Žodžių darymas su atskalomis lietuvių kalboje

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/all89-05 WORD-FORMATION WITH SPLINTERS IN LITHUANIAN Word Formation with Splinters in the Lithuanian Language ABSTRACT The article examines an unconventional word-formation method emerging in Lithuanian that employs non-morphemic elements—splinters. It is promoted by the recent increase in contaminational borrowings in Lithuanian (usually from English), as well as by translated and native contaminational formations of this type. Both contamination and the formation of new words with splinters are spreading across many European languages and are receiving diverse scholarly attention. The article highlights the reasons for the formation of splinters and shows how some splinters undergo semantic generalization or specialization and enter the process of morphemization, eventually becoming derivational morphemes or even independent lexemes. The study is based on data collected since the beginning of the 21st century in the Database of Lithuanian Neologisms, including both borrowed contaminational formations and those that are likely calques or were formed within Lithuanian itself. KEYWORDS: word-formation, contamination, contaminational formation, splinter, neology. ANNOTATION The article addresses a budding and unconventional method of word formation in the Lithuanian language, one that involves non-morphemic elements: splinters. It is driven by the recent surge of borrowed blends (that usually come from the English language) in the Lithuanian language, as well as translation and indigenous blends. Both blending and Straipsniai / Articles 93 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ word formation with splinters is becoming an increasingly widespread in many European languages and the subject of all kinds of research. The article highlights the reasons behind the occurrence of splinters, showcases how some of the splinters are semantically generalised or specialised and enter the process of morphemisation to possibly eventually become formational morphemes or even stand-alone lexemes. The study is grounded on the data from the Database of Lithuanian Neologisms going back to the early 21st century and covering both borrowed blends and those that are likely to be translations or indigenous blends. KEYWORDS: word formation, blend, blending, splinter, neology. INTRODUCTION As research into Lithuanian neology has intensified over the past decade, it has been observed that the number of neologisms arising through blending is increasing in usage. In other words, several semantically and phonologically motivated independent words are fused into one not according to traditional word-formation rules: at least one of them is shortened, often by taking the beginning of the first and the end of the second, omitting one of the parts that coincide at the juncture of the words, and so on. For example: kačiulis, –ė [< katė + bičiulis] ‘a person associated with cats and their affairs who socializes with others’; degtuketė [< degtukas + etiketė] ‘the label of a matchbox’; knygionas [< knyga + aukcionas] ‘a book auction’¹, and so on. In Lithuanian linguistics, blends are also called blended words (Urbutis 2009: 327), blendants (cf. Murmulaitytė 2018: 61–68; 2021: 95), or portmanteau words (see Urbutis 2009: 355; Miliūnaitė 2014: 249; Murmulaitytė 2021: 77, 100, and elsewhere). This article uses the term blended formation, which corresponds systematically to the designation of the word-formation² process itself, blending. On the basis of data from present-day Lithuanian usage, grounded in the ND database, exploratory studies have already been conducted: the relationship between blending and traditional word formation has been examined, as have the reasons for the emergence of such formations ¹ Here and below, neologisms and other lexical information related to them (origin, meaning) are taken from the Database of Lithuanian Neologisms (hereinafter ND), unless otherwise indicated. For the sake of economy, the origins and meanings of neologisms are not specified in some places in the article; they can be found in the aforementioned database. ² The concept word formation (rather than word derivation) is used in the article when it is necessary to emphasize that words also arise through means other than those encompassed by traditional Lithuanian word derivation (cf. English word-formation ‘word derivation’ and word creation ‘word creation’ (Mattiello 2018: 4)). 94 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX Žodžių darymas su atskalomis lietuvių kalboje reasons and methods, structural characteristics, as well as the prospects for research on this topic (see Miliūnaitė 2014: 246–264; 2022: 306–310; Murmulaitytė 2018: 60–70; 2020: 41–45, 2021: 74–81, Aleksaitė 2021: 17–34, and the additional literature cited in these publications), against the backdrop of a broad context of research into various foreign languages (see Gries 2004: 639–667; Lehrer 2007: 115–133; Bombi 2017: 280–281; Renner 2018: 2–12; Hamans 2021: 659–691, and elsewhere). Blending is particularly characteristic of English and of other European languages influenced by it (often through translation)³ (see Pharies 1987: 271–289; Renner 2015: 121–122; Cacchiani 2016: 305–313; Renner 2018: 2, 5–6), including languages in which this method of creating new words was not characteristic until the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, among them Bulgarian, Latvian, Spanish, and Serbian (cf. Lalić–Krstin 2008: 237; Ločmele, Veisbergs 2011: 312; Stamenov 2015: 175; Balteiro 2017: 1–14; Tomić 2019: 248–249). The more data on the use of blends are accumulated, the more research aspects emerge, as is clearly evident from the continuously growing number of publications by both foreign and Lithuanian authors. It has been observed that blends, particularly in such areas of language use as business (advertising, trademarks), the media, politics, and fiction (cf. Tomić 2019: 248–249; 2022: 19–22), sometimes begin to form larger or smaller groups of formations that share components. In other words, although it is often claimed that blends are unique products of word formation (or translation), their growing number and the spread of entire patterns make it possible to view this process somewhat differently. The question—“how should words containing new international word elements (e.g., -nomics, -gate, -holic, -holism, -mobile, -meter, -exit, etc.?”)—has already been raised in an article by Daiva Murmulaitytė (2018: 62, 66) and developed somewhat further in a monograph by Rita Miliūnaitė (2022: 322–326). D. Murmulaitytė states: “a tendency is emerging to form new words by directly attaching these endings to other words, rather than blending them with the source words that already contain them”; at the same time, she acknowledges that “the history of the emergence, semantics, and usage of each word needs to be studied separately; some will turn out to be borrowings, others calques or analogical formations, still others indigenous blends, while the origin of a fourth group will remain impossible to determine fully, since they may have been formed independently in several languages or borrowed from them” (ibid., 66). ³ English speakers are so fond of the blending method of word formation that they are sometimes even called blendaholics [< blend “blend” + (alco)holic “having an addiction to something”] (Correa Saavedra 2016: 55). Some of the most recent sources on English neologisms (new words) contain approximately 43% blends; in the second half of the twentieth century, they accounted for approximately 5–10% (ibid.). According to ND data from the end of May 2023, blends in Lithuanian account for approximately 5% of all neologisms (including calques) (236 out of 4758), or approximately 2.7% of all ND neologisms (8860). Straipsniai / Articles 95 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ Thus, we are dealing with a word-formation process that has so far been little studied in Lithuanian, but is clearly spreading and raises various theoretical questions, using the constituents of blends. First, the blends themselves, before their influx began, were regarded as peripheral phenomena of the language (see Kabasinskaitė 1998; Urbutis 2009: 354–355) and did not receive much attention from researchers. Second, researchers feel that Lithuanian data are insufficient to draw more substantial conclusions (Murmulaitytė 2021: 102), while, as will be seen, the frequency of use of blends is a decisive factor in their becoming analogues for the formation of new words. For naming the constituents of blends (fragments of source words) in Lithuanian, the term atskalą may be promising (cf. English splinter⁴ ‘a splinter, fragment’; see Miliūnaitė 2022: 322–326). The article examines the topic of splinters in greater detail, with the context of foreign literature in view. In addition, ever more Lithuanian usage data are accumulated each year, because their main source, ND, is constantly supplemented, and blends and blended borrowings in it are also steadily increasing. The article aims to examine the structural features of blends entering Lithuanian, as well as of indigenous and translated formations, and to identify tendencies in the use of splinters to form new words in Lithuanian itself. To achieve this aim, the following objectives are set: 1) to present the concept of the object under investigation—splinters—and review foreign research on this topic; 2) to examine the (non-)morphemic structure of blended borrowings and formations recorded in ND and to identify recurring splinters as a potential means of forming new words in Lithuanian; 3) to characterize the semantic features of recurring splinters and their tendencies toward morphemization (becoming word-formation prenomens). To examine formations with splinters, synchronic word-formation analysis, morphemic and non-morphemic structural analysis, semantic analysis of splinters, and descriptive and analytical methods are applied. The article consists of an Introduction, two parts divided into smaller sections, and Conclusions, followed by an Appendix of the most frequent morphemized splinters in Lithuanian neologisms. The first part reviews the problematics of splinters in the work of foreign researchers: attempts to define splinters, identify the reasons for their formation, and establish their relationship with traditional word-formation processes. The second part describes splinters that have arisen on the basis of blended borrowings and translated and indigenous formations recorded in Lithuanian usage during the past decade and that are used to form new words in Lithuanian. ⁴ For the emergence of this term in English in 1961 to refer to linguistic units of a specific nature in the process of blending, and for its subsequent development, see Bauer 2005: 104–105; Jurado 2019: 8–9. 96 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX Žodžių darymas su atskalomis lietuvių kalboje 1. THE PROBLEM OF SPLINTERS When examining the problem of splinters, it is necessary to briefly consider some features characteristic of blends. They help explain how and for what reasons some splinters, as linguistic elements having non-morphemic status, may eventually become morphemized. 1.1. Blends, Their Uniqueness, and Decidability Blends are usually described as situational (occasional) formations, attesting to authentic, unique acts of linguistic creativity. This feature of theirs is also exploited as a stylistic means of expression, seeking to attract attention and create a wordplay effect, for example, in works of literature, advertisements, when creating product or company names, in media headlines, and so on (Lehrer 2007: 115–116; 128–131; Renner 2015: 119–133; Grlj 2022: 102). Addressees are offered rules for the game, and they experience the joy and pleasure of cognition by being able to guess the code of a blend, being surprised by the unexpected sound patterns or associations evoked by the phonetic or semantic junction of several words, and so on (on wordplay with blends in Italian, see Cacchiani 2016: 318–324). For example: begemotina [< begemotas + motina] ‘hippopotamus’s mother’; miaujiena [< miau + naujiena] ‘a trade-news item related to cats and their care’; Tiltanikas [< tiltas + „Titanikas“] ‘Alfonsas Meškinis’s (Kleboniškiai) bridge, which fell and tilted in 2023 and rose halfway into the air, resembling the sinking “Titanic”.’ Blends also arise from the need, dictated by objective reality, to name some often unique hybrid object (hybrid), cf.: coliūgas [< cukinija + moliūgas] ‘a hybrid of zucchini and pumpkin’; zebrasilas [< zebras + asilas] ‘a hybrid of a zebra and a donkey’. English word-formation takes differing approaches to blends (Renner 2015: 121–122). For some, they are a subtype of compounds (or an abbreviated variant of compounds; see Lehrer 2007: 117), for others, a type of clippings (English clippings), while still others regard them as an intermediate result of the first two. For example, the English word modem ‘modem’, formed from the beginnings of two words [< modulator + demodulator], is not considered a blend by everyone: it may be treated as a subtype of acronyms (alphabetic abbreviations)—a compound Straipsniai / Articles 97 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ abbreviation and the like (cf. Grlj 2022: 88). When comparing blends with compounds, it is noted that in both cases two or more independent words are used to create one word, while the difference is that blends are irregular and only partially predictable, since their form each time depends on the properties of the elements selected (Beliaeva 2019: 2–3). Therefore, they do not fit into traditional word-formation rules and cannot be analyzed at the morpheme level (cf. Mattiello 2018: 5). It is most often acknowledged that blends constitute a rather indeterminate category of formations that extends beyond the boundaries of traditional grammar and is attributable to non-grammatical morphology (English extra-grammatical morphology, see Mattiello 2013: 127–139; Beliaeva 2019: 3), which also includes such word-formation methods as shortening various types of words and word groups, forming abbreviations (including acronyms), and the like (see Urbutis 2009: 347–357). This rather broad conception of blends is determined not only by their spontaneous emergence. The effect of unexpectedness is often caused by an accidental similarity in the form of two words or by partial phonetic (graphic) coincidence (cf. katuiruotė < katė + tatuiruotė ‘a cat scratch on a person’). Difficulties also arise when attempting to define the essential differences between these formations and traditional word formation, particularly because of the shifting boundaries of the elements that comprise them (Murmulaitytė 2018: 61; Grlj 2022: 102; Tomić 2022: 15–17). As research on blends in European languages (including comparative research, for example, in English and French, see Grlj 2022: 85–106) expands with the increasing amount of data, it reveals ever new features of this type of word. Various quantitative and qualitative research methods are used to investigate the phonetic, grammatical, and semantic regularities and tendencies of their formation, as well as the interaction of their elements (see Lehrer 2007: 117–121; Arndt-Lappe, Plag 2013: 357–563; Mattiello 2018: 9–10; Jurado 2019: 6–8; Grlj 2022: 88–89; Tomić 2022a: 412 and the literature cited there), and various classifications are provided (see Lehrer 1996: 364–366; Renner 2015: 122–123; Cacchiani 2016: 313–318). For example, the classification of blends may be based on their formal or semantic features, distinguished according to the relations between their elements. In both English and some other languages (German, Serbian), four methods of forming blends are distinguished according to their morphosemantic transparency: complete, contour, semi-complete, and fragment blending (English complete, contour, semi-complete, fragment blending; see Tomić 2022: 14–37 and the literature cited there). Experiments with language users are also conducted to determine what influences the identification of blends and interpretations of their origin (Lehrer 2007: 126–128). The variety of source words forming blends in Lithuanian is increasing, cf.: interjection + noun (miaujiena < miau + naujiena), abbreviation + noun (fideranas, -ė < FIDI ‘Physics Day—the annual celebration of Vilnius 98 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX Žodžių darymas su atskalomis lietuvių kalboje University physicists’ celebration’ + veteranas), noun + verb (radarom < radaras + darom⁵), and others. The rapid and representative study of these phenomena is hindered by objective factors, the most important of which is the lack of corpora and computerized research tools reflecting the most recent usage. In addition, in Lithuanian the influence of other languages (intensive borrowing and translation) makes it difficult to determine the causes and methods of the emergence of blends and to categorize them accordingly. When examining blending phenomena in Lithuanian, one must first not overlook such borrowed neologisms that arose through blending in the languages of origin (especially those entering Lithuanian in large numbers from English). For example: gitalelė (English guitalele [< guitar ‘guitar’ + ukulele ‘ukulele’]) ‘a stringed musical instrument possessing the features of a guitar and a ukulele’; mogilizacija (Russian могилизация [< могила ‘grave’ + мобилизация ‘mobilization’]) ‘mobilization (the conscription of reserve military personnel into military service) as a direct path to death (the grave)’; mokteilis (English mocktail [< mock ‘fake’ + cocktail ‘cocktail’]) ‘a non-alcoholic cocktail (usually made from fruit juices)’ and the like. For those who know foreign languages, the structure and meaning of such borrowed blends are usually easy to infer even without a broader context. Blends are also formed in Lithuanian itself from native words or established borrowings, for example: varškepas [< varškė + apkepas] ‘cottage-cheese casserole’; atostogenas [< atostogos + genas] ‘a vacation desire encoded in genes’ and others. Blends also arise in Lithuanian through translation from other languages⁶—by reproducing the blended form of the word⁷, for example: biurslas (cf. English burness [< bureaucracy ‘bureaucracy’ + business ‘business’]) ‘a business created by bureaucrats or politicians to serve their interests’; labraliūtas (cf. English labralion [< labrador ‘Labrador’ + lion ‘lion’]) ‘a Labrador dog clipped to resemble a lion’ and others. ⁵ The annual environmental clean-up campaign “Darom” is well known in Lithuania. ⁶ Whether a blend is a calque can be determined only by knowing the primary source (the original text) or at least the context reflecting non-Lithuanian realities; therefore, the classification of blends of this kind is rather conditional. ⁷ It should be noted that when translating blends from other languages into Lithuanian, a word-for-word translation is not necessarily followed: other translation strategies may also be applied. Thus, splinters are not always retained either. In translation, some of them become independent words or constituents of compounds; consequently, secondary word-formation processes take place (see Miliūnaitė 2014: 258). Straipsniai / Articles 99 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ As the amount of data increases, there is also a basis for discussing the regularity of blends and productive word-formation patterns (cf. Beliaeva 2019: 17; Tomić 2022a: 412). For example, in English, the blend workcation (and the variant workation⁸ ‘a period when work is combined with holidays or trips outside the workplace’) was formed from the words work ‘work’ and vacation ‘holiday’. In time, one part of the new formation—cation—was generalized as a word-formation device for forming names of various types of holidays, thus becoming a kind of affix (cf. spacation ‘a holiday spent at centers providing spa services, a spa-holiday’; staycation ‘a holiday spent at home or nearby, in one’s own country’, MD). As they spread and are used increasingly often, blends become predictable: researchers observe various phonetic and semantic regularities in how fragments of several words are fused (Arndt–Lappe, Plag 2013: 540–543; Mattiello 2013: 135–137; Renner 2015: 119–132). Most of them, not only in English, are formed from two words, usually taking the beginning of the first and the end of the second. Other variations also exist, including the formation of overlaps (English overlap), the insertion of a fragment of one word into another complete word, and the fusion of three (cf. English japornimation < Japan + porn + animation, an example from Mattiello 2013: 307) or more words, or fragments of several words are blended in other unconventional ways (cf. Lehrer 1996: 364; Beliaeva 2019: 2, 17). In English, a regularity has been observed whereby a blend usually has the same number of syllables as the longer source word or is one syllable longer; the stress position of the longer constituent is also usually retained (Arndt–Lappe, Plag 2013: 558–559; Beliaeva 2019: 7–8). This is thought to be primarily related to the problem of recognizing new formations (Gries 2012: 159–160). 1.2. The Concept of Splinters and Their Characteristics One of the most important formal features characteristic of blends is that several words are joined into one, regardless of the boundaries of the morphemes constituting the source words (Beliaeva 2019: 8–9). In Lithuanian, however, one constituent may coincide with the stem of the source word⁹. Such word fragments, used to form new words, including blends, are called splinters (cf. Šteckauer 2000: 108; Mattiello 2018: 5). They are not used on their own as independent words (Lehrer 2007: 116). ⁸ For the calque of this borrowed blend, darbostogos, see the second part of the article. ⁹ One aspect of blends that has so far received little study in Lithuanian (see Murmul aitytė 2018: 67; 2021: 98–102) is precisely the structure of their constituents and their difference from compounds or clipped words (cf. the older calques profsąjunga, santechnikas and the like). 100 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX Žodžių darymas su atskalomis lietuvių kalboje The form of splinters is closely related to semantics: usually, splinters are long enough for their origin to be recognizable (the source word from which the element was split off), for example: soeikoninė [< sveik[as] + [lig]onin ė] ‘another name for a hospital—when it is more important to emphasize recovery and health’; Vilnecija [< Viln[ius] + [Ve]necija] ‘Vilnius, which, because the streets flooded during a summer downpour, became similar to Venice’, and so on. Thus, language users understand the meaning of splinters only by associating them with the source words. Researchers of blends have been drawn to one property of the constituents forming them, particularly prominent in recent decades: some constituents may no longer be associated with the source word and may be reused to form new words (Beliaeva 2019: 9)10. Splinters may be added to the beginning of words being formed (English cyber–) or to the end (English –tainment) (see Correia Saavedra 2016: 57; Tomić 2019: 251–252), although for some time, most likely because of a lack of data, it was thought that, when new words were formed with reinterpreted splinters, they tended to occur only at the end of the word. In English (and in other languages as well, through English), there is a tendency for morphologized splinters to become even a single sound (letter), cf. e– (English email ‘electronic mail’, esports ‘electronic sport, e-sport’), indicating an association with the electronic medium; k– (kpop ‘popular South Korean culture’, kdrama ‘South Korean television drama series’), indicating an association with South Korean culture; s– (smarketing [< sales ‘sales’ + marketing ‘marketing’], Lithuanian borrowing smarketingas), indicating an association with sales; and so on. Thus, the constituents of blends frequently used in various languages may be generalized (reinterpreted) as non-morphemic word parts that can perform the function of a derivational device and create an analogical base for new formations (see Jurado 2019: 1; Tomić 2019: 249–250; Rio–Torto, Sandrini 2022: 115). Such splinters are sometimes also called liberated affixes (English libfix < liberated + affix, see Hamans 2021: 663–665), emerging morphemes (see Miliūnaitė 2022: 322–326). When splinters used to form new words are defined theoretically, attempts are made to distinguish them from similar elements of traditional word-formation: affixes (prefixes and suffixes), broadly understood affixoids (prefixoids and suffixoids, see Keinys 1999: 74, 111, 114; for the diversity of concepts of affixoids, see Rutkienė 2019: 141–146), and root morphemes (Lehrer 1996: 361–362; Mattiello 2018: 5–8). Splinters, as non-morphemic word parts, are regarded as intermediate elements between affixes and roots (Callies 2016: 11). Affixes have a generalized (grammaticalized) 10 In some cases, only the constituents of blends that have already separated in this way are called splinters (see Bauer et al. 2013: 19). Straipsniai / Articles 101 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ meaning, whereas splinters convey only part of the original word’s semantic content (Bauer et al. 2013: 19). Splinters differ from affixoids (see Ralli 2020: 220–222; Miliūnaitė 2022: 313–322), including neoclassical elements (see Inčuraitė–Noreikienė 2015: 247–249), in that affixoids are stable abbreviations of the beginning or end of a single word, retaining a semantic relationship with roots (cf. English eco- ‘eco-’ ← ecology ‘ecology’), and are regularly used to form new words (cf. Mattiello 2018: 7). However, many foreign authors, when discussing splinters, emphasize the instability of their status and their greater or lesser tendency toward morphemization (Lehrer 1996: 361–362; 2007: 121; Jurado 2019: 9–11)—their becoming morphemes, when splinters lose their direct connection with the original blend and begin to be regularly used to form new words. Therefore, the same components of blends are interpreted differently in different sources (and at different times)¹¹. It may be difficult to establish the boundary between a blend formed by analogy and a derivative with a morphemized splinter (Bauer et al. 2013: 459). Only by observing the process chronologically can one claim that, at the initial stage of a splinter’s separation from a blend, when analogy is at work, it is still possible to discern the formation of a second or third blend with the same splinter; but as such formations become more numerous, it is more appropriate to speak of another type of formation (derivatives or compounds) with morphemized splinters (cf. Callies 2016: 6; Mattiello 2018: 7, 17; see also Jurado 2019: 9 and the various approaches discussed there). However, this does not happen with all splinters (Jurado 2019: 8). In seeking an answer to the question of why only some splinters are productive and inclined to become morphemized, two conditions necessary for this process are identified: the frequency of use of blends (which, in turn, depends on various extralinguistic factors) and semantic transparency (Lehrer 2007: 115; Mattiello 2018: 15; Tomić 2019: 251). If a splinter is productive, there is a greater tendency to treat new formations containing it as the result of the splinter’s morphemization. It is sometimes indicated that there should be at least three or even five such new formations (Tomić 2019: 251–252). The semantic aspect of splinters is particularly important for the functionality of blends, because only by perceiving the relationship between the splinters composing a blend and the source words can a language user understand the meaning of the blend itself and, through the semantic relationship of the splinters, grasp the neologism’s stylistic connotations, wordplay, and other communicative intentions of its author (Tomić 2022: 14–37). Thus, when language users frequently encounter particular blends, they analyze their structure, albeit unconsciously, and some components ¹¹ For example, in English, the aforementioned component e is regarded in some sources as a splinter, and in others as an affixoid or prefix; the component -gate (Lithuanian -geitas), indicating a connection with some scandal of significance to society, is regarded as a suffixoid or suffix, and so on (see Lehrer 2007: 123–124). 102 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX Žodžių darymas su atskalomis lietuvių kalboje reinterpret as carriers of meaning and then use them to create new words. For example, in English, the blend workaholic was formed on the basis of the word alcoholic (‘an alcoholic—a person addicted to alcohol’); its Lithuanian calque is darboholikas, –ė. Later, more similar formations appeared: chocoholic (Lithuanian calque šokoholikas, –ė ‘a person addicted to chocolate’), sugarholic ‘a person addicted to sugar’, and others. Thus, the splinter –(a)holic was formed and eventually acquired the more general meaning ‘a person with some kind of addiction’, substantially detached from the meaning of the source word alcoholic. New words are formed with this semantically reinterpreted splinter, which has acquired a specific meaning, more generalized than in the source word (and has thus entered the process of morphemization), and these words are entirely unrelated to alcohol addiction. It has generally been observed that, for example, in Serbian, the meanings of splinters that become semantically autonomous often undergo metaphorization (Tomić 2019: 262). The semantic independence of some splinters is also well illustrated by the English example meatitarian (Lithuanian mėsavalgis, –ė ‘a person whose diet consists predominantly of meat’), in which the splinter –(i)tarian, once separated from the word vegetarian (Lithuanian vegetaras, –ė ‘a person who follows the principle of not eating meat’), acquired a generalized meaning used to form names of persons according to the type of food they eat (Lehrer 2007: 126). In other words, a “meatatarian” is not a type of vegetarian. Another stage in the development of splinters is their degrammaticalization, i.e. their transformation into independent lexemes. A typical example is English hamburger [< Hamburg] ‘hamburger (a meat sandwich)’, reinterpreted as ham ‘ham’ + –burger; this splinter, semantically detached from hamburger, was then used to form more names of similar snacks (cheeseburger ‘cheeseburger (a cheese sandwich)’, fishburger ‘fishburger (a fish sandwich)’, and others). Eventually, the splinter –burger became the independent word burger (Lehrer 2007: 125; Bauer et al. 2013: 528; Correia Saavedra 2016: 56; Mattiello 2018: 7) ‘burger (sandwich)’. Thus, words containing splinters can be interpreted in several ways, particularly with regard to frequency of use and the different stages of splinter morphemization (see Lehrer 2007: 120; Bauer et al. 2013: 528; Jurado 2019: 1): 1) they are considered new blends based by analogy on the original formation (alcoholic → workaholic); 2) they are considered derivatives or formations created with a newly formed morphemic element that has acquired an independent meaning—a splinter (for example, –(a)holic → chocoholic). In the process of blending, two words interact each time, and in one way or another their beginnings or endings are usually truncated. In the second case, the source word does not participate in the process of forming the new word: the already formed splinter simply Straipsniai / Articles 103 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ is added to the full or shortened stem of another word (cf. also Lithuanian rūbaholikas, –ė [< rūbas + holikas, –ė] ‘a person unable to resist the urge to rummage through second-hand clothing stores’). 2. USING SPLINTERS TO FORM NEW WORDS IN LITHUANIAN Splinters that have entered with loanwords and recur in the structure of often more than one neologism (including hybrids) in Lithuanian neology are usually identified with international (neoclassical) components, assigned to lists of such components, and thus recorded as already morphemized (see Aleksaitė 2022). As mentioned in the introduction, D. Murmulaitytė calls words containing the components -nomika, -greitas, -holikas, –ė, -holizmas, –mobilis, –matas, –busas, –exit and others, which arose from blends, new international combining forms and distinguishes them as a separate aspect of blending research (Murmulaitytė 2018: 62, 66; 2021: 81, 131). Words containing such splinters (loanwords or calques and formations created in Lithuanian) are likewise assigned to the group of blends (cf. Murmulaitytė 2021: 103). There is little data on morphemized splinters arising within Lithuanian itself, and research is even scarcer (see Miliūnaitė 2022: 324–325). 2.1. Data Examined Blends, as unique linguistic phenomena, are not easy to identify and require continuous observation of usage. Foreign authors usually collect data for similar studies from various sources—previously published scholarly publications, the media, advertising, various neologism glossaries, and so on—but these sources are also limited. The samples of blends examined from various perspectives generally consist of 100–600 words (cf. Jurado 2019: 14; Grlj 2022: 88; Tomić 2022a: 413). Lithuanian has the advantage of a continuously updated neologism collection—the Lithuanian Language Neologism Database (ND). Given a list of blend loanwords and formations, examining morphemized splinters is easier; once they have been identified, an additional search can be conducted in various other data collections (corpora). At the end of May 2023, the ND headword list recorded 8860 neologisms12; of these, 204 were marked, according to their manner of formation, as ‘blend loanword’, 12 It should be noted that the ND also classifies loanwords, new word meanings, and various abbreviations as neologisms. 104 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX Žodžių darymas su atskalomis lietuvių kalboje 236 as ‘blend formation’ (including calques), and another 32 as ‘(possible) blend formation’ (the latter are not examined in the article because multiple interpretations of the formations are possible in this case; cf. Murmulaitytė 2021: 97). Thus, approximately 4.9% of the neologisms in this database are associated with blending (blend loanwords and formations)¹³; these constitute the body of data on which the identification of morphemized splinters used to form new words in Lithuanian is based. Admittedly, this distinction is somewhat conditional, since it is not always clear whether an item is a blend loanword or a word translated or formed in Lithuanian, especially when the source words are loanwords. For example, the noun kavaholikas, -ė may have been formed in Lithuanian or translated from other languages (cf. English coffeeholic). The context of the noun dramedija [< drama + komedija (English dramedy ← drama + comedy)] indicates that it is a loanword¹⁴. The neologism kurjeristas, -ė [< kurjeris + karjeristas] ‘a courier seeking to pursue a career’ is used in a text that also identifies the word’s creators in Lithuanian, although otherwise it could also be borrowed. Moreover, it is not always possible to determine precisely whether a word is a blend or was formed by other means. For example, without context, the neologism eurāsamtis could be understood as a compound of the nouns euras and samtis (‘a ladle for scooping euros’), but the context indicates otherwise: Probably no one has heard of it yet, but the Lithuanian army paid several or even a dozen times more for kitchen utensils: spoons, knives, ladles, and one of the famous golden ladles, or colanders, or euro-ladles, if one may put it that way, which cost the army 258 euros. (delfi.lt/video, 2016–09–11). It is likely that eurāsamtis was formed by blending the words euras and kiaurasamtis. Another example. The neologism driskuomenė could have been formed from the noun driskus with the suffix –uomenė, but it was created in the context of the war in Ukraine, with the Russian army, called driskiai, in mind; thus it can also be regarded as a blend of the nouns driskus + kariuomenė. Therefore, in the ND, driskuomenė is marked as a possible blend formation. Thus, when describing the data in the ND, confirmation is sought in dictionaries and databases in other languages, and the context of usage is examined. The article’s ¹³ Blend loanwords and formations in the ND increase steadily, though slightly; their ratio in different years is almost equal and changes little (for quantitative data for 2014–2021, see Murmulaitytė 2021: 98, 107). ¹⁴ In public Lithuanian usage, dramedija is attested no later than 2005, in texts discussing foreign realities (Together with Bahman Ghobadi’s work, Lithuanian viewers will be able to see Woody Allen’s dramedy “Melinda and Melinda” [...]. bernardinai.lt, 2005). Straipsniai / Articles 105 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ for the subject of the article— the formation of morphemized splinters in Lithuanian—the origin of blends is quite important for understanding what drives this process and how it proceeds. However, it should be borne in mind that, because of possible multiple interpretations and because information related to neologisms is constantly changing (as more data emerge, the explanation of their origin and meaning may be revised), the research results cannot be very precise. Of all 440 neologisms associated with blending, 264 (60%) are isolated cases, i.e. the ND does not record their splinters as recurring in Lithuanian usage; cf.: gustnadas (English gustnado [< gust front tornado; gust ‘(wind) gust’] ‘a surface air vortex caused by a storm cloud’; meškelionė [< meška + kelionė] ‘a bear family’s journey’. Slightly less than half of these (118) are blend loanwords; the others (146) are calques or blends formed in Lithuanian. Recurring splinters occur in 40% (176) of the ND-recorded neologisms associated with blending (of these, 84 are blend loanwords and 72 are calques and formations). These constitute the actual object of the study of splinter morphemization. The Appendix provides information on Lithuanian neologisms recorded in the ND that were formed or translated in Lithuanian and contain splinters recurring two or more times. 2.2. “Disassembling” Borrowed Blends into Splinters Words that have entered Lithuanian as loanwords and are blends only in their languages of origin15 are regarded, from the perspective of Lithuanian, as unanalyzable wholes, not divisible morphologically, for example: flurona (English flurona [< flu ‘flu’ + corona ‘corona (virus)’]) ‘a combination of influenza and coronavirus-induced COVID–19 disease’; podkastas (podkestas) (English podcast [< iPod ‘iPod’ (a portable music player created by Apple in 2001) + broadcast ‘program’) ‘a podcast—an Internet program in audio or visual format (subscribable and downloadable)’. 2.2.1. Transparent Blend Loanwords. Blends are constructed so that, in the language of origin, the addressee can decode them—“disassemble” them, 15 It must be acknowledged that the ability to “disassemble” blend loanwords is quite subjective. For example, English users do not always recognize the blends quasar [< quasi + stellar] (Lehrer 1996: 363), pulsar [< pulsating + star], and so on. 106 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX Žodžių darymas su atskalomis lietuvių kalboje to recognize several independent words fused into one word and thereby understand their meaning. Once borrowed into other languages, they can also be decoded. Therefore, this group of loanwords must not be overlooked in Lithuanian, because some of the loanwords belonging to it stimulate the phenomenon of blending in Lithuanian as well. The reason is that at least some language users (especially those who know other languages) often perceive such loanwords as transparent, decode the original words in the language of origin, especially since some of them are also used in Lithuanian as loanwords. Several examples of such blend loanwords: banksteris (English bankster [< banker + gangster]) ‘a dishonest banker engaged in criminal banking activity’; rašizmas (Russian рашизм, English rashism [< Раша ‘an English-based pronunciation of Russia’s name’ + фашизм ‘fascism’]) ‘the ideology and practice of Russia’s criminal regime at the beginning of the 21st century’; sekstingas (English sexting [< sex ‘sex’ + texting ‘writing messages, text messaging’]) ‘the exchange of erotic images (often one’s own photographs) in an electronic environment, usually by sending text messages or emails’; tviteratūra (English twitterature [< Twitter ‘Twitter’ + literature ‘literature’]) ‘a short (usually up to 140 characters) literary text created on or adapted for the social network Twitter (“Twitter”)’. 2.2.2. Blend Loanwords with Recurring Splinters. Some blend loanwords contain recurring splinters with which, according to ND data, no blends have yet been formed in Lithuanian16. For example: -gingsai [< legingsai ‘leggings—tight-fitting trousers’]: džēgingsai, meggingsai, tregingsai; -(o)reksija [< anorekcija ‘an eating disorder’]: alkoreksija, ortoreksija, streso­reksija, tanoreksija; -taras, -ė [< vegetaras, -ė ‘a person who does not eat food of animal origin’]: fleksitaras, -ė, pesketaras, -ė; -tyvistas, -ė [< aktyvistas, -ė ‘an advocate of activism pursuing political or social goals’]: haktyvistas, -ė, kliktyvistas, -ė, slaktyvistas, -ė; -teinmentas [< enterteinmentas ‘entertainment, amusement’]: infoteinmentas, polıteinmentas; -tleris [< Hitleris]: kitleris, putleris; -tronika [< elektronika]: animatronika, infotronika, mechatronika, spintronika, and others. If at least one component of blend loanwords, i.e. a splinter, recurs in several loanwords, this enables language users to isolate that component 16 Such splinters are not included in the Appendix table. Straipsniai / Articles 107 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ as a means of forming new words. Since this is an ongoing process, we can observe both the beginnings of splinter morphemization and developed word families containing the same splinter. For example, the ND records one formation in Lithuanian itself for some splinters of blend loanwords: -ganas, –ė [< veganас, –ė ‘a person who strictly limits their diet to plant-based food’]: friganas, –ė; Lithuanian veryganas, –ė ‘an abstainer actively supporting Health Minister Aurelijus Veryga’s policy of tightening alcohol control’;”},{ -kinis [< bikinis]: burkinis, feiskinis, mankinis, monokinis, tankinis; Lithuanian trikinis (‘a three-part swimsuit, including a pandemic face mask’); -nezas [< majonezas]: veganеzas; Lithuanian batonezas ‘a slice of bread spread with mayonnaise’ (in this case, the meaning of the splinter is not fully retained: the neologism formed with it in Lithuanian denotes not a type of mayonnaise but a snack with mayonnaise); -zotas [< rizotas, Italian risotto]: orzotas; Lithuanian grizotas ‘buckwheat risotto (buckwheat instead of rice)’. When blend loanwords are “disassembled,” the semantic generalization of their splinters is transferred into Lithuanian as well, for example: dyzelgeitas (English dieselgate [< diesel ‘diesel’ + –gate ‘–geitas’ < Watergate]) ‘the scandal involving the falsification of emissions data for Volkswagen diesel cars’;” Orlengeitas (English Orlengate [< Polish “Orlen” (a Polish energy company—an oil-refining concern operating a fuel-station network in Europe) + English -gate ‘-geitas’]) ‘the scandal lasting from 2002 to 2004 involving Poland’s largest oil company, “PKN Orlen,” over possible connections with Russia’;” picageitas (English pizzagate [< Italian pizza ‘pizza’ + –gate ‘–geitas’]) ‘the scandal that arose in 2016 during the presidential election campaign over a US pizzeria indirectly associated with the campaign manager of one of the candidates, Hilary Clinton’;” Once it was understood that the component -geitas means a large-scale, usually political scandal, new words began to be formed with it in Lithuanian to name various scandalous events in Lithuania: Grigeogeitas ‘the scandal involving the company “Grigeo Klaipėda,” which polluted the Curonian Lagoon on a large scale’; kalafiorgeitas ‘the scandal caused in Lithuania by people over exceptionally high prices’; koldūngeitas ‘the scandal that arose in Lithuania over dumplings contaminated with bacteria and the possible concealment of this fact by the State Food and Veterinary Service, as well as over a member of the Seimas associated with it’, and others. The most frequent splinters (in descending order) isolated from blend loanwords, with at least two formations (or calques) in Lithuanian, are the following: –(m)obilis, –nomika, –geitas, –matas, –(a)holikas, –ė, –demija, –busas (see Appendix). 108 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX Žodžių darymas su atskalomis lietuvių kalboje The examples of splinters presented in the article so far are word-final splinters. Their functions are similar to those of suffixoids. Far fewer word-initial splinters are recorded in the ND; all entered with loanwords and resemble prefissoids, cf.: e– [< electronic, –e]: emeilas, esportas17 robo– [< robotas]: robofilija, robotaksi, robotankas; Lithuanian robotītė, robošuo. šoko– [< šokoladas]: šokocino, šokoholikas, –ė. Foreign scholarly literature mainly examines English blends, which borrow very little from other languages; consequently, the aspect of hybrid formations is not relevant there. There are still few studies of other languages from this perspective, but the data are increasing, and their most important feature is that the borrowed component is usually from English (cf. Polish—Konieczna 2012: 51–56; Spanish—Balteiro 2017: 1–14; Serbian—Tomić 2022a: 409–428). The cases discussed show that the families of blend loanwords—not by any means all of them—with recurring splinters are potential “suppliers” of splinters to Lithuanian and provide a basis for splinters to develop in Lithuanian. They become morphemized, semantically defined, and promote regular models for forming new words. An essential condition of this process is that the structure of blend loanwords must be understood, so that they can be “disassembled” into splinters and the splinters used to form new words. 2.3. Morphemization of Splinters on the Basis of Lithuanian Words It would not be possible to claim that no morphemization of splinters existed in Lithuanian before the 21st century. However, these are only isolated cases, which could be identified by examining, for example, neologisms in corpora of 20th-century Lithuanian fiction or journalism. One example may be the lexicalized splinter niolika, separated from the numerals 17–19 and generalized to mean an approximate number falling within this interval. It is used both as a component of formations (cf. niolikmetis, –ė, niolikinis, –ė ‘a teenager, a young person under twenty’) and as an independent lexeme18. 17 In standard Lithuanian, such formations are considered nonstandard and/or are replaced by multiword equivalents (electronic mail), or are written according to orthographic rules: e. sportas, el. sportas, and so on. 18 Cf.: I wonder what it feels like to stand next to a person who is not nineteen years old but, for example, half a century old. (instagram.com, 2029–10–07); The children’s world is a place where “teenagers” and twenty-year-old men have nothing better to do than get drunk and tell how much they drank the previous night [...]. (15min.lt, 2008–10–11) Straipsniai / Articles 109 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ Although the number of blends formed on the basis of Lithuanian words is steadily increasing, most of them are isolated cases without recurring splinters, for example: geldija [< gelda + eldija] ‘a witty name for a dilapidated Russian ship’; kiauradiatorius [< kiauras + radiatorius] ‘a punctured radiator’; picelinas [< pica + cepelinas] ‘a pizza served with a cut cepelinas on top’. Compared with the splinters formed on the basis of the discussed blending borrowings, there are currently only a few elements split off in Lithuanian itself from native words or established borrowings. The splinters –stogos [< atostogos] and –(l)ėdos [< Kalėdos] can be regarded as emerging and promising Lithuanian splinters. The splinter –stogos arose through the translation of blending formations from English, and so far four neologisms have been recorded with it: darbostogos, ornitosstogos, spatosstogos, sportostogos (when proofreading the article, also vasarostogos). Two neologisms have been recorded with the splinter –(l)ėdos: Klaikėdos and Oktalėdos; thus, it cannot yet be considered morphemicized, but although determined by the seasonality of usage, it is readily recognizable and may therefore become the basis for new formations in the future. The ND records in the same text four blending formations—hybrid names of imaginary months, vasguzė, vaslandis, vasovas, vasželis, with the initial splinter vas– [< vasaris], denoting the names of months possessing characteristics typical of February. They are situational and nonce formations and should not generate new words; therefore, this splinter should not undergo further morphemicization. The interpretation of the neologism elements –saka and –ėdra¹⁹ is problematic. With the element –saka, which encompasses the morpheme –sak– with the ending –a and is formed in compounds from a noun and the verb sekti (cf. tautosaka), the ND records three formations: eurosaka, okupantsaka and vatosaka. Semantically, they have not become detached from the original word tautosaka and were formed by analogy with it; however, if such formations become more numerous, –saka may be resemanticized and become a splinter with the more general meaning, carrying an ironic nuance, ‘a narrative genre about things that are not real, related to what is denoted by the word corresponding to the first element’. However, it is difficult to regard this element as a genuine splinter because of its morphemic origin. The ND records seven formations with the element –ėdra: batonedra, čiulpėdra, knygėdra, ledėdra, musėdra, rusėdra, trešnėdra. When only one formation, trešnėdra, had been recorded, D. Murmulaitytė (Murmulaitytė 2021: 91–92) interpreted it as an analogical (not blending) formation: Most likely, the authorial formation trešnėdra ‘cherry eater’ was created by analogy with žmogėdros (cf. trešnės + ėsti (ėda, ėdė) + –ra); blending (trešnės + žmogėdra) in this case ¹⁹ This element was not included in the Appendix because the neologisms containing it are classified in the ND as possible blending formations. 110 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX Žodžių darymas su atskalomis lietuvių kalboje may be less likely. The possibility of noun and adjective formation (: trešnės + ėdrus, -i) was rejected because of the rarity of this type of juncture [...]. The increasing number of formations with –ėdra indicates the typical formation of a splinter, in which the direct semantic relationship with the original word žmogėdra is severed and, through semantic generalization, this element acquires the more general meaning ‘one that is voracious for what is expressed by the word corresponding to the first element’. Having discussed the morphemicized borrowed and emerging native splinters used in Lithuanian, it is clear that their classification depends greatly on the amount of available data. A small number of blending formations containing a splinter usually indicates that the process of its morphemicization has only just begun, while the semantic relationship with the original word is still retained; an increase in the number of formations leads to the semantic and word-formational autonomy of splinters. CONCLUSIONS 1. The frequency of use of blending borrowings and blending formations may encourage the reinterpretation of their elements—splinters—and create the conditions for forming new formations with them. The formation of morphemicized splinters is a process whose results become apparent diachronically. Therefore, when studying these relatively infrequent linguistic phenomena, which are difficult to detect and not always defined uniformly, require continuous monitoring of usage and the accumulation of new data, considerable uncertainty and various possible interpretations arise. Since information related to neologisms (their origin and interpretation of meaning) may change depending on new data that emerge, conclusions can be drawn reliably only from a specific amount of data available during a particular period. 2. Splinters, as non-morphemic parts of blending formations, are regarded as intermediate elements between affixes and roots. In origin, they differ from affixoids as well (cf. bio-, eko-, neuro-; -grafija, -logija and the like), which are fixed abbreviations at the beginning or end of a word, regularly used to form new words and retaining a semantic relationship with roots. The interpretation of the origin of blending formations essentially also determines the view of how splinters arise: in some cases, one can speak of calques, while in others, of original neologism formation with borrowed or native splinters within Lithuanian itself. 3. The most important characteristics of splinters are as follows: 3.1. A splinter is a category that changes over time and can undergo morphemicization and semantic reinterpretation—become a word-formational morpheme (usually an affixoid), and in some cases even an independent lexeme (cf. English hamburger → burger). Straipsniai / Articles 111 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ This tendency is determined by frequency of use, productivity, and the semantic autonomy that consequently develops. 3.2. Splinters inclined toward morphemicization may resemble affixoids: 3.2.1. less frequently, prefissoids, when attached to the second base word (robošuo < robo- + šuo) or to another splinter (šokoholikas, -ė < šoko- + -holikas); 3.2.2. more frequently, suffixoids, when attached to the first base word (griponomika < gripas + -nomika) or to another splinter (šokoholikas, -ė < šoko- + -holikas). 4. An examination of the 440 new words related to blending (borrowed and formed or translated in Lithuanian) recorded in the Database of Lithuanian Neologisms (ND) up to the end of May 2023 showed that most splinters enter Lithuanian with blending borrowings from English. Frequently used borrowings encourage the formation in Lithuanian of blending formations with their splinters (cf. the borrowings influenceris, -ė, finfluenceris, -ė, granfluenceris, -ė, unfluenceris, -ė and Lithuanian neologisms formed with the splinter –(flu)enceris, -ė, burbulenceris, -ė, išsigimenceris, -ė). The most frequent splinters arriving with borrowings, in descending order, are –(m)obilis, –nomika, –geitas, –matas, –(a)holikas, –ė, –demija, –busas, –(k)alipsė, –(flu)enceris, robo-. Thus, frequently used blending borrowings in Lithuanian can be viewed as potential sources of morphemicized splinters for forming new words in Lithuanian. The splinters –stogos [< atostogos] and –(l)ėdos [< Kalėdos] can be regarded as emerging Lithuanian splinters. 5. The process of splinter morphemicization in Lithuanian proceeds regularly, similarly to that in other European languages. From a synchronic perspective, some of the recurring splinters examined are unproductive and characteristic only of blending borrowings; some undergo morphemicization (tend to become affixoids); and, in rare cases, some become lexicalized (cf. holikas ‘one who has dependencies’). 6. Splinters are characterized by semantic reinterpretation, which detaches them from the meaning of the original word: the meaning of a splinter undergoes generalization or (more rarely) specialization. 7. The analysis of blending formations revealed the problem of analogical formations (also raised by foreign authors). Analogy is often the first step creating the preconditions for the formation of morphemicized splinters; however, it is not always possible to determine whether a new word is a blending formation created by analogy with an existing word, in which the model of the initial formation has been adopted, or a derivative (compound) formed with a newly developed morphemicized splinter. 8. Neologisms with morphemicized splinters that acquire the status of a regular word-formational device should be studied within traditional (morphological) word formation, whereas the origins of the phenomenon itself should continue to remain an object of blending research. 112 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX Žodžių darymas su atskalomis lietuvių kalboje ŠALTINIAI MD – Macmillan Dictionary. Prieiga internete: https://www.macmillandictionary.com. ND – Miliūnaitė R., Aleksaitė A. Lietuvių kalbos naujažodžių duomenynas [Tęstinis internetinis žinynas nuo 2011 m.], sud. R. Miliūnaitė, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Prieiga internete: https://ekalba.lt/naujazodziai [žiūrėta 2023 m. kovo–gegužės mėn.]. TŽŽ – Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas, red. D. Svetikienė, Vilnius: Alma littera, 2013. LITERATŪRA Aleksaitė Agnė 2021: Lexical Blends in the Lithuanian Language: The Case of The Database of Lithuanian Neologisms. – Buletin Științific, seria A, Fascicula Filologie / Scientific Bulletin, A Series, Philology Fascicle 30, 17–34. Prieiga internete: https://journals.indexcopernicus.com/search/article?articleId=3278576. Aleksaitė Agnė 2022: Lietuvių kalbos naujažodžių daryba (2011–2019 m. Naujažodžių duomenyno pagrindu): daktaro disertacija, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Arndt-Lappe Sabine, Plag Ingo 2013: The Role of Prosodic Structure in the Formation of English Blends. – English Language and Linguistics 17(3), 357–563. DOI: doi.org/10.1017/S1360674313000154. Balteiro Isabel 2017: Emerging Hybrid Spanish-English Blend Structures: ‘Summergete con socketines’. – Lingua 205, 1–14. DOI: doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2017.12.010. Bauer Laurie 2005: The Borderline Between Derivation and Compounding. – Morphology and Its Demarcations, eds. W. U. Dressler, D. Kastovsky, O. E. Pfeiffer, F. Rainer, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 97–108. Bauer ir kt. 2013: Bauer Laurie, Lieber Rochelle, Plag Ingo. The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology, Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198747062.001.0001. Beliaeva Natalia 2019: Blending Creativity and Productivity: On the Issue of Delimiting the Boundaries of Blends as a Type of Word Formation. – Lexis [Online] 14, 1–22. DOI: doi.org/10.4000/lexis.4004. Bombi Raffaella 2017: Anglicisms in Italian: Typologies of Language Contact Phenomena with Particular Reference to Word-Formation Processes. – Towards a New Standard: Theoretical and Empirical Studies on the Renstandardization of Italian, eds. M. Cerruti, C. Crocco, S. Marzo, Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 269–292. DOI: doi.org/10.1515/9781614518839–010. Straipsniai / Articles 113 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ Cacchiani Silvia 2016: On Italian Lexical Blends: Borrowings, Hybridity, Adaptations, and Native Word Formations. – Crossing Languages to Play with Words: Multidisciplinary Perspectives, eds. S. Knospe, A. Onysko, M. Goth, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter, 305–336. DOI: doi.org/10.1515/9783110465600-015. Callies Marcus 2016: Of Soundscapes, Talkathons and Shopaholics: On the Status of a New Type of Formative in English (and Beyond). – STUF – Language Typology and Universals 69(4), 1–22. DOI: doi.org/10.1515/stuf-2016-0021. Correia Saavedra David 2016: Automatically Identifying Blend Splinters that Are Morpheme Candidate. – Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 31(1), 55–71. DOI: doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqu059. Gries Stefan Th. 2004: Shouldn’t It Be breakfunch? A Quantitative Analysis of Blend Structure in English. – Linguistics 42(3), 639–667. Gries Stefan Th. 2012: Quantitative Corpus Data on Blend Formation: Psychoand Cognitive-Linguistic Perspectives. – Crossdisciplinary Perspectives on Lexical Blending, eds. V. Renner, F. Maniez, P. J. L. Arnaud, Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 145–167. Grlj Tanja 2022: Blending as a Word-Formation Process: A Comparative Analysis of Blends in English and French. – Vestnik za tuje jezike / Journal for Foreign Languages 4(1), 85–106. DOI: doi.org/10.4312/vestnik.14.85–106. Hamans Camiel 2021: A Lesson for Covidiots About Some Contact Induced Borrowing of American English Morphological Processes into Dutch. – Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 56(s1), 659–691. DOI: doi.org/10.2478/stap-2021-0009. Inčiuraitė-Noreikienė Lina 2015: Lietuvių kalbos dūriniai su neoklasikiniais dėmenimis. – Baltistica 50(2), 245–259. Prieiga internete: http://www.baltistica.lt/index.php/baltistica/article/view/2238. Jurado Alejandro B. 2019: A Study on the ‘wordgasm’: The Nature of Blends’ Splinters. – Lexis: Journal of English Lexicology [Online] 14, 1–51. Prieiga internete: http://journals.openedition.org/lexis/3916. DOI: doi.org/10.4000/lexis.3916. Kabašinskaitė Birutė 1998: Lietuvių kalbos liaudies etimologija ir artimi reiškiniai, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Keinys Stasys 1999: Bendrinės lietuvių kalbos žodžių daryba, Šiauliai: Šiaulių universitetо leidykla. Konieczna Ewa 2012: Lexical Blending in Polish: A Result of the Internationalisation of Slavic Languages”. – Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Lexical Blending, eds. V. Renner, F. Maniez, P. J. L. Arnaud, Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 51–74. DOI: doi.org/10.1515/9783110289572.51. 114 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX Žodžių darymas su atskalomis lietuvių kalboje Lalić-Krstin Gordana 2008: Portmanteau Animals and Their Portmanteau Names in English and Serbian. – English Language and Literature Studies: Structures Across Culture, international conference proceedings 1, eds. K. Rasulić, I. Trbojević Milošević, Belgrade: Faculty of Philology of the University of Belgrade, 231–239. Lehrer Adrienne 1996: Identifying and Interpreting Blends: An Experimental Approach. – Cognitive Linguistics 7(4), 359–390. DOI: doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1996.7.4.359. Lehrer Adrienne 2007: Blendalicious. – Lexical Creativity, Texts and Contexts. Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics 58, ed. J. Munat, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 115–133. Ločmele Gunta, Veisbergs Andrejs 2011: The Other Polysystem: The Impact of Translation on Language Norms and Conventions in Latvia. – Contexts, Subtexts and Pretexts: Literary Translations in Eastern Europe and Russia, ed. B. J. Baer, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 295–316. DOI: doi.org/10.1075/btl.89.23lo269. Mattiello Elisa 2013: Extra-Grammatical Morphology in English. Abbreviations, Blends, Reduplicatives, and Related Phenomena, Berlin, Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. Mattiello Elisa 2018: Paradigmatic Morphology Splinters, Combining Forms, and Secreted Affixes. – SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 15(1), 2–22. Prieiga internete: http://www.skase.sk/Volumes/JTL36/pdf_doc/01.pdf. Miliūnaitė Rita 2014: Naujieji kontaminaciniai dariniai lietuvių kalboje. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 71, 246–264. Prieiga internete: http://journals.lki.lt/actalinguisticalithuanica/article/view/930/1020. Miliūnaitė Rita 2022: Įvairuojantys ir nauji lietuvių kalbos reiškiniai XXI a. pradžioje: sistematika ir pokyčių kryptys, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. DOI: doi.org/10.35321/e-pub.42.lietuviu-kalbos-pokyčiai. Murmulaitytė Daiva 2018: Kontaminacija ir lietuvių kalbos naujadara. – Kalba ir kontekstai 8(1), 60–70. Prieiga internete: http://talpykla.elaba.lt/elaba-fedora/objects/elaba:31651794/datastreams/MAIN/content. Murmulaitytė Daiva 2020: Naujųjų dūrinių analizės ir klasifikacijos galvosūkiai. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 82, 34–51. Prieiga internete: http://journals.lki.lt/actalinguisticalithuanica/article/view/1023/1398. DOI: doi.org/10.35321/all82-02. Murmulaitytė Daiva 2021: Naujažodžių darybos ir morfemikos tyrimų perspektyvos (Lietuvių kalbos naujažodžių duomenyno atvejis), Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. DOI: doi.org/10.35321/e-pub.16.naujadaros-tyrimu-perspektyvos. Straipsniai / Articles 115 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ Pharies David A. 1987: Blending in Spanish Word-Formation. – Romanistisches Jahrbuch 38(1), 271–289. DOI: doi.org/10.1515/9783110244946.271. Ralli Angela 2020: Affixoids: An Intriguing Intermediate Morphological Category. – Complex Words. Festschrift to Laurie Bauer, ed. by L. Körtvėlyessі, P. Štekauer, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 217–240. Renner Vincent 2015: Lexical Blendings as Wordplay. Wordplay and Metalinguistic / Metadiscursive Reflection, ed. by A. Zirker, E. Winter-Froemel, Berlin, Munich, Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 119–133. DOI: doi.org/10.1515/9783110406719-006. Renner Vincent 2018: Structural Borrowing in Word-Formation: An Exploratory Overview. – SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 15(2), 2–12. Rio-Torto Graça, Sandrini Rafael 2022: Splinter’ na língua portuguesa: concepções e padrões de formação. – Língua portuguesa: temas em filologia e linguística histórica, natival A. S. Neto, A. V. dos Santos, H. I. de Oliveira Nascimento [Organizadores], Feira de Santana, UEFS Editora, 108–116. Rutkienė Lina 2019: Hibridiniai statybos terminijos dūriniai su klasikiniais prepoziciniais sietiniais kamienais. – Terminologija 26, 140–161. Prieiga internete: https://journals.lki.lt/terminologija/article/view/381/460. DOI: doi.org/10.35321/term26-07. Stamenov Christo 2015: Borrowing Word-Formation: -ing Suffixation and Blending in Bulgarian. – Съпоставително езикознание [Săpostavitelno ezikoznanie] / Contrastive Linguistics 40(3), 163–197. Štekauer Pavol 2000: English Word-Formation: A History of Research, 1960–1995, Tübingen: Narr. Tomić Gorica R. 2019: On a New Type of Word-Forming Element in Serbian. – Филолог [Filolog] 20, 248–266. DOI: doi.org/10.21618/fil1920248t. Tomić Gorica R. 2022: Lexical Blends in Serbian: An Analysis of Morphemsemantic Transparency. – Зборник радова Филозофског факултета у Приштини [Zbornik radova Filozofskog fakulteta u Prištini] 52(3), 13–37. DOI: doi.org/10.5937/zrffp52-32090. Tomić Gorica R. 2022a: Hybrid English-Serbian and Serbian-English Lexical Blends in Serbian. – Philologia Mediana 14, 409–428. DOI: doi.org/10.46630/phm.14.2022.29. Urbutis Vincas 2009: Žodžių darybos teorija, 2-asis leidimas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. 116 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX Žodžių darymas su atskalomis lietuvių kalboje Word Formation with Splinters in the Lithuanian Language SUMMARY The spread of blend loanwords and formations in the contemporary Lithuanian language – just like in any other European language – has created a fertile soil for new models of word formation to thrive. One such model is word formation with elements of blend formations – morphemised splinters. The goal of the article is to take a deep dive into the structure of blend loanwords and indigenous or translation blends making their way into the Lithuanian language, and to identify the trends concerning the usage of splinters to make new words in the Lithuanian language as such. The data were gathered from the online Database of Lithuanian Neologisms, which contained 440 words connected to blending as of late May 2023. Nearly half of these words are blends created in or translated into the Lithuanian language, while the rest are blend loanwords. The article consists of a foreword, two chapters, conclusions, and an appendix: a list of the most common morphemised splinters involved in the formation of new words in the Lithuanian language. Chapter one features an overview of the topic of splinters in studies by foreign researchers. Chapter two describes the morphemised and semantically reinterpreted splinters in the usage of the Lithuanian language that are used to form new words. The most common (in descending order) splinters distilled from blend loanwords that have at least two formations (or translations) in the Lithuanian language are as follows: –(m)obilis, –nomika, –geitas, –matas, –(a)holikas, –ė, –demija, –busas, –(k)alipsė, –(flu)enceris, robo–. Thus, blend loanwords used frequently in the Lithuanian language are potential sources of morphemised splinters for the formation of new words. Another trend follows the formation of Lithuanian splinters: –stogos [< atostogos, cf. darbostogos (Eng. workation), ornitostogos (Eng. orniholidays), sportostogos (Eng. sportcation)] and –(l)ėdos [< Kalėdos ‘Christmas’, cf. Klaikėdos (Horristmas, ‘a horrible Christmas’), Oktalėdos (Oktaristmas, ‘a Christmas by the band Oktava’)]. Įteikta 2023 m. birželio 15 d. RITA MILIŪNAITĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas Petro Vileišio g. 5, LT–10308 Vilnius, Lietuva [email protected] Straipsniai / Articles 117 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ PRIEDAS. Dažniausios morfemizuotos atskal os ND naujažodžiuose 118 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX Žodžių darymas su atskalomis lietuvių kalboje 20 Anglų kalboje pirmas kontaminacinis darinys su šia atskala autorholic (darboholikas, -ė) fiksuotas dar 1947 m. (Mattiello 2018: 10). Straipsniai / Articles 119 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ 120 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX Žodžių darymas su atskalomis lietuvių kalboje Morfemizuotos atkalos –nominika Naujų žodžių skaičius ND 13 Apibendrinta atkalos reikšmė ekonomikos rūšis, sielama su tuo, kas pasakyta pirmąjį dėmenį atitinkančiu žodžiu Atkalos kilmė (pagal TŽŽ) < ekonomika < gr. oikonomiké Skoliniai su atkalomis abėnomika putinomika regionomika fotonömika žmonomika Vertiniai ir nauji dariniai su atkalomis dykonomika douonomika gerontomika griponomika kelledonomika keistonomika laukonomika mononomika –(o)rama 4 plačiai aprėpiamas vaizdas, susijęs su tuo, kas pasakyta pirmąjį dėmenį atitinkančiu žodžiu < panorama < gr. pan- + horama miriorama Diorama keledorama koronorama –(r)endumas 3 referendumu rūšis, susijusi su tuo, kas pasakyta pirmąjį dėmenį atitinkančiu žodžiu < referendum < lot. referendum putirendumas meronendumas okupendumas robo- 5 roboto rūšis pagal tai, kas pasakyta antrąjį dėmenį atitinkančiu žodžiu, kas siejama su roboto < robotas < ček. robot robofilija robotaksi robotanekas robotité robosūo –ska 3 nebutų dalykų pasakojimas žanras, susijęs su tuo, kas pasakyta pirmąjį dėmenį atitinkančiu žodžiu < liet. tautosaka — eurosaka okupuent­saka zatosaka Straipsniai / Articles 121 RITA MILIŪNAITĖ Morfemizuotos atskalos –stogos –tonas –tronas Naujų žodžių skaičius ND 5 4 3 Apibendrinta atskalos reikšmė atostogų rūšis, susijusi su tuo, kas pasakyta pirmąjį dieną atitinkamų žodžių įgai trunkančios varžytuvės, susijusios su tuo, kas pasakyta pirmąjį dieną atitinkamų žodžių elektroninis įrenginys, susijęs su tuo, kas pasakyta pirmąjį dieną atitinkamų žodžių Ataskalos kilmė (pagal TŽŽ) < liet. atostogos < maratonas < graik. Marathōn (vietovardis) < elektronas < graik. elektron Skoliniai su atskalom – bihodetonas haletronas lochatronas Vertiniai ir naujai sudaromi su atskalomis autostogos darbstogos orritostogos spatostogos sportostogos ideatonas perhatonas mesotronas sovetronas 122 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX