Šiaurės žemaičių vandens gyvūnų pavadinimų nominacija ir motyvacija

ŽYDRŪNĖ ŠALAVIEJŪTĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language ORCID id: orcid.org/0009–0003–4998–9657 Research areas: lexical semantics, lexicography, ethnolinguistics. DOI: doi.org/10.35321/all91-10 NOMINATION AND MOTIVATION OF NORTHERN SAMOGITIAN AQUATIC ANIMAL NAMES Nomination and Motivation of the Names of Aquatic Animals in the Northern Samogitian Subdialect ABSTRACT The article presents a study of a small subsystem of the thematic group of Lithuanian zoonymic names—names of aquatic animals in the Northern Samogitian subdialect. It seeks to determine which lexemes are used in the subdialect to name aquatic animals and what the nominational and motivational characteristics of the names under study are. The study draws on the methodological practice of comprehensive linguistic research. The sources of the empirical material are LKŽe and dictionaries of the Northern Samogitian subdialect. A detailed analysis of lexicographic sources helped establish the scope of the names. The relationship between motivated and unmotivated names, the predominant types, kinds, modes, and means of nomination, the principal features of motivation, and the variety of motivational models were established. KEYWORDS: Northern Samogitian subdialect, motivation, nomination, onomasiology, aquatic animal names. ANNOTATION This article presents a study of the Northern Samogitian lexical thematic group of aquatic animals names. The research aims to identify the lexemes used to name water animals in this regional dialect and to study the nomination and motivation features of these names. The research employs a methodological approach that integrates complex linguistic analysis. The empirical material is drawn from the Lietuvių kalbos žodynas (LKŽe) and dictionaries of the North Samogitian dialect. A thorough analysis of these lexicographical sources has 248 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XCI Šiaurės žemaičių vandens gyvūnų pavadinimų nominacija ir motyvacija allowed for the determination of the names’ coverage. The study identifies the ratio between motivated and unmotivated lexemes, dominant types and tools of nomination, key features of motivation, and the variety of motivation models. KEYWORDS: Northern Samogitian subdialect, motivation, nomination, onomasiology, aquatic animals names. 1. INTRODUCTION One of the most relevant research directions in contemporary linguistics is the relationship between language and reality, and between language and thought. In seeking to investigate the complex processes of language, cognition, and thought, ideas concerning the expansion of linguistic analysis have been advanced. For several decades, proponents of cognitive linguistics have sought to reveal the principles underlying the creation of names for various realities and the possibilities of linguistic means for conveying a conceptual view of the world. One such aspect of lexical research is the study of motivation (Panther, Radden 2011; Panther 2013; Grygel 2020; Droždž 2022). Animals are an inseparable part of human culture, thought, and language. Lithuanian animal names as a system whose members are united by a common semantic feature have been little studied. Somewhat more attention has been devoted to the study of the onomasiological system of domestic animals, birds, and insects (Šalaviejūtė 2022), and to analyses of the motivation of wild animals and reptiles and of the ethnolinguistic worldview (Jasiūnaitė 2010; Smetona 2015). In Lithuanian linguistics, a small part of the Lithuanian aquatic-animal lexicon has been studied from a geolinguistic perspective: descriptions with maps of the distribution of names for tadpoles, pike, roach, and rudd (LKA I). Several studies have addressed questions concerning the origin, semantics, and terminology of individual fish names (Urbutis 1981; 1997; 1999; 2002; Gaivenis 1995; Kabašinskaitė 2011; Blažek et al. 2011; Umbrasas 2015; Blažek 2018). There are no studies investigating the names of aquatic animals in a single Lithuanian dialect or subdialect¹, although several studies of Northern Samogitian lexis have recently appeared, seeking to determine which motivational feature or features underlie body-part names (Cerri 2021; Lubienė et al. 2021; Pakalniškienė, Lubienė 2023). Foreign studies encompassing the typology of the nomination and motivation of animal names are likewise scarce. Most attention has been devoted to zoonymic phraseology, metaphor, ethnozoological categorization, and ethnosemantics in individual ¹ Studies of other thematic (semantic) groups do exist: the motivation of Eastern Aukštaitian Panevėžiškiai phytonyms has been investigated in detail (Gritėnienė 2006), as have the nomination and motivation of Lithuanian myconyms (Lubienė 2015). Straipsniai / Articles 249 ŽYDRŪNĖ ŠALAVIEJŪTĖ languages (Berlin 1992; Nilsen 1996; Kiełtyka, Kleparski 2005; Goatły 2006; Santos-Fita et al. 2011; Wierzbicka 2013; Berezowski 2020). The motivation of zoonymic names in other languages is studied only sporadically (Alinei 1997; 2005; Goudi 2011). This study presents a comprehensive analysis of the names of Northern Samogitian aquatic animals (ŠŽVG). No linguistic studies investigating such a semantic paradigm exist. The relevance of the study is determined by its holistic approach to the object: the relationship between motivated and unmotivated aquatic-animal names has not been analyzed, it is not known which types, kinds, modes, and means of nomination predominate, the motivational features have not been established, and the inventory of the thematic subgroup is unclear. The field for research into aquatic-animal names is broad and promising. The study proceeds from the assumption that a systematic analysis of nomination types, modes, kinds, means, and motivational models is one of the methods that makes it possible to highlight the axiological and conceptual features of the reality being named. The aim of the study is to establish the nominational and motivational characteristics of ŠŽVG names. This aim is pursued through the following tasks: 1) on the basis of Lithuanian lexicographic sources, to establish the corpus of Northern Samogitian aquatic-animal names; 2) to establish the relationship between motivated and unmotivated names; 3) to establish the kinds and modes of nomination and the most typical means of motivated names; 4) to establish the explicit and implicit motivational features of motivated names and to identify the most typical motivational models. The scope of the ŠŽVG names under investigation comprises 107 invariant² lexemes, covering the names of fish, amphibians, worms, mollusks, and insects. The empirical material was collected from published lexicographic sources recording Northern Samogitian lexis: the electronic Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language (LKŽe), Dictionary of the Kretinga Dialect (KretŽ), Dictionary of Northwestern Samogitian (ŠVŽŽ I–II), and Atlas of the Lithuanian Language (LKA I). The lexemes were selected according to two criteria—semantic and distributional. Analysis of the meanings of aquatic-animal names may have interdisciplinary practical value in improving traditional and creating new lexicographic sources. To maintain methodological coherence, the classification and terms proposed in Jūratė Lubienė’s monograph (Lubienė 2015) are used. A distinction is made between unmotivated (primary) nomination and motivated (secondary) nomination³, nominative theme, motiveme, and motivational model. In describing the semantics of ŠŽVG, the term lexeme is used, ² All selected lexemes are attested in the area of the Northern Samogitian subdialect. ³ Traditionally, according to the relationship of nominational units to other words, a distinction is made between primary and secondary (secondary direct, secondary indirect) nomination (Jakaitienė 2009: 22–24). This article uses the terms unmotivated and motivated nomination. It follows Jūratė Lubienė’s proposed division of nomination types into unmotivated (primary) and motivated (secondary) nomination (for details, see Lubienė 2015: 24–25). 250 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XCI Šiaurės žemaičių vandens gyvūnų pavadinimų nominacija ir motyvacija nomination—the term nominative theme, and motivation—the term motiveme. The analysis of each nominative theme comprises several stages (cf. Šalaviejūtė 2022: 28–29): 1) determining to which nomination type—motivated or unmotivated—the nominative themes under investigation belong; 2) when investigating nominative themes of the unmotivated nomination type, determining to which nomination kind—internal or external—the nominative themes under investigation belong; 3) when investigating nominative themes of the motivated nomination type, determining the modes and means of nomination. In studying the motivation of ŠŽVG names, names are viewed as lexical units representing conceptual features at different levels of abstraction, which are systematized by establishing motivational models and their types. A multi-stage analysis of motivemes is applied. At the first, lowest level of abstraction, semantic features characteristic of motivemes are established on the basis of semantic and derivational word analysis. At the second stage of analysis, semantic motivational models are established. At the third, highest level of abstraction, types of semantic motivational models are established. The comprehensive aspect of the study creates the preconditions for highlighting the onomasiological structure of each name under investigation and the most typical conceptual features. 2. TYPES, KINDS, MODES, AND MEANS OF NOMINATION OF ŠŽVG NAMES The onomasiological system of the lexemes under investigation consists of nominative themes of the unmotivated and motivated nomination types. 2.1. About 20 percent of the names are unmotivated words, that is, without special etymological or historical research they cannot be related to any other words, and their onomasiological structure is synchronically opaque. Most of the unmotivated names are words of ancient origin⁴, which are used not only in the Northern Samogitian subdialect under investigation but also in other subdialects and in the standard language, for example: ešerỹs, lýnas, lydekà, ungurỹs, varlė, vė̃gelė / vẽgelė, žuvis / žuvìs, and others. ⁴ This study does not seek to resolve questions concerning the origin of names belonging to unmotivated nomination. A diachronic analysis of names belonging to unmotivated nomination, and the establishment of nomination kinds, modes, means, and semantic motivational models, are regarded as prospects for further research. Straipsniai / Articles 251 ŽYDRŪNĖ ŠALAVIĖJŪTĖ A small proportion of the unmotivated names consists of loan vocabulary5. Among the nominative themes of the external nomination kind, Germanisms, Slavisms, or Slavisms that entered from Germanic languages predominate, for example: kuapė (German Quappe) LKŽe; seliavė (Belarusian сялява, Polish sielawa) LKŽe; kārpis / kārpė (Polish karp, Russian карп; German Karpfen) LKŽe, ŠVŽŽ I 268. 2.2. About 80 percent of the names belong to motivated lexis6. Nominative themes of the motivated nomination type have a synchronically transparent onomasiological structure and are based on other linguistic units that represent characteristic features of the concept of the reality being named. The motivated ŠŽVG names belong to three nomination kinds: affixal (60 percent), compositional (37 percent), and semantic (3 percent). 2.2.1. ŠŽVG names of the affixal nomination kind comprise two modes of morphological nomination: suffixation (the result being suffixes) and paradigmatization (the result being paradigmat ical formations). According to the part of speech to which the base word belongs, nominal and verbal derivatives are distinguished. Productive and unproductive means of nomination were identified. Among nominative themes of the affixal nomination kind, suffixes predominate—they account for over 80 percent of all affixal formations. The inventory of derivational means—suffixes—is particularly extensive, comprising about 20. Nominal suffix derivatives account for 85 percent of suffixes. A large proportion of suffixes consists of derivatives with diminutive suffixes. Diminutive forms with a diminutive meaning are derivatives with the suffixes -elis, -ė, -aitis, -ė (DLKG 88–93; LKG 254–261, 271–272): blaivėlė diminutive ‘stream bleak (Alburnoides bipunctatus)’ LKŽe, ŠVŽŽ I 65, karosėlis diminutive ‘crucian carp’ (Carassius carassius) ŠVŽŽ I 268, guirėlė diminutive ‘gudgeon (Gobio fluviatilis)’ ŠVŽŽ I 210, medvėželis diminutive ‘caddisfly larva (Phryganea grandis)’ ŠVŽŽ I 426, raudėlė diminutive ‘rudd (Rutilus rutilus)’ ŠVŽŽ II 131, silkėlė diminutive ‘herring (Clupea harengus)’ ŠVŽŽ II 183, stekėlis diminutive ‘stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus)’ ŠVŽŽ II 239, stintėlė ‘small fish; European smelt (Osmerus eperlanus)’ LKŽe, ŠVŽŽ II 241, varlelė diminutive ‘frog’ ŠVŽŽ II 415, žuvelė diminutive ‘fish’ ŠVŽŽ II 497; ešeraitis diminutive ‘perch (Perca fluviatilis)’ ŠVŽŽ I 159, lydekaitė diminutive ‘small, young pike (Esox lucius)’ ŠVŽŽ I 388, žuvaitė diminutive ‘fish’ ŠVŽŽ II 497. Usually, the formation of these derivatives highlights the conceptual feature of the aquatic animals being named—their small size. Individual derivatives with the suffixes -iūkštis, -utis have the derivational meaning of smallness and insignificance, for example: varliūkštis 1 ‘froglet’ Kretž 475, ‘small frog’ LKŽe; sk v aukūtis ‘fish resembling a tadpole (Cottus gobio)’ LKŽe. 5 The origin of the loans was established on the basis of the data from the lexicographic sources studied. 6 The predominance of motivated words is regarded as a universal feature of the lexical system in various languages (Lakoff 1987: 346). 252 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XCI Šiaurės žemaičių vandens gyvūnų pavadinimų nominacija ir motyvacija Derivatives with other diminutive suffixes highlight not only the derivational meaning of smallness and insignificance but also have a meaning of origin, so it is difficult to draw a boundary between the diminutives among such derivatives and the category of possessors of a nominal feature. Usually, these ŠŽVG names designate the young of an amphibian (a larva)—a tadpole. The basis of the nomination is the lexeme varlė and various suffixes, for example: –iūkštis (DLKG 92–93; LKG 275–276) varliūkštis 2 ‘tadpole’ LKŽe; –ytis (DLKG 92; LKG 272–274) varlytės ‘the same’ LKA I 155, LKŽe, ŠVŽŽ II 415; –iūzas (DLKG 285) varliūzas ‘the same’ LKA I 155, LKŽe; –ožis (DLKG 123; LKG 359) varložis ‘the same’ LKŽe, KretŽ 475; –uitis (LKG 282) varluitis ‘the same’ LKA I 155, LKŽe; –ūtis (LKG 281–282) varlūtis ‘the same’ LKA I 155, LKŽe; –ūzas (DLKG 285) varlūzas ‘the same’ LKŽe; –ykštis (ibid.: 282) varlykštis ‘the same’ LKA I 155, LKŽe. One derivative with the suffix –inas (DLKG 142–143; LKG 418), denoting an animal according to sex difference, was recorded in the lexicographic sources studied: varlínas ‘male frog’ LKŽe (: varlė). A small group consists of ŠŽVG names belonging to the category of possessors of a nominal feature or agents, whose nominational basis comprises two adjectives denoting colors—bál̄tas, -à ‘white’ and žãlias, -ià ‘green’: –skė (DLKG 120; LKG 354) balškė ‘a small flat fish with white scales, swimming on the water’s surface or in shallow water’ LKŽe; –iukė (DLKG 121; LKG 355) žaliūkė ‘green frog, edible frog (Rana esculenta)’ KretŽ 496, LKŽe, ŠVŽŽ II 474; –iuokė (DLKG 123; LKG 361) žaliuokė ‘the same’ LKŽe. In some cases, establishing the basis and means of nomination is problematic⁷. Derivatives with the rare dialectal suffix –iša (see Skardžius 1996: 317) from the noun lášas ‘spot, speck’ could belong to the category of possessors of a nominal feature: lašišà 1 ‘large fish with reddish flesh (Salmo salar)’ LKŽe; lašišà 2 ‘brown trout (Salmo trutta)’ ŠVŽŽ I 374 (cf. Urbutis 1981: 167–169; Blažek et al. 2011: 112–114). Considerably fewer derivatives with verbal suffixes were found. These ŠŽVG names belong to the categories of possessors of a verbal feature and agents. A small group consists of names of various aquatic creatures based on the action they perform. The derivational meaning of these derivatives could be defined as ‘one who performs a certain action,’ for example: –ėlė (LKG 334) siurbėlė / surbėlė ‘leech’ LKŽe, ŠVŽŽ II 258 (: siurbti, siurbia, siurbė ‘to suck’); –ikas (DLKG 106; LKG 320–321) čiuožikas ‘an insect of the true-bug order that jumps on the water’s surface’ ŠVŽŽ I 98 (: čiuožti, čiuožia, čiuožė ‘to glide’); –lys, –lė (DLKG 106–107; LKG 321–322) parplė⁸ ‘green frog’ LKŽe (: parp̄ti, parpia, parpė ‘to croak’), pyplỹs ‘weather loach (Misgurnus fossilis’ LKŽe, ŠVŽŽ ⁷ Synchronically, it is difficult to discern the nominational basis of some nominative themes. A nominative theme is considered motivated if it can be related to a base word. ⁸ The symbol ° marks lexemes that are unaccented in the dictionary. Straipsniai / Articles 253 ŽYDRŪNĖ ŠALAVIEJŪTĖ II 62 (: pŷpti, pŷpia, pŷpė); -skė plūškė ‘a small fish resembling rudd’ (: plūkti, plūnka, plūksta, plūko ‘to swim’); -šė (DLKG 111; LKG 331) pliuškė ‘such a small fish’ LKŽe (: pliuškėti, pliuškė, pliuškėjo ‘to jump (in water)’); -ūnas (DLKG 107; LKG 322–323) vijūnas ‘a small, slender fish with small scales, weather loach (Misgurnus fossilis)’ LKŽe, ŠVŽŽ II 446 (: vŷti, vėja, vijo ‘to wind, twist’). The categorical meanings of ending derivatives are close to those of suffix derivatives; however, among ŠŽVG names there are considerably fewer paradigmatical formations than suffixes—only one-fifth of all nominative themes of the affixal nomination kind. A small group consists of nominal ending derivatives whose nominational basis comprises qualitative adjectives (the result being deadjectival formations) and nouns (the result being denominal formations). Nominal paradigmatical formations have the categorical meaning of a possessor of a feature, for example: blaivà ‘stream bleak (Alburnoides bipunctatus)’ LKŽe, ŠVŽŽ I 65 (: blaivùs, blaivì ‘whitish, light’), raũdė / raũdà ‘bream, roach (Rutilus rutilus)’ KretŽ 337, LKŽe, ŠVŽŽ II 131 (: raũdas, raudà ‘reddish, sorrel-colored’), mėnkė ‘greenish, brown-spotted commercial sea fish (Gadus morrhua)’ LKŽe, ŠVŽŽ I 430 (: mėnkаs, menkà); lašė ‘brown trout (Salmo trutta)’ ŠVŽŽ I 373 (: lašas ‘spot, speck’), šlakys ‘sea trout (Salmo trutta)’ LKŽe (: šlakas ‘spot, speck’), puõkis ‘ruffe (Acerina cernua)’ KretŽ 326, LKŽe (: puõkas ‘fluff’). Only a few verbal ending derivatives are recorded in the lexicographic sources. Their nominational basis comprises verbs (the result being deverbal formations). Verbal paradigmatical formations have the categorical meaning of a possessor of a verbal feature or an agent, for example: gūrė ‘a small fish—gudgeon, gudgeon-like fish, stone loach, stickleback (Gobio fluviatilis)’ LKŽe, ŠVŽŽ I 210 (: gūrti, gūra, gūro ‘to crumble, become small, scatter’; gurùs, gurì ‘crumbly, friable, fragile⁹’), plūkė ‘a small fish, sunbleak, bleak (Leucaspius delineatus)’ LKŽe (: plūkti, plūnka, plūko ‘to swim’). 2.2.2. The compositional nomination kind¹⁰ ŠŽVG names account for somewhat more than one-third of the motivated nominative themes. Researchers who have examined the problems of compounds have noted that it is difficult to establish universal criteria for classifying compounds (Jarmalavičius 2014: 19–21; Stundžia, Jarmalavičius 2019: 23; Smetonienė 2020: 134). In describing the structure of composites, the classification of compounds proposed by Vincas Urbutis is followed (DLKG 150–167). First, the part of speech of the second component of the composite is determined. According to this criterion, ŠŽVG names ⁹ The distinction between derivational categories is not always clear (see Ambrazas 1993: 12). ¹⁰ Several fish names formed by collocational nomination are recorded in the illustrations to entries in the lexicographic sources studied, for example: river smelt, pigeon pike. The limited extent of this nomination mode is determined by the fact that collocational names are not presented as separate headwords in explanatory dictionaries. Because of their limited extent and registration problems, the collocational nomination kind is not discussed separately at this stage of the study. 254 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XCI Šiaurės žemaičių vandens gyvūnų pavadinimų nominacija ir motyvacija forms two groups: compounds with a noun as the second component and compounds with a verb as the second component. Compounds with a noun as the second component constitute the majority—about 83 percent—of composites. Most are compounds formed from two nouns. One group of such formations comprises invariant names for an amphibian young (larva)—the tadpole—emphasizing the creature’s disproportionately large, distinctive head. The second component of such names is the somatonym galva ‘head’, for example: buožgalvís / buožgalvis / buožgalvìs LKA I 155, LKŽe, buožgalvis LKA I 155, bužógalvis LKA I 155, varlagalvìs / varlãgalvis ‘tadpole’ LKŽe, bužūngalvis / bužùngalvis / bužungálvis / bužungálvis / bužunggalvis LKA I 155, LKŽe, ŠVŽŽ I 86, varlõžgalvis ‘tadpole’ LKŽe; varlūžgalvis ‘the same’ LKA I 155, varlėžgalvis ‘the same’ LKŽe, ŠVŽŽ II 415. Several names for tadpoles have been recorded whose second components are the abstract noun galas ‘end’ or the transferred-meaning component kaušas ‘skull, ladle’, for example: bužūngalis / bužūngalis ‘tadpole’ LKA I 155; varlãkaušis / varlakaušis 2 ‘the same’ LKA I 155, LKŽe. The first and/or second components of several composites have transferred meanings, for example: šūdpilvė / šūdpilvis ‘a small fish resembling roach’ ŠVŽŽ II 305, mėdužėlis ‘a small aquatic worm, a larva with a case (Phryganea grandis)’ LKŽe, ŠVŽŽ I 426, varlãkaušis / varlakaušis 1 ‘mollusk, shellfish’ LKŽe, ŠVŽŽ II 414, varlãkriauklis ‘mollusk, shellfish’ LKŽe, aštuonrañkis ‘octopus’ LKŽe. The first components of these compounds are nouns, except for the numeral aštuoni, aštuonios ‘eight’. A small group consists of composites whose first components are adjectives describing a qualitative feature of the second, nominal component, for example: blánklašis ‘a fish of the carp family, stream bleak, surface bleak (Alburnus bipunctatus)’ LKŽe, kumpsnãpis ‘such a fish’ LKŽe, raudõnšparnis / raudõnsparnis LKA I 154, raũdsparnis / raũdsparnis / raudsparnỹs LKA I 154, LKŽe, rieb­silkė ‘fat herring (Clupea harengus)’ LKŽe. Compounds with a verbal second component are not numerous. The first components of such compounds are nouns naming the object of the action expressed by the verb, for example: arklašurbė ‘horse leech’ LKŽe, upėtakis ‘a fairly large, valuable freshwater fish of the salmon family, with dark spots (Salmo trutta)’ LKŽe, ŠVŽŽ II 386. It is difficult to interpret the derivational basis of the compounds rãtkystis ‘common bullhead (Cottus gobio)’, rãtpisa ‘common bullhead (Cottus gobio)’ LKŽe. It is likely that the second component of the lexeme rãtkystis is the noun kystis ‘a sharpened stake used to plug something, a peg’, and it is therefore considered a compound; however, the meaning of the fish may also be understood metaphorically: rãtkystis ‘a peg inserted into an axle through the hub so that the wheel does not come off’ → ‘common bullhead (Cottus gobio)’ (cf. Urbutis 2002: 275). The metaphorization of the compound is important in the nomination process; therefore, such nomination Straipsniai / Articles 255 ŽYDRŪNĖ ŠALAVIEJŪTĖ could be regarded as nomination by a mixed (compositional and semantic) mode. The interpretation of the lexeme rātpisa is no less difficult. It is likely that the second component is the verb pisti (pisa, piso), now recognized only in the vulgar meaning ‘coire’. As V. Urbutis indicates, the derivation of rātpisa presupposes “that verb having formerly had the broader semantics ‘to insert, screw, hammer’” (Urbutis 2002: 276). More data would be needed for a more reliable interpretation. 2.2.3. The semantic nomination kind is unproductive in the system of ŠŽVG name nomination. The formal structure of such nominative themes and of the lexemes serving as the basis of nomination does not differ. The formation of a new name is based on a semantic (metaphorical or metonymic) transformation (Lubienė 2015: 62–63; Šalaviejūtė 2022: 62). Only a few such examples have been recorded: kváukė / skváukė ‘head’ → ‘a fish resembling a tadpole (Cottus gobio)’ LKŽe, ŠVŽŽ I 360; II 209; ošikà ‘goat’ → ‘such a fish’ LKŽe; rubuilis 1 ‘a fat, round person or thing’ → ‘a small fish of the carp family (Gobio gobio)’, rubuilis 2 → ‘the young of any fish’ (cf. Urbutis 1997: 5–8). 3. MOTIVATIONAL MODELS AND THEIR TYPES FOR ŠŽVG NAMES The analysis of nomination showed that the largest proportion of ŠŽVG names consists of lexemes belonging to motivated nomination, or motivemes. In the onomasiological structure of names, conceptual features are recorded not only by structural motivators (in the form of affixes) but also by lexical motivators (in the form of roots). According to the semantic proximity of lexical motivators, motivemes form certain motivational models (MM) and types of motivational models (MMT) (cf. Lubienė 2015: 78–180). It was established that ŠŽVG names are characterized by four MMTs: descriptive, functional, possessive-reproductive, and comparative. 3.1. The descriptive MMT is based on the cognitive principle of qualitativeness (see ibid.: 78). In the process of motivation, cognitive information about the entity being named (its concept) is used. Lexical motivators explicitly (through the direct meanings of lexical motivators) describe the reality being named (its concept). It was established that ŠŽVG names instantiate colorative, morphological, figurative, and acoustic MMs. The basis of the colorative MM is a color or body-pattern feature. Its schema is: ‘X color → Y animal (animal body part)’. Fourteen invariant mot items are assigned to this MM: bal̃skė LKŽe; blaĩva LKŽe, ŠVŽŽ I 65, blaĩvelė LKŽe, ŠVŽŽ I 65; blánklãsis LKŽe, lãšė ŠVŽŽ I 373, lašišà 1 LKŽe; lašišà 2 ŠVŽŽ I 374; raũdė / raũdà KretŽ 337, LKŽe, ŠVŽŽ II 131, raũdelė ŠVŽŽ II 131; raudõnšparnis / raudónsparnis / raud̃sparnis / ráudsparnis / raud̃sparný̃s 256 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XCI Šiaurės žemaičių vandens gyvūnų pavadinimų nominacija ir motyvacija LKA I 154, LKŽė; šlakýs LKŽė; žaliūkė, KretŽ 496, LKŽė, ŠVŽŽ II 474, žaliuõkė LKŽė. The inventory of lexical motivators consists of eight coloratives conveying the white / pale, brownish / red, spotted color of a fish’s body (body part), and the green color of a frog’s body. The basis of the morphological MM is a feature of the animal’s internal structure (or morphology). The schema of this MM is: ‘X morphological feature → Y animal’. Two examples are assigned to it: ménkė LKŽė, ŠVŽŽ I 430; riėbsilkė LKŽė. The inventory of lexical motivators consists of two adjectives conveying the properties of meagre, lean, weak (cf. Sutežo tos visos ménkės mano. Išdžiūvęs kaip ménkė LKŽė) and fatty (cf. Geros liuob būs rieb­silkės, tas rasalas būs riebus, vieni taukai LKŽė) fish meat. The basis of the figurative MM is a feature of the animal’s form. Its schema is: ‘X form → Y animal’. Two examples are assigned to it: kumpsnãpis LKŽė; rubuìlis 1 LKŽė. The lexical motivators convey the feature of the hunched or rounded shape of a fish’s body (body part). The basis of the acoustic MM is a feature of the sound produced by the animal. Its schema is: ‘X sound → Y animal’. Two examples are assigned to it: ỏrplė LKŽė, pyplỹs LKŽė, ŠVŽŽ II 62. The lexical motivators convey the acoustic features of a frog’s croaking and a fish’s squeaking (cf. Pyplỹs y(ra) tokis kaip gyvatė, ka(i) pjauni – kriōk(ia) LKŽė). 3.2. The functional MMT unites such ŠŽVG names whose motivational basis consists of actions and movements typical of the animal. In the onomasiological structure, actions or movements characteristic of the animal (the kinesic function) are represented by verbal lexical motivators with direct meanings. The schema of the functional MMT is: ‘X action, movement → Y animal’. Ten examples are assigned to it: guirė LKŽė, ŠVŽŽ I 210, guirėlė ŠVŽŽ I 210, siurbėlė / surbėlė LKŽė, ŠVŽŽ II 258, arklãsiurbė LKŽė; čiuožikas ŠVŽŽ I 98, plùkė, plùškė, vijūnas LKŽė, ŠVŽŽ II 446. The lexical motivators convey the sucking of blood by invertebrates (cf. Pridėk siurbėlę, ka kraują ištrauktum LKŽė), movement on the surface of the water, the disturbance of a water body’s bottom by fish, swimming, and movement after being caught. 3.3. The possessive–reproductive MMT unites conceptual features of the animal’s origin. The onomasiological structure records reproductive and belonging features of the animal, naming young animals or adult animals of the opposite sex. The lexical basis of all mot items belonging to this MMT is the motivator varlė: varliūkštis 2 LKŽė, varlytės LKA I 155, LKŽė, ŠVŽŽ II 415, varliūžas LKA I 155, LKŽė, varlõžis LKŽė, KretŽ 475, varliùtis LKA I 155, LKŽė, varlùtis LKA I 155, varlūžas LKŽė, varlykštis LKA I 155, LKŽė; varlīnas LKŽė. 3.4. The comparative MMT is based on the cognitive principle of comparison. The feature of motivation selected during nomination is implicit, Straipsniai / Articles 257 ŽYDRŪNĖ ŠALAVIEJŪTĖ while the animal’s similarity to another reality (its concept) is recorded explicitly. The principle of comparison links three metaphorical MMs: artifact-based, somatic-zoosomatic, and phytonymic-natural. The artifact-based MM includes such ŠŽVG names whose lexical motivators are names of objects. Its schema is: ‘X artifact → Y animal’, for example: buožgalvis / buožgalvis / buožgalvį LKA I 155, LKŽe, buožagalvis LKA I 155; varlakausis / varlakaušis 2 LKA I 155, LKŽe; rãtykšis LKŽe, rãtpisa LKŽe. The somatic-zoosomatic MM includes such ŠŽVG names whose lexical motivators are names of human and animal body parts. Its schema is: ‘X body part → Y animal’, for example: varložgalvis LKŽe, bužógalvis LKA I 155; bužungalį / bužungalį LKA I 155; kumpsnãpis ‘such a fish’ LKŽe; šūdpilvė / šūdpilvis ŠVŽŽ II 305; kvãukė / skvãukė LKŽe, ŠVŽŽ I 360; II 209. The phytonymic-natural MM includes such ŠŽVG names whose lexical motivators explicate natural realities. Its schema is: ‘X natural reality → Y animal’, for example: puokis KretŽ 326, LKŽe; varlakausis / varlakaušis 1 ‘mollusc, bivalve’ LKŽe, ŠVŽŽ II 414. CONCLUSIONS 1. The names of aquatic animals in the Northern Samogitian dialect form a fairly large word group: 107 lexical units of this semantics have been recorded in lexicographic sources, including formal (phonetic, accentual, morphological) variants. They form a system with fairly clear boundaries—the thematic group of aquatic-animal names—which is shaped and structured by both cognitive and linguistic principles. The largest subsystem of the thematic group consists of fish names—65 invariants—and amphibian names—31 invariants; only a few names of invertebrate animals (molluscs, worms, insects) have been recorded—11 invariants. 2. The onomasiological study of the nomination of Northern Samogitian names for aquatic animals highlighted the types, kinds, methods, and means of nomination characteristic of them, with dominant elements. Motivated lexicon predominates—it accounts for 80 percent of all the studied Northern Samogitian names for aquatic animals. 3. In the nomination system of the names under study, two types of motivated nomination—affixal and compositional—are the most productive, together encompassing about 97 percent of motivated nom items. The semantic type of nomination is unproductive (3 percent). 4. The onomasiological system of motivated Northern Samogitian names for aquatic animals consists of four types of motivation models: descriptive, functional, possessive-reproductive, and comparative. In the onomasiological system 258 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XCI Šiaurės žemaičių vandens gyvūnų pavadinimų nominacija ir motyvacija 1–2 motivation features are usually recorded. These features may be expressed explicitly and implicitly, by structural and lexical motivators. 5. A systematic analysis of motivation models highlighted two main operations in the process of name formation: a) an objective evaluation of reality based on sensory (visual, auditory, tactile) perceptions; b) an associative evaluation of reality based on the mechanism of metaphor. An onomasiological analysis of names as results of the nomination and motivation process is a reliable way to investigate the worldview in language. The conceptual sphere of aquatic-animal names is a promising area of ethnolinguistic research, deserving greater attention from researchers and collectors. ŠALTINIAI Kreĭž – Aleksandravičius Juozas. Kretingos tarmės žodynas, sud. D. Mikulėnienė, D. Vaišnienė, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2011. LKA I – Lietuvių kalbos atlasas 1: Leksika, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1977. LKŽe – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 1–20 (1941–2002), red. kolegija G. Naktinienė, J. Paulauskas, R. Petrokienė, V. Vitkauskas, J. Zabarskaitė, vyr. red. G. Naktinienė, e. variantas, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2008 (atnaujinta versija, 2018). Prieiga internete: https://ekalba.lt/liet uvių-kalbos-zodynas/. ŠVŽŽ – Vanagienė Birutė. Šiaurės vakarų žemaičių žodynas 1–2 (2014–2015), Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. LITERATŪRA Alinei Mario 1997: Magico-religious motivations in European dialects: a contribution to archaeolinguistics. – Dialectologia et Geolinguistica 5, 3–30. Alinei Mario 2005: Names of animals, animals as names: synthesis of a research. – Animal Names, Venezia: Istituto Veneto di Scienze, 245–268. Ambrazas Saulius 1993: Daiktavardžių darybos raida 1: Lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodiniai vediniai, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Berezowski Leszek 2020: English animal zero plurals. A new explanation. – Beiträge zur allgemeinen und vergleichenden Sprachwissenschaft 9, 7–27. Berlin Brent 1992: Ethnobiological Classification: Principles of Categorization of Plants and Animals in Traditional Societies. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Blažek Václav 2018: Baltic *aušk[l]ejas m. & *aušk[l]ejā f. “bleak”. – Baltistica 53(1), 99–112. Straipsniai / Articles 259 ŽYDRŪNĖ ŠALAVIEJŪTĖ Blažek Václav, Čeladín Jindřich, Bětákova Marta 2011: Old Prussian fish-names. – Baltistica 39(1), 107–126. Cerri Adriano 2021: Sul lessico anatomico dell’area dialettale nord-samogizia: presti e calchi. – Intersezioni baltistiche. Studi e saggi, Novi Ligure (AL), 215–232. DLKG – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika, 4-oji patais. laida, red. V. Ambrazas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 2006. Drożdż Grzegorz 2022: Gestalt principles of perception as a factor motivating the irregular properties of uninflected plural-only nouns. – Linguistica Silesiana, 25–42. Gaivenis Kazimieras 1995: Kai kurių žuvų pavadinimai. – Terminologija 2, 86–91. Goatly Andrew 2006: Humans, animals, and metaphors. – Society & Animals 14(1), 15–37. Goudi Maria 2011: Etude motivationnelle de la zoonymie dialectale dans les variétés linguistique de l’île de Lesbos (Grèce): daktaro disertacija, Grenoble: Université de Grenoble. Gritėnienė Aurelija 2006: Augalų pavadinimų motyvacija šiaurės panevėžiškių patarmėje, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Grygel Marcin 2020: The cognitive motivation behind the semantics of hungarian co-verbal constructions with ossze and szet. – Acta biologica cracoviensia series botanica 61(1), 31–47. Jakaitienė Evalda 2009: Leksikologija, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Jarmalavičius Dalius 2014: Vokiečių kalbos dūrinių daryba XV–XVIII a. rankraštiniuose dvikalbiuose baltų kalbų žodynuose: daktaro disertacija, Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas. Jasiūnaitė Birutė 2010: Šventieji ir nelabieji frazeologijoje ir liaudies kultūroje, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Kabašinskaitė Birutė 2011: Banginis mūsų raštijos bangose. – Archivum Lithuanicum 13, 113–130. Kiełtyka Robert, Kleparski Grzegorz 2005: The ups and downs of the Great Chain of Being: The case of canine zoosemy in the history of English. – SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 2, 22–41. Lakoff George 1987: Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. LKG – Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 1: Fonetika ir morfologija (daiktavardis, būdvardis, skaitvardis, įvardis), vyr. red. K. Ulvydas, Vilnius: Mintis, 1965. 260 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XCI Šiaurės žemaičių vandens gyvūnų pavadinimų nominacija ir motyvacija Lubienė Jūratė 2015: Lietuvių kalbos mikonimai: nominacija ir motyvacija, Klaipėda: Klaipėdos universiteto leidykla. Lubienė Jūratė, Pakalniškienė Dalia, Cerri Adriano 2021: Moters lytinių organų pavadinimai šiaurės žemaičių patarmėje. – Intersezioni baltistiche. Studi e saggi, Novi Ligure (AL), 85–111. Nilsen Allen P. 1996: Of ladybugs and billy goats: What animal species names tell about human perceptions of gender. – Metaphor and Symbol 11(4), 257–271. Pakalniškienė Dalia, Lubienė Jūratė 2023: Sėdmenų pavadinimai šiaurės žemaičių patarmėje. – Baltistica 58(2), 287–314. Panther Klaus-Uwe 2013: Motivation in language. – Cognition and motivation: Forging an interdisciplinary perspective, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 407–432. Panther Klaus-Uwe, Radden Günter 2011: Motivation in grammar and the lexicon, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Sabaliauskas Algirdas 1990: Lietuvių kalbos leksika, Vilnius: Mokslas. Santos-Fita Dídac, Costa-Neto Eraldo, Sciavetti Alexandre 2011: Constitution of ethnozoological semantic domains: meaning and inclusiveness of the lexeme “insect” for the inhabitants of the county of Pedra Branca, Bahia State, Brazil. – Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências 83(2), 589–598. Skardžius Pranas 1996: Rinktiniai raštai 1: Lietuvių kalbos žodžių daryba, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Smetona Marius 2015: Lietuvių kalbos eufemizmai: raiška ir motyvacija: daktaro disertacija, Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas. Smetonienė Anželika 2020: Žodyno „Promptuarium dictionum Polonicarum, Latinarum et Lituanicarum“ dūriniai. – Res humanitariae 28, 133–145. Stundžia Bonifacas, Jarmalavičius Dalius 2019: Daiktavardžių dūryba vokiškuose XVII–XVIII a. baltų kalbų žodynuose, Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Šalaviejūtė Žydrūnė 2022: Lietuvių kalbos zoonimų nominacija ir motyvacija: gyvulių, naminių paukščių ir vabzdžių pavadinimai: daktaro disertacija, Klaipėda: Klaipėdos universitetas. Umbrasas Alvydas 2015: Jūra biologijos nomenklatūroje. – Terminologija 22, 78–97. Urbutis Vincas 1981: Kuršininkų žuvų pavadinimai. – Baltų etimologijos etiudai, 135–179. Vilnius: Mokslas. Straipsniai / Articles 261 ŽYDRŪNĖ ŠALAVIEJŪTĖ Urbutis Vincas 1997: Lie. (ž.) rubūlis, giùrė, (ryt.) kriaunỹs, la. (latg.) kūrmelis ir kiti ne(iš)aiškinti GOBIO GOBIO (L.) pavadinimai. – Baltistica 32(1), 5–23. Urbutis Vincas 1999: Nei paukštis, nei grybas, tik marga žuvelė... – Baltistica 34, 77–80. Urbutis Vincas 2002: Lie. (ž.) ratpìšis ir panašùs COTTUS GOBIO L. pavadinimai. – Baltistica 37(2), 273–276. Wierzbicka Anna 2013: Polish zwierzęta ‘animals’ and jabłka ‘apples’: an ethnosemantic inquiry. – The linguistic worldview: Ethnolinguistics, cognition, and culture, London: Versita, 137–159. Nomination and Motivation of the Names of Aquatic Animals in the Northern Samogitian Subdialect SUMMARY This study presents a comprehensive analysis of the names of aquatic animals in the Northern Samogitian subdialect. The empirical material was collected from lexicographic sources: the electronic Lietuvių kalbos žodynas (LKŽe), Kretingos tarmės žodynas (KretŽ), Šiaurės vakarų žemaičių žodynas (ŠVŽŽ I–II), and Lietuvių kalbos atlasas (LKA I). The aim is to determine which lexemes are used to refer to aquatic animals in the Northern Samogitian subdialect and to examine the nomination and motivation features of these names. The names of aquatic animals in the Northern Samogitian subdialect constitute a substantial lexical group: 107 lexical units, including formal (phonetic, accentual, morphological) invariants, have been collected from the lexicographic sources. These names form a system with well-defined boundaries—a thematic group of aquatic animal names structured by both cognitive and linguistic principles. The largest subsystems within this group are the names of fish (65 invariants) and amphibians (31 invariants), while names for invertebrates (molluscs, worms, insects) are less numerous, with only 11 invariants. The onomasiological study of these names revealed characteristic types, methods, and tools of nomination, with motivated lexemes predominating—accounting for 80 per cent of all studied names. The two most productive types of motivated nomination are affixal and compositional, together making up about 97 per cent of motivated nominatives, while the semantic nomination is relatively unproductive (3 per cent). The onomasiological system of motivated Northern Samogitian aquatic animal names includes four types of motivation models: descriptive, functional, possessive-reproductive, 262 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XCI Šiaurės žemaičių vandens gyvūnų pavadinimų nominacija ir motyvacija and comparative. This system typically captures 1–2 motivational features, which can be expressed both explicitly and implicitly, through structural and lexical motivators. The systematic analysis of motivation models highlights two main operations in the name-creation process: (a) objective evaluation of reality based on sensory (visual, auditory, tactile) perceptions, and (b) associative evaluation of reality through metaphorical mechanisms. Analyzing names as results of nomination and motivation processes provides valuable insights into how the world is represented in language. The conceptual sphere of aquatic animal names presents a promising area for ethnolinguistic research and warrants further attention from researchers and collectors. Įteikta 2024 m. rugsėjo 13 d. ŽYDRŪNĖ ŠALAVIEJŪTĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas Petro Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius, Lietuva [email protected] Straipsniai / Articles 263