
In examining the data, methods of synchronic derivational and semantic word analysis, as well as variation analysis, are applied; in discussing the research results, descriptive and analytical methods are applied. A quantitative method is used to compare the quantitative characteristics of competing variants in usage. It should be emphasized that neologisms, especially occasional ones, may have more than one interpretation of their origin and derivation, on which their subsequent treatment may depend. Moreover, when examining neologisms, there is always a risk that, as new data emerge—examples of usage—the interpretation of the neologism’s features (especially its origin, meaning, functioning in different contexts, and so on) may change.
In addition to the Introduction, the article consists of three parts, conclusions, and lists of sources and literature. The first part discusses the systemic features and usage variation of words with the suffix –istas, –ė; the second discusses the relationship of these words to the standard-language norm. The third part examines the semantic and functional features of new hybrids with the suffix istas, –ė.
⁵ For information about this database, its structure, and the principles of data selection, see Miliūnaitė 2022: 75–78.
⁶ Plg. connotation ‘shades supplementing the main meaning of a word or word combination and giving language expressiveness’; connotative meaning—‘a word’s information about the language user’s emotional attitude toward the thing named <...>,’ indicating a positive or negative evaluation (LKE 2008: 281–282).
Straipsniai / Articles
181
Page 6
RITA MILIŪNAITĖ
1. SYSTEMIC FEATURES AND USAGE VARIANTS OF NOUNS WITH THE SUFFIX -ISTAS, -Ė
Words containing the suffix -istas, -ė were essentially only loanwords (international words) in Lithuanian for a long time, and some of them can be conditionally analyzed derivationally as correlative derivatives if a corresponding borrowed word with the base stem functions alongside them (for a broader discussion, see Urbutis 2009: 292–293; DLKG 123). In the principal grammars of Lithuanian, they are assigned to two derivational categories because they denote persons:
1) names of bearers of nominal characteristics, most often denoting ‘supporters or followers of some philosophical, religious, scholarly, artistic, or political-social trend’ or an inclination toward some activity (cf. LKG 362–363; DLKG 123), for example: aferistas, -ė, humanistas, -ė, teroristas, -ė;
2) names of persons according to their profession (cf. LKG 409; DLKG 138), for example: artileristas, -ė, germanistas, -ė, pianistas, -ė. Nouns of this type are similar ‘in their meaning and semantic relationship to the base noun’ to derivatives with the suffix -ininkas, -ė (DLKG 138).
Indeed, in contemporary usage it is easy to find competing personal names (see Inčiuraitė-Noreikienė 2022: 149–174; Stundžia, Inčiuraitė-Noreikienė 2022: 239–261), one of which is a loanword with the suffix -istas, -ė (some of them may be regarded as correlative derivatives), while the other is a Lithuanianized variant with the suffix -ininkas, -ė or other suffixes, or a suffixless variant, for example:
Bonifacas Stundžia and Lina Inčiuraitė-Noreikienė, who studied the competitive models of hybrid derivatives naming persons with nominal suffixes (including the suffix -istas, -ė) and cognate loanwords in contemporary Lithuanian, note that among those most prone to competition are precisely cognate
7 In this article, variants are understood as words with different morphemic structures that have the same meaning and usually the same root (for a broader discussion, see Miliūnaitė 2022: 33–34). A variant is considered Lithuanianized when a Lithuanian suffix is added to a borrowed root instead of a borrowed suffix.
8 The latter example is taken from: Stundžia, Inčiuraitė-Noreikienė 2022: 253.
182
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XCI
Page 7
Daiktavardžiai su priesaga –istas, –ė variantǐškumo, normų ir dabartinės bendrinės lietuvių kalbos substandartizacijos aspektu
nominal derivatives with the suffix –ininkas, –ė and correlative personal-name derivatives with the suffix –istas, –ė (ibid.: 256).
Taking several more frequent competitors functioning in usage⁹, their quantitative relationship in DLKT and general Internet usage was examined. The search was conducted using the ‘Google’ search tool on Lithuanian-language pages (accessed in September 2024; see Table 1¹⁰).
TABLE 1. Quantitative relationship between competing variants in DLKT and Lithuanian Internet usage
Table 1 shows that Lithuanianized variants predominate in the more or less edited usage of DLKT texts; however, the ratio of competition with correlative suffix derivatives varies greatly among words, ranging from
⁹ The data of ‘Language Advice’ (eKP) were used (see https://ekalba.lt/kalbos-patarimai/II.%20%C5%BDod%C5%BEiai%20baigmenimis:%2065.%20–istas,%20–%C4%97?i=c306237d-49b1-4bd2-b814-d8df5563838c).
¹⁰ The table data do not reflect the possible connotative use of certain nonstandard loanwords (for example, traktoristas, –ė); therefore, the competition is somewhat conditional in this respect.
¹¹ Because of the relatively small number of uses in DLKT, the competitor stem was searched for in DLKT, whereas in the ‘Google’ search tool only the singular nominative forms representing these variants were searched for. The feminine singular nominative was checked in the latter case when it was likely to be widespread. This does not affect the results, because the quantitative ratio of the competitors is what matters here.
Straipsniai / Articles
183
Page 8
RITA MILIŪNAITĖ
from several to several hundred times. In general, the competition between these variants in general Internet usage indicates a weaker tendency toward Lithuanianized variants, but the movement in that direction is maintained¹².
The fact that the distinction between the prestigious (Lithuanianized) and non-prestigious (having a borrowed suffix) variants is actually perceived by conscious language users is also shown by the curious instance of the word futbolistas, -ė. In 2022, the online news portal 15min.lt reported that, while congratulating a Vilnius sports team that had won the title of vice-champions on a social network, the deputy mayor of Vilnius accidentally called its members basketball players: ‘Our female basketball players are great.’ The news portal writes: ‘The deputy mayor responded and corrected the mistake: he replaced the word female basketball players with female footballists. [The article then presents an extract from the social-network post containing, among other things, the sentences: “Our female footballists are great. I sincerely congratulate you once again!” —R. M.’s note.] According to the rules of the Lithuanian language, futbolininkės¹³ should be written (15min.lt 2022). This example reveals the portal editors’ attitude toward the standard-language norm (futbolininkės), while also showing residual traces of the earlier norm in unregulated usage—the non-prestigious but still familiar, to some language users, non-Lithuanianized variant (futbolistės).
A minimal examination of the usage contexts of the selected pairs of variants shows that almost all of them, except for the loanword traktoristas, generally have no differences in meaning or stylistic shades¹⁴, and can therefore be regarded as neutral variants—doublets—that compete more or less strongly in general usage.
Although the loanword traktoristas entered Lithuanian as a neutral word¹⁵, in contemporary usage it sometimes acquires a negative connotation (as a reality of Soviet life), which provides a basis for its functionally purposeful use. For example, a regional news portal published an article entitled ‘Drunk tractor driver caught’ (anyksta.lt, 2024-07-20). In the article’s comments, when one reader questioned this variant, another reader provided justification:
12 An occasional exception, in which the borrowed competitor predominates in usage (for example, propagandistas, -ė is more frequent than propagandininkas, -ė, cf. Inčiuraitė-Noreikienė 2022: 165), is probably caused by the long tradition and prevalence of the loanword’s use, but this does not refute the general direction toward Lithuanianization.
13 The principal Lithuanian dictionaries show a consistent change in the codification of this loanword in the direction of Lithuanianization. In the first edition of DLKŽ in 1954, futbolistas, -ė was presented as a secondary variant alongside futbolininko, -ės; in LKŽ 1969 (vol. 2, 2nd ed.), futbolistas, -ė was included with a reference to the variant futbolininkas, -ė; and from the second edition of DLKŽ in 1972 onward, it was no longer considered a standard-language norm.
14 For example, the variant futbolistas, -ė is used neutrally in commerce (it appears in product names: wafer ‘Futbolistas’, lollipop ‘Futbolistas’, and so on).
15 As mentioned, in the first edition of DLKŽ (1954), traktoristas, -ė was presented as a secondary variant of traktorininko, -ės.
184
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XCI
Page 9
Daiktavardžiai su priesaga –istas, –ė variantiškumo, normų ir dabartinės bendrinės lietuvių kalbos substandartizacijos aspektu
Thus, it may tentatively be concluded that in freer usage, close to the substandard, the conditions for nonstandard loanwords containing the suffix –istas, –ė to survive in competition are considerably more favorable than in consciously regulated (edited) usage. However, such nonstandard words may also be used in the standard language if they acquire a connotation that the neutral standard variant does not have.
2. THE RELATIONSHIP OF NOUNS WITH THE SUFFIX –ISTAS, –Ė TO THE STANDARD-LANGUAGE NORM
When competing variants arise in the standard language, the question of the norm emerges. With regard to the norm, words with the suffix –istas, –ė have traditionally been assessed in several ways in Standard Lithuanian: from established invariant loanwords regarded as normative to loanwords that fall or have already fallen outside the standard-language norm and have widespread Lithuanianized variants. Thus, in the codification of Standard Lithuanian norms, the use of words with the suffix –istas, –ė is restricted, with Lithuanian (Lithuanianized) equivalents given preference wherever possible; however, the abundance of various qualifications indicates considerable diversity and competition among usage variants.
Why is the codification of these words so varied? Table 2 presents several examples that show the current state of codification recorded in BLKŽ. This indicates an ongoing process of Lithuanianization of loanwords containing the suffix –istas, –ė, whose course and results depend on several interrelated factors: whether an adequate Lithuanian (Lithuanianized) equivalent exists and whether it is appropriate at all, while maintaining the stability of norms, to seek such an equivalent if a long tradition of using a word containing the suffixes
Straipsniai / Articles
185
Page 10
RITA MILIŪNAITĖ
maintaining stability, to seek such an equivalent if a long tradition of using a word with the suffix –istas, –ė has become established16.
TABLE 2.
Different relationships of words with the suffix –istas, –ė to the norm of Standard Lithuanian
Table 2 shows that the relationship of words with the suffix –istas, –ė to the codified norm is threefold:
1) established invariant loanwords regarded as normative (e.g.: aktyvistas, –ė; choristas, –ė; žurnalistas, –ė);
2) loanwords competing with Lithuanianized variants are regarded as secondary normative variants (e.g.: monopolistas, –ė: monopolininkas, –ė; violončelistas, –ė: violončelininkas, –ė), and the competition has not yet ended;
3) loanwords that extend beyond or have already fallen outside the standard-language norms and have established Lithuanianized variants are regarded as non-normative (e.g.: motociklistas, –ė: motociklininkas, –ė; parašiutistas, –ė: parašiutininkas, –ė).
Nor should we overlook less frequent cases in which competitive relations do not arise at all or in which competition is brought to an orderly end by a divergence of the variants’ meanings. In such cases, the so-called distinctiveness criterion is applied in the codification of norms: if competing variants acquire different meanings, or at least one of them acquires an additional shade of meaning, their competition
16 Incidentally, it is necessary to mention one more subsidiary criterion—the pressure exerted by a nest of related words. If, alongside a borrowing naming an agent with the distinguishable suffix –istas, –ė, there are borrowings of the same root with the distinguishable suffix –izmas used to name abstract phenomena, this supports the continued existence of un-Lithuanianized borrowings—names of persons. For example: abstrakcionistas, –ė alongside abstrakcionizmo; alpinistas, –ė alongside alpinizmo; optimistas, –ė alongside optimizmo; populistas, –ė alongside populizmo, and so on, although there are exceptions. These may be borrowings of another form used to name agents, cf. fanatikas, –ė alongside fanatizmo; idiotas, –ė alongside idiotizmo; liberalas, –ė alongside liberalizmo, etc.
186
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XCI
Page 11
Daiktavardžiai su priesaga –istas, –ė variantiskumo, normų ir dabartinės bendrinės lietuvių kalbos substandartizacijos aspektu
relations weaken or disappear altogether (see Pupkis 1980: 47). None of the former variants withdraws from usage, because they perform different functions; thus, none of these phenomena is codified negatively. For example:
dietistas, –ė “a healthcare—diet (nutrition)—specialist without a doctor’s qualification” ↔ dietologas, –ė “a doctor specializing in dietology (the science of rational nutrition)” ↔ dietininkas, –ė “someone who follows a diet” (ND);
individualistas, –ė “a follower or adherent of individualism” (DLKŽ₈) ↔ individualininkas, –ė “someone who works after obtaining an individual-activity certificate” (ND).
The case of individualistas is interesting because its new meaning, “someone who works after obtaining an individual-activity certificate,” is also attested in usage; thus, on the basis of this meaning, variation relations arise with the word individualininkas, –ė.
What has been said about the relationship between words with the suffix –istas, –ė and the Standard Language norm shows that, in the Standard Language, Lithuanian suffixes are recommended where possible, because, when variants are stylistically neutral, their competition in the Standard Language is usually eliminated, especially in terminology (for example, names of persons according to profession). However, as Table 1 showed, in free, deliberately unregulated public usage (essentially, the substandard), the self-regulatory tendency toward Lithuanianized variants is not particularly strong. General usage shows that such suffixal borrowings do not simply disappear and, once removed (or pushed) beyond the boundaries of the Standard Language, continue to live their own lives. If such words acquire some additional nuance or a new meaning, an aspect of functional expediency emerges. In the case of traditional borrowings with the suffix –istas, –ė and their Lithuanianized variants, functional differences are generally rare exceptions.
3. NAUJŲJŲ HIBRIDŲ SU PRIESAGA –ISTAS, –Ė FUNKCINIAI YPATUMAI
After examining the 136 neologisms with the suffix istas, –ė¹⁷ recorded in ND through October 2024, the majority of them (106, or 78 percent) proved to be new borrowings (not previously recorded in the principal dictionaries), for example: dronistas, –ė “a drone specialist or enthusiast, a drone pilot”; genderistas, –ė “an advocate of genderism
¹⁷ Not counted were those that appeared in the search results for *istas* but formally merely have the ending –istas, –ė and do not constitute a well-defined object (for example, aktyvistas, –ė was included in ND because of the new meaning “a promoter of activism seeking political or social goals”; agrolaisvistas –ė is not a derivative with the suffix –istas, –ė, but a derivative formed from the hybrid laisvistas, –ė (“a member of the Freedom Party”) and the international element agro-, by analogy with another neologism, agroliberalas, –ė (“a member of the Seimas, a representative of the Liberal Movement, elected in a rural single-member constituency,” and so on).
Straipsniai / Articles
187
Page 12
RITA MILIŪNAITĖ
promoter, –a”; kliktyvistas, –ė “a controversially viewed activist active on social networks but avoiding political action,” and others. The remaining 30 neologisms can be regarded as newly emerged in Lithuanian18 or, following the example of other languages, translated morphologically segmentable derivatives with the suffix –istas, –ė—hybrids. This is the opposite of the normative tendency mentioned in Part 2 of the article, namely, to Lithuanianize words with the suffix –istas, –ė wherever possible. Therefore, when considering these new derivatives, more than one question arises:
• what does their increase indicate?
• why, when forming a new word, do language users choose borrowed rather than native derivational means?
• what is the relationship of such hybrids to the Standard Language norm?
In seeking answers to these questions, it is necessary to examine how these derivatives arose (were formed in Lithuanian or translated), the contexts in which they are used, and the possible reasons for their use.
Since, when discussing Lithuanian neologisms, it is impossible to collect highly representative data, in this case the actual facts of their being recorded in free public and official usage are far more important than the quantitative characteristics of the use of the new hybrids (see Table 3). In this article, free usage is understood as encompassing electronic communication (i.e. social networks, internet forums, article comments, and blogs), private and mostly unedited texts on various websites; it is therefore likely that the substandard operates within it. Regulated usage includes edited texts from news portals and publications. They are stylistically heterogeneous (some are journalistic and thus freer and more individual in style, while others are informational and neutral), but when their authors are media professionals or professional translators and writers, Standard Language is likely to be used in regulated usage. In cases where free-style sources (for example, social-network posts) are quoted in the media, examples of usage are nevertheless assigned to regulated usage because they enter the sphere of Standard Language use. Table 3 includes those hybrids whose formation in Lithuanian
18 It is true that individual hybrid derivatives with the suffix –istas, –ė also arose in Lithuanian earlier, but they are quite rare and function outside or on the margins of the Standard Language, which makes them harder to detect; cf. the hybrid nugaristas, –ė, for which the recommended equivalent was plaukikas nugara (KPP 1985); or the hybrids čiurlionistas, –ė, maironistas, –ė, recorded in DLKT as designations for professional researchers of the lives and creative work of prominent people. Cf. also: “The suffix –istas, –ė is occasionally attached to Lithuanian words as well, but such formation is uncharacteristic of the language” (Keinys 1999: 47; 2005: 195–196).
188
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XCI
Page 13
Daiktavardžiai su priesaga –istas, –ė variantiškumo, normų ir dabartinės bendrinės lietuvių kalbos substandartizacijos aspektu
usually from words with native roots or translated according to a model from other languages¹⁹. There are only a few words based on a borrowed root, cf.: čekistas, –ė < čekis; delfistas, –ė < DELFI (“the DELFI news portal of the Baltic states”); individualistas, –ė < individualioji veikla; maršistas, –ė < “(Šeimų) maršas”. In general, some of these hybrids are atypical from the perspective of formation, because the base word is not a noun but another part of speech (adjectives, interjections, abbreviations, etc.). Such atypical formation is characteristic of free styles and, in this case, of the substandard as well.
TABLE 3. The newest hybrids with the suffix –istas, –ė in the Lithuanian Language Neologism Database
The newest hybrids | Definition in ND | Connotation amžistas, –ė | “an adherent or promoter of amžizmas” (a calque of the borrowing eidžistas, –ė) | negative atrankistas, –ė | “a specialist who organizes and carries out employee selection” (< atranka) | – atšilistas, –ė | “an excessively zealous fighter against climate warming” (a calque from English warmist) | negative burbulistas, –ė | “1. someone associated with a real-estate price bubble; 2. someone whose activity is merely an empty (inflated) bubble; 3. a member of a social-network bubble” (< burbulas) | negative (all three meanings) čekistas, –ė | “a municipal council member who sometimes collects checks by unlawful means to justify office expenses” (< čekis) | negative dabartistas, –ė | “someone who adeptly lives only in the present; an adherent of the worldview of dabartizmas” (a calque from English nowist) | negative delfistas, –ė | “1. an employee of the popular online news portal delfi.lt; 2. a writer of comments on this portal” (< DELFI) | negative (both meanings) dzinistas, –ė | “someone who does not care about anything (everything is dzin)” (< dzin) | negative eilėraštistas, –ė | “someone who creates poems, a poet” (< eilėraštis) | –
¹⁹ For example, the neologism afionistas, –ė “an owner or admirer of the smartphone ajfonas created by the company Apple” was not included in Table 3 because there may be several interpretations of its origin: it may have been formed from the noun ajfonas in Lithuanian, or borrowed (according to the results of the “Google” search tool, rare in English iphonist, more frequent in Russian айфонист). Nor was fidistas, –ė “an organizer of FIDI (Physics Day, celebrated every spring by physicists at Vilnius University since 1969)” included, because although it arose in Lithuanian, it is not a neologism but merely has not yet been recorded in lexicographic sources.
Straipsniai / Articles
189
Page 14
RITA MILIŪNAITĖ
The newest hybrids | Definition in ND | Connotation garsistas, –ė | “a sound engineer, sound technician” (< garsas) | – individualistas, –ė | “someone who works after obtaining an individual-activity certificate” (< individualioji [veikla]) | – laisvistas, –ė | “a member of the Freedom Party, established in 2019” (< “Laisvės [partija]”) | negative lentelistas, –ė | “a bureaucrat detached from life who turns everything into numbers in tables” (< lentelė) | negative maršistas, –ė | “a participant in the event ‘Great March for the Defense of the Family,’ held in Vilnius’s Vingis Park on 15 May 2021, and in the movement that has continued to polarize society since then” (< “Šeimos [maršas]”) | negative okaipistas, –ė | “someone who likes to question an interlocutor, deviating from the topic of conversation: ‘but what about…?’” (< o kaip) | negative patogistas, –ė | “someone who lives excessively comfortably and safely without leaving the comfort zone” (< patogus, –i) | negative pišistas, –ė | “an admirer of Prime Minister Ingrida Šimonytė (PIŠ) and her team” (< PIŠ) | negative plėtristas, –ė | “a predatory real-estate developer” (< plėtra) | negative rankdarbistas, –ė | “someone who tries to make everything themselves; a handicraft enthusiast” (< rankdarbis) | – rinkodaristas, –ė | “a marketing specialist” (< rinkodara) | – rūšistas, –ė | “an adherent or promoter of speciesism” (a calque from English speciesist) (< rūšis) | negative smegenistas, –ė | “an actor in the Maxima retail chain’s marketing campaign—a clever experimenter” (< smegenys) | – spurgistas, –ė | “a doughnut enthusiast” (< spurga) | – šeimistas, –ė | “1. a family doctor (< šeimos [gydytojas]), 2. a member of the association ‘Lithuanian Families’ Movement’ (< ‘Šeimų [sąjūdis]’)” | the first meaning is neutral; the connotation of the second meaning is negative šiŭolaikinistas, –ė | “an evaluator of contemporary things” (< šiŭolaikinis, –ė) | – tikrovistas, –ė | “someone who does not believe in miracles and relies only on reality” (< tikrovė) | – vabalistas, –ė | “an enthusiast or collector of Volkswagen cars—‘beetles’” (< vabalas) | –
190
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XCI
Page 15
Daiktavardžiai su priesaga –istas, –ė variantiškumo, normų ir dabartinės bendrinės lietuvių kalbos substandartizacijos aspektu
The newest hybrids
Definition in ND
Connotation
vienkiemistas, –ė
“someone who cares only about the affairs of their own homestead” (< vienkiemis)
negative
žmogienistas, –ė
“a sarcastic designation for a humanist” (a calque of an unidentified Russian nonce formation)
negative
žmogteisistas, –ė
“someone who excessively or fiercely pretends to be a liberal human-rights defender” (< žmogteisė)
negative
The “Connotation” column of Table 3 indicates whether these hybrids have a neutral or negative nuance in the usage recorded in ND. Since several of them are polysemous and the connotations of their different meanings vary, 34 lexemes were counted in total. Of these, 22 (that is, two-thirds) have a negative connotation, while the others are neutral. The meanings of the latter are usual for words with the suffix –istas, –ė according to the derivational categories mentioned in the first part of the article (cf. names of persons according to occupation or profession: atrankistas, –ė, rankdarbistas, –ė, rinkodaristas, –ė, etc.).
The new hybrids with negative connotations show a clear and strengthening tendency in contemporary usage to give derivatives with this suffix an additional nuance, thereby expressing a negative (familiar, disparaging, ironic) attitude toward the persons so named, who engage in useless or harmful activity.
The new hybrids under study are not widespread in public usage, so there is no other way to examine their contexts of use than through examples provided by the “Google” search tool and ND (approximately 100 examples in ND). Because the examples are few, firm conclusions cannot be drawn, but certain tendencies are visible. Most examples of the use of these hybrids (both neutral and negatively connoted) were found in unregulated usage—in article comments, discussion forums, blogs, and social-network posts, for example20:
Atšilistai even meddle in sport... how much longer can this go on...? (f-1.lt, article comment, 2019-11-16)
And to trace who commented, it really is possible; several delfistai have already been held liable for inciting ethnic hatred... (motomanai.lt, discussion forum, 2009-05-26)
It gives the impression that laisvistai gathered anyone at all and called them ministers. (facebook.com, 2020-12-03)
20 Here and elsewhere, the language of the examples of usage has been left authentic.
Straipsniai / Articles
191
Page 16
RITA MILIŪNAITĖ
Fools like to shout loudly and express their opinions. There may be many comments, but gatherings of all kinds of maršistų probably show that there are not so many of them. (reddit.com, 2023–04–18)
War is already at our doorstep. Let us forget comfort-zone illusions. Standing in the shadows is being canceled along with the time of the patogistų. Let us reset our personal clocks to the time relevant to Lithuania. Now...! (facebook.com, 2024–01–29)
[...] I go onto the portal and rummage through photos and diaries of the work of rankdarbištų. (veltinis.lt/blog, 2010–10–15)
New hybrids can also be found in regulated internet usage, especially in free-style journalism. Hybrids with negative connotations often perform a stylistic function here and are thus used deliberately, for example:
As I write this, I realize that the situation is poor if citizens are forced to turn to the highest state authorities so that they may defend them against the machinery of the oligarchy and plėtristų that crushes everything around it. (literatūrainėmenas.lt, Donatas Petrošius, 2019–06–14)
The initiators and organizers of the civil war in the Seimas sandbox—the Liberal Movement, laisvistai, and the second- and third-string Conservatives? Try making sense of that. (delfi.lt, Rimvydas Valatka, 2020–11–22)
Therefore, we should not allow a completely minor nuisance (the municipal “čėkistų” scandal) to overturn the heavyweight carriage (Lithuania’s political system) and disrupt all political processes in the country, social peace, and so on. (15min.lt, Alvydas Lukošaitis, 2023–06–17)
The remnants of the former maršistų scattered among different parties, and the new formations, are essentially doing the same thing these days—denigrating the rule-of-law state established by the Constitution and its institutions, and vilifying the media. He is a Kremlin target. (lrt.lt, Indrė Makaraitytė, 2024–09–13)
Another tendency is also visible in usage. If a neutral word is needed to name a new phenomenon, forms other than the suffix –istas, –ė are chosen (sometimes also from other base words). More frequently used new hybrids thereby acquire variants, cf.:
The possibilities offered by variation in linguistic phenomena are increasingly being exploited in contemporary societies to realize self-expression (cf. Coupland 2007: 89–92; Pilliėre, Lewis 2018: 22). A more favorable environment for this is not the Standard Language environment, defined by codified norms, but the substandard. This is natural, because the neutrality of the Standard Language’s expressive means, determined by the very function of this variety—to be understandable to the entire community—is one reason speakers seek more colorful expressive means from the arsenal of everyday language phenomena. Moreover, the substandard is the variety used by some language users in everyday life, so entering the public sphere requires no effort to change the code of the variety (Auer 2017: 371).
The possibilities of variation allow new hybrids with the suffix –istas, –ė that have negative connotations to retain them when they enter domains of Standard Language use. For Standard Language itself, these neologisms provide a mark of informality and colloquiality, but at the same time they blur the boundary between the Standard Language and the substandard.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Until the beginning of the 21st century, in Lithuanian the suffix –istas, –ė could essentially be identified only in borrowings (international words) used to name persons according to their profession, activity, or some inclination. Their relationship with the Standard Language norm developed in three ways: a) a non-variant norm (e.g.: aktyvistas, –ė; choristas, –ė; žurnalistas, –ė); b) a peripheral normative variant competing with Lithuanianized variants (e.g.: monopolistas, –ė: monopolininkas, –ė; violončelistas, –ė: violončelininkas, –ė); c) a non-normative variant displaced from the Standard Language by Lithuanianized variants (e.g.: motociklistas, –ė: motociklininkas, –ė; parašiutistas, –ė: parašiutininkas, –ė).
2. Examination of usage data from the beginning of the 21st century recorded in the Lithuanian Language Neologism Database reveals a twofold change in words with the suffix –istas, –ė: structural and functional. In unregulated Lithuanian usage, unrelated to the geographical fragmentation of the linguistic community and possessing lower prestige than the Standard Language (in the developing substandard), non-normative hybrid derivatives—involving native roots and the borrowed suffix –istas, –ė—are increasing to name persons according to their field of activity, profession, affiliation with a group, or inclination (atšilistas, –ė, plėtristas, –ė, rankdar-bistas, –ė, etc.). This may be regarded as one of the features of the substandardization of Lithuanian.
Straipsniai / Articles
193
Page 18
RITA MILIŪNAITĖ
3. The data from the Lithuanian Language Neologism Database show that approximately two-thirds of such hybrids are used to designate persons according to undesirable, useless, or harmful activity and have negative connotations (familiar, ironic, or disparaging nuances).
4. Some non-normative hybrids with the suffix -istas, -ė enter Standard Lithuanian usage. Hybrids with negative connotations are used as deliberate expressive devices to enliven style and express the authors’ attitude toward the matters in question. This penetration of hybrids into Standard Language usage reveals another aspect of substandardization—the influence of the substandard on the Standard Language. This should be understood not as changes in the norms of Standard Language itself, but primarily as the result of its interaction with another closely related variety.
ŠALTINIAI
BLKŽ – Bendrinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas, vyr. red. D. Liutkevičienė. Prieiga internete: https://ekalba.lki.lt/bendrinės-lietuvių-kalbos-žodynas [žiūrėta 2024 m. birželį–rugsėjį].
DLKG – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika, 4-as patais. leidimas, red. V. Ambrazas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 2005.
DLKT – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos tekstynas. Prieiga internete: http://tekstynas.vdu.lt/tekstynas.
DLKŽ1 – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas, 1-as leidimas, atsak. red. J. Kruopas, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 1954.
DLKŽ2 – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas, 2-as papild. leidimas, atsak. red. J. Kruopas, Vilnius: Mintis, 1972.
DLKŽ8 – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas, vyr. red. St. Keinys, 8-as patais. ir papild. leidimas, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2021. Prieiga internete: https://ekalba.lt/dabartines-lietuviu-kalbos-zodynas.
eKP – Kalbos patarimai: kalbos rekomendacijų žinynas, sud. R. Miliūnaitė, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2021. Prieiga internete: https://ekalba.lt/kalbos-patarimai.
KPP – Kalbos praktikos patarimai, 2-as patais. ir papild. leidimas, sud. A. Pupkis, vyr. red. Z. Zinkevičius, aut. A. Paulauskienė, V. Labutis, A. Pupkis, J. Šukys, A. Vanagas, J. Žemaitis, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1985.
LKG – Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 1–2, vyr. red. K. Ulvydas, Vilnius: Mintis, 1965; 1971.
194
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XCI
Page 19
Daiktavardžiai su priesaga –istas, –ė variantškumo, normų ir dabartinės bendrinės lietuvių kalbos substandartizacijos aspektu
LK E – Lietuvių kalbos enciklopedija, par, K. Morkūnas, red. V. Ambrazas, 2-as patiksl. ir papild. leidimas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 2008.
LKŽ – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 2 (C–F), red. kolegija J. Kruopas, A. Lyberis, J. Paulauskas, J. Senkus, B. Tolutienė, atsak. red. J. Kruopas, 2-asis leidimas, Vilnius: Mintis, 1969.
ND – Miliūnaitė Rita, Aleksaitė Agnė. Lietuvių kalbos naujažodžių duomenynas [Tęstinis internetinis žinynas nuo 2011 m.], sud. R. Miliūnaitė, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Prieiga internete: https://ekalba.lt/naujažodžiai [žiūrėta 2024 m. birželį–rugsėjį].
15min.lt 2022 – Be aut.: Vilniaus vicemero V. Benkunsko r iktas: futbolininkes pav adino krepšininkėmis. Gruodžio 15 d. Prieiga internete: https://www.15min.lt/nau jiena/aktualu/lietuva/vilniaus-vicemero-v-benkunsko-r iktas-futbolininkes-pavadi no-krepsininkemis-56-1980902.
L I T E R A T Ū R A
Auer Peter 2017: The neo-standard of Italy and elsewhere in Europe. – Towards a New Standard: Theoretical and Empirical Studies on the Restandardization of Italian, eds. M. Cerruti, C. Crocco, S. Marzo, Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 365–374.
Auer Peter, Spiekermann Helmut 2011: Demotisation of the Standard Variety or Destandardisation? The Changing Status of German in Late Modernity (with special reference to south-western Germany). – Standard Languages and Language Standards in a Changing Europe, eds. T. Kristiansen, N. Coupland, Oslo: Novus Press, 161–176.
Berruto Gaetano 2017: What is changing in Italian today? Phenomena of restandardization in syntax and morphology: an overview. – Towards a new standard: Theoretical and empirical studies on the restandardization of Italian, eds. M. Cerruti, C. Crocco, S. Marzo, Boston, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter Inc., 31–60.
Coupland Nicolas 2007: Style: Language variation and identity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511755064.
Coupland Nikolas, Kristiansen Tore 2011: SLICE: Critical Perspectives on Language (De)standardization. – Standard Languages and Language Standards in a Changing Europe, eds. T. Kristiansen, N. Coupland, Oslo: Novus Press, 11–35.
Keinys Stasys 1999: Bendrinės lietuvių kalbos žodžių daryba, Šiauliai: Šiaulių universiteto leidykla.
Straipsniai / Articles
195
Page 20
RITA MILIŪNAITĖ
Keinys Stasys 2005: Dabartinė lietuvių terminologija, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.
Kristiansen Tore 2021: Destandardization. – The Cambridge Handbook of Language Standardization, eds. W. Ayres-Bennett, J. Bellamy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 667–690.
Mikulėnienė Danguolė 2020: Tarmiškumas kaip išmatuojamas dydis. – Lietuvių kalba 15, 1–11. DOI: 10.15388/LK.2020.22434.
Miliūnaitė Rita 2018: Kalbos normos ir jų savireguliacija interneto bendruomenėje, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.
Miliūnaitė Rita 2022: Įvairuojantys ir nauji lietuvių kalbos reiškiniai XXI a. pradžioje: sistematika ir pokyčių kryptys, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. DOI: 10.35321/e-pub.42.lietuviu-kalbos-pokyčiai.
Pillière Linda, Lewis Diana 2018: Revisiting standardisation and variation. – E-rea [En ligne] 15(2). DOI: 10.4000/erea.6391.
Pupkis Aldonas 1980: Kalbos kultūros pagrindai, Vilnius: Mokslas.
Stoeckle Philipp, Svenstrup Christoph Hare 2011: Language variation and (de-) standardisation processes in Germany. – Standard languages and language standards in a changing Europe, eds. T. Kristiansen, N. Coupland, Oslo: Novus Press, 83–90.
Stundžia Bonifacas, Inčiuraitė-Noreikienė 2022: Vardžodinių hibridinių priesagų vedinių, pavadinančių asmenis, ir bendrašaknių skolinių konkurencija dabartinėje lietuvių kalboje. – Baltistica 57(2), 239–261. DOI: 10.15388/Baltistica.57.2.2486.
Urbutis Vincas 2009: Žodžių darybos teorija, 2-as leidimas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.
Walter Harry 2018: Research on non-standard language elements in Slavonic languages. – Językoznawstwo 12, 13–32. DOI: 10.25312/2391-5137.12/2018_13–32.
196
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XCI
Page 21
Daiktavardžiai su priesaga –istas, –ė variantiškumo, normų ir dabartinės bendrinės lietuvių kalbos substandartizacijos aspektu
Nouns with the Suffix –istas, –ė in the Aspect of Variation, Norm and Substandardization of the Current Standard Lithuanian Language
SUMMARY
This article examines nouns with the suffix –istas, –ė denoting persons. These words are characterised by variation, norm fluctuation and innovation in the current Lithuanian language. The article aims to investigate the characteristics of new hybrid formations with this suffix and to identify possible connections to the sub-standardization of the standard Lithuanian language.
The study draws on the Lithuanian Neologism Database, which compiles the new Lithuanian lexicon of the 21st century. The first part of the article discusses the features and variability of nouns with the suffix –istas, –ė, while the second part is devoted to the relationship of these words to the standard language norm. The third part analyzes the semantic and functional features of new hybrids.
The research findings reveal several semantic and functional innovations of new hybrids with the suffix –istas, –ė. In the sub-standard, hybrid derivatives combining native roots with the borrowed suffix –istas, –ė have emerged. About two-thirds of them carry negative connotations and are used to denote persons engaged in harmful or useless activities. The hypothesis that non-standard derivatives of the suffix –istas, –ė enter the standard language usage (represented by the mainstream media) from the emerging sub-standard has been confirmed. This can be considered one of the indicators of the sub-standardization of the standard Lithuanian and shows similarities with the models of the dynamics of European standard languages.
