Moterų pavardžių reforma lietuvių kalbos žodžių darybos aspektu

Daiva Murmulaitytė

doi:10.35321/all89-06

Go to original

Preparing document pages…

DAIVA MURMULAITYTĖ

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

ORCID id: orcid.org/0000-0003-3826-7272

Research areas: word formation, morphemics, lexicography, lexicology.

DOI: doi.org/10.35321/all89-06

REFORM OF WOMEN’S SURNAMES FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF LITHUANIAN WORD FORMATION

The Women’s Surname Reform in the Lithuanian Language from the Perspective of Word Formation

ABSTRACT

Word formation (and consequently, the formation of personal names and surnames) is part of the language system. Therefore, Lithuanian women’s surnames must conform to the regularities prescribed by that system. For important sociocultural reasons (not merely an aesthetic motive), any attempt to reform this system requires assessing the prospects of Lithuanian language development and anticipating the possible consequences of such changes. The article draws attention to aspects of Lithuanian morphology (word formation) that are omitted or ignored in discussions of the proposal to legalize Lithuanian women’s surnames with the ending −(i)a. The relationship between tradition and systematicity is examined. The formation of women’s surnames that do not indicate marital status with the ending −ė is regarded as a motivated exception (because the forms of women’s and men’s surnames coincide), but not as a precedent on which further reform of the surname system can be based.

KEYWORDS: personal names, women’s surnames, word formation, ending, systematicity.

ANNOTATION

The formation of words (and consequently surnames) is an integral part of the language system. Therefore, Lithuanian female surnames must conform to this system’s regularities. For significant socio-cultural reasons, not solely based on aesthetic considerations, it is imperative to evaluate the prospects for the development of the Lithuanian language

Straipsniai / Articles

123

DAIVA MURMULAITYTĖ

and anticipate the potential consequences of change when reforming the microsystem of surnames. The paper underscores specific aspects of Lithuanian language morphology (word formation) that are frequently overlooked or ignored in the discussions regarding the proposal to legalize Lithuanian female surnames ending in –(i)a. It delves into the relationship between tradition and systematicity. The use of the ending -ė for the formation of the female surnames not demonstrating women’s marital status is considered a motivated exception (due to the overlap in the form of female and male surnames) rather than a precedent to further reforming the surname system.

KEYWORDS: personal names, female surnames, word formation, ending, systematicity.

INTRODUCTION

On 4 May 2023, a draft law amending Article 3 of Law No. XIV-903 on the Writing of a Person’s Name and Surname in Documents, No. XIVP-2700^¹, was registered in the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania; on 4 July, following its presentation, it was accepted for consideration. The draft seeks to change the system of women’s surnames so that women could choose “a surname with the ending –a or –ia, formed from a man’s surname having the ending –a or –ia.” Before then, there had been more than one discussion, press conference, and statement in the press, on radio and television, and on social media (for references, see the list of sources and literature), in which arguments “for” and “against” such a proposal were presented. At first, the project’s initiators seemed to try to heed the observations of Lithuanian-language specialists; at least in official documents, the proposed reform was no longer regarded merely as a matter of surname spelling^², but the further it progressed, the less the arguments of Lithuanian-language specialists were heard. Eventually, emphasis began to be placed on the claim that the innovation being initiated was simply a person’s right to have the surname they wanted^³, while attention to the lan-

^¹ See https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAP/e557d8a0ea5611eda305cb3bdf2af4d8?jfwid=-bxdpcdur9 [accessed 2023-10-01].

^² The title of the law proposed for amendment is probably somewhat misleading, since in the media word formation continues to be confused with spelling: https://www.lrt.lt/naujienos/lietuvoje/2/2022287/moteru-pavardziu-rasymo-projekto-pateikimas-atidetas-kitai-savaitei; https://www.15min.lt/naujiena/aktualu/lietuva/vlkk-i-pakarklytes-iniciatyva-del-moteru-pavardziu-skatina-nedarnia-teisėku-ra-56-2049000; https://www.lrytas.lt/lietuvosdiena/aktualijos/2023/01/26/news/sarkiene-galetu-tapti-sarka-siulymas-keisti-moterisku-pavardziu-rasyba-sulauke-priestaringu-reakciju-25930477 and so on [accessed 2023-08-10].

^³ “A name is an inseparable part of a person’s identity. An individual should have the right to choose the name and surname with which they feel comfortable.” (https://www.lrytas.lt/lietuvosdiena/aktualijos/2023/01/26/news/sarkiene-galetu-tapti-sarka-siulymas-keisti-moterisku-pavardziu-rasyba-sulauke-priestaringu-reakciju-25930477 [accessed 2023-08-10]). Especially emphatically, only as

124

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX

Moterų pavardžių reforma lietuvių kalbos žodžių darybos aspektu

the opinion of linguists need not be taken into account on this issue, because this is not “grammar.” In the round-table discussion “A Person’s Surname—A Person’s Choice?”, the sociolinguist who spoke there equated a surname in general with an emblem or label to which the laws of language as a system therefore do not apply^⁴. Without extending the discussions with politicians and specialists in human rights, equal opportunities, psychology, sociolinguistics, and law concerning personal names as indicators and expressions of human identity, one must nevertheless pause at linguistics, since this field of scholarship cannot be bypassed here. Personal names, however they may appear in the eyes of representatives of the aforementioned fields^⁵, are words; they constitute language. And the latter is unquestionably a system. Surnames are a matter of the language system—not only of grammar, but also of pronunciation and other areas. And who, if not language specialists (in this case, above all, Lithuanianists, researchers of Lithuanian personal names and word formation, and morphologists), knows the structure and operating laws of that system best and, having assessed all this, can foresee its developmental prospects and the consequences of similar reforms?

The aim of the article is to draw attention to aspects of Lithuanian word formation and morphology that are omitted or ignored in public discussions of the proposal to legalize Lithuanian women’s surnames with the ending –(i)a, and to base on them a negative assessment of such surnames^⁶. To achieve this, the following tasks were undertaken: to examine the arguments published publicly (in presentations of the draft law, discussions, articles by language specialists, and documents and explanations of the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language) that support the formation of Lithuanian women’s surnames with the ending –(i)a from men’s surnames with an analogous ending, or by which this

surnames are treated as a part of human identity (contrary to elementary knowledge of language) by a representative of the Equal Opportunities Development Centre (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I678BYMkntg, at approximately 4:30 in the recording) and by a considerable number of other discussion participants. The fact that “[s]urnames are cultural heritage belonging not only to the surname holder but also to the nation, the state, the community, and the family” (Garšva 2012: 221) is entirely ignored.

^⁴ “We can basically perceive names as an emblem. [...] It is essentially an emblem of identity, not grammar. [...] We can, in principle, take that name unchanged according to grammar, if a woman needs it, with that masculine ending, and it will be like a label. Žvirblis. Lina. Viškas. The Lithuanian language managed it. No one adopted it.” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I678BYMkntg, at approximately 59:00 in the recording [accessed 2023–08–10]).

^⁵ Cf. also the statement made in the presentation of the draft, analogous to that of the aforementioned sociolinguist: “The issue of surnames is not an issue of Lithuanian grammar and in no way forms part of that grammar” (https://www.lrs.lt/sip/portal.show?p_r=35826&p_k=1&p_a=media_object_viewer&guid=4B73D31A-AF71-4D4C-8D76-9FC73E0B3717 at approximately 56:40 in the recording).

^⁶ As the article was being completed, the negative conclusions of the Scientific Council of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language concerning this draft were published; they present further weighty arguments against approving the proposal to legalize women’s surnames with the ending –(i)a (for references, see the list of sources and literature).

Straipsniai / Articles

125

DAIVA MURMULAITYTĖ

the proposal is opposed; the functional range of the endings –(i)a and –ė is reviewed, focusing on synchronic formation, while also highlighting relevant aspects of the historical formation of nomina feminima and tendencies in neologism formation; the problem of distinguishing tradition and systematicity in assessing language innovations is discussed.

The research methods are morphological, word-formation, and semantic analysis.

1. THE WORD-FORMATION ENDING –(i)a

1.1. Regarding common nouns and their formation, it should be recalled that in contemporary Lithuanian there are seven homonymous endings –(i)a^{⁷, su kuriomis daromi:}

• names of actions, for example: trauka (: traukti), apklausa (: apklausti); apkalta ‘a parliamentary procedure applied to senior officials or members of parliament who have violated the constitution or broken their oath (: apkaltinti), atodėka (: atsidekoti), dreba (: drebėti), perdava (: perduoti), persamda (: persamdyti), prieskyra ‘the institution designated by an author to which a publication is assigned’ (: priskirti), etc. (LKG 1965: 303–304; DLKG 2006: 99; ND);

• names of properties, for example: drąsa (: drąsus, –i), gausa (: gausus, –i); judra (: judrus, –i), tv ara (: tvarus, –i), nejauka (: nejaukus, –i), etc. (LKG 1965: 316; DLKG 2006: 104; ND);

• names of agents or bearers of verbal properties, for example: žliumba (: žliumbti); nuokvaka ‘someone who has gone senile or foolish; an old fool’ (: nukvakti), sąžvėra ‘an introverted person’ (: s užvėrėti), šmeža ‘someone who keeps appearing and disappearing (flickering)’ (: šmėžuoti), etc. (LKG 1965: 338; DLKG 2006: 112–113; ND);

• names of bearers of nominal properties, for example: bailia ‘a coward’ (: bailus, –i), etc. (LKG 1965: 367; DLKG 2006: 124)^⁸;

• names of places, for example: prieglauda (: pri(si)glausti), pervalka (: pervilkti); nuovaža (: nuvažiuoti), nuožulna ‘a sloping place (which may be specially installed, e.g. for transport)’ (: nuožulnus, –i), etc. (LKG 1965: 405; DLKG 2006: 137; ND);

• names of results of actions, for example, skalda (: skaldyti); išruva ‘something that flows into a stream’ (: įsrūti), išdauža ‘a battered-out area of a surface (road, wall, etc.)’ (: išdaužti, išdaužyti), išgirda ‘something heard’ (: išgirsti), išspauda ‘that,

^⁷ For more on the homonymy of word-formation devices, see Murmulaitytė 2022.

^⁸ Neologisms of this word-formation category formed with the ending under discussion do not appear to have been recorded in the Neologism Database (ND) [accessed 2023–10–02].

126

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX

Moterų pavardžių reforma lietuvių kalbos žodžių darybos aspektu

that which is concentratedly presented from the available information’ (: išspausti), nuopūta ‘a fall in the water level of a body of water and the exposure of the shore due to wind blowing offshore’ (: nupūsti) (LKG 1965: 378–379; DLKG 2006: 128; ND) and • names of instruments, for example: saga (: segti), pakaba (: pakabinti), įmova (: įmauti), etc. (LKG1965: 395; DLKG 2006: 132–133)⁹.

It should be noted that derivatives in five word-formation categories are feminine-gender nouns, whereas two—names of agents or bearers of verbal properties (žliumba) and names of bearers of nominal properties (baila)—are common-gender nouns. These substantiva communia can designate persons, animals, personified beings, and so on of either female or male sex. The sex of the subject intended is shown by the grammatical gender of the other words with which the derivative ending in –(i)a is syntactically coordinated, cf.: Vaikystėje buvau didelė [didelė] žliumba (BLKŽ); Tokis baila, tai ir savo šešėlio bijosi (LKŽė).

In contemporary Lithuanian, names based on sex differences are not formed with the ending –(i)a. This word-formation category comprises derivatives whose word-formation meaning is ‘a person or other living being of the sex opposite to that denoted by the base word’. They are formed with several suffixes and one ending, –ė. Of the suffixes, only –ienė and –(i)uvienė are characteristic of the standard language, for example, karalienė (: karalius), dėdžiuvienė (: dėdžius), sukčiuvienė (: sukčius), and –inas, for example, lapinas (: lapė), and –ėnas, for example, tetėnas (: teta); for more on this category, see LKG 1965: 416–418; DLKG 2006: 142–143.

1.2. Saulius Ambrazas, who studied the development of Lithuanian noun word-formation categories, states that “noun derivatives with the ending –a that directly denote the female sex are merely remnants,” and provides just a few examples from old writings—drauga ‘female friend’, sėbra ‘female companion’, the uncertain gaida ‘female singer’, as well as several derivatives based on suffixal nouns: draugala ‘wife’, paleistuvė (: draugalas ‘friend; lover; paramour; adulterer, fornicator’), guluova ‘wife’ (: guluovas ‘husband’), kaimyna, patina ‘female animal’, tetulėna ‘aunt’s daughter’ (: tetulėnas ‘aunt’s son’). Later, such derivatives were displaced by corresponding derivatives with the ending –ė (draugė, sėbrė, guluovė, kaimynė, etc.), which in Lithuanian is the principal word-formation device for names of female persons and animals (Ambrazas 2000: 71–72, 79). Pranas Skardžius, who likewise studied Lithuanian word formation from a historical perspective, while discussing the “vocalic suffix –a,” thus

⁹ Apparently, new names of instruments formed with the ending –a have also not been recorded in ND [accessed 2023-10-22]. Unless the neologism atmena ‘a memory aid—a note containing concise information about a matter or event or instructions on how to do something’ (: atmintі) is understood as the name of a means for remembering something.

Straipsniai / Articles

127

DAIVA MURMULAITYTĖ

mentions some of these examples, but does not write that the names of women were formed from names of men, nor does he graphically indicate that there is a word-formation opposition between them (Skardžius 1996 [1943]: 36–37). He regards the word tetulėna as a derivative with the suffix –ėna and does not associate it through a direct word-formation relationship (as a derivative with a base word) with tetulėnas (Skardžius 1996 [1943]: 238–239). Synchronically, the latter pair of kinship terms would appear semantically more similar to a mobile noun (for more on substantiva mobilia, see Section 3), whose masculine and feminine forms are directly related to the base noun tetulė. If the word tetulėna is regarded as a nominum femininum, that is, as a derivative with the ending –a from tetulėnas, it would be difficult to formulate its word-formation meaning. If it is a name based on a sex difference, then relative to the base word tetulėna it should differ only by the female-sex seme; however, ‘daughter’ is not ‘a female son’. But the probable feminine-gender form of a mobile noun should presumably have the ending –ė (cf. seserėnas ‘sister’s son’, seserėnė ‘sister’s daughter’ (LKŽe)). On the other hand, LKŽe does not show living usage of the word tetulėna; it is recorded only in several old dictionaries, so without coherent contexts from living language it is more difficult to assess its semantic relations with words in the same word-formation nest.

In any event, these are merely theoretical speculations; diachronic word formation must not be confused with synchronic word formation. Likewise, the fact that at some time in Lithuanian nomina feminina were formed with the ending –a, together with a few historical, no longer current derivatives of this ending, should not be used to support the proposed reforms of the contemporary language¹⁰. All the more so because the drauga and other nomina feminina mentioned by historians of word formation were not based on base words of identical form (cf. draugas); consequently, one could not speak of reviving this type of word formation.

1.3. Nor have neologisms with the ending –(i)a been recorded that would denote only a person, animal, personified being, and so on differing in sex from the person, animal, personified being, etc. designated by the base word. The sole neologism žmoga (Murmulaitytė 2021: 57–58; Aleksaitė 2022: 233; Miliūnaitė 2022: 292–294) with this ending was deliberately created not so much to distinguish women from among human beings, that is, to give the base word žmogus the seme of femininity, as to create a word that would not indicate affiliation with either sex. Cf. the neologism’s author Daiva Repečkaitė’s motivation¹¹:

¹⁰ “Genetic, primordial [...] word-formation relations cannot have any influence on word formation (the construction of neologisms) when they no longer manifest themselves synchronically, that is, when they no longer coincide with current word-formation relations” (Urbutis 2009: 41).

¹¹ Here and below, quotations and examples of word usage are reproduced unedited; personal names occurring in them have been replaced with initials, and omitted passages are marked [...].

128

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX

Moterų pavardžių reforma lietuvių kalbos žodžių darybos aspektu

“I would sometimes think about how to tune my vocabulary so that some of my values would be reflected. More specifically—I have a problem with the word „žmogus“, because it is clearly masculine in gender. [...] But the other day I came up with the idea that I could simply say „žmoga“.¹⁰ [...] In terms of gender, this is essentially a flexible word, formed according to analogous Lithuanian words „neklaũžda“, „pikčiurna“, „vepla“, „pirdyla“, „nenuorama“, „rašėiva“ (for some reason I thought only of negative ones). Masculine nouns declined as feminine are also common in some variants of the Aukštaitian dialect (as is the famous „bratka“). So I would say „jis geras žmogа“ and „ji gera žmogа^“¹².

Thus, what was sought was not a feminine-gender but a common-gender neologism suitable for naming people of both sexes (substantivum commune), and therefore žmoga cannot be regarded as a name based on a sex difference. It could not belong to this word-formation category also because it does not correspond to the aforementioned word-formation meaning characteristic of all its derivatives, ‘a person or other living being of the sex opposite to that denoted by the base word’, since the base word žmogus has no sex seme at all^¹³

According to Rita Miliūnaitė (2022: 293), an attempt is sometimes made “[...] to express a sex difference through the forms žmogus–žmoga (žmoga is associated with other feminine-gender nouns pilietė, profesionalė, kolegė),” but in the only usage example provided¹⁴, žmoga appears to be used precisely to neutralize the gender semantics of the masculine grammatical gender of the previously used word žmonės, clarifying that people of both sexes are meant, and the neologism is consistently used as a common-gender word, which is how it was created. Of course, it cannot be completely ruled out that žmoga may be understood and used in the meaning ‘a female human being’, but this most often occurs only when people object to the neologism itself and do not know the circumstances and motivation of its emergence, rather than when they use it naturally in their own language. Be that as it may, time will show whether this neologism will move beyond the bounds of its narrow and stylistically connoted

¹² Quoted from ND (see https://ekalba.lt/naujazodziai/%C5%BEmoga?paieska=%C5%BEmoga&i=566420fd-308c-4036-8452-0e6f494dc614 [accessed 2023-09-03]).

¹³ Incidentally, one should not be surprised that, when looking for analogies, only words with negative connotations come to mind—the pejorative semantics is characteristic of most of the cited word-formation types (the suffixes -la, -eiva, and derivatives with the ending -a naming agents, bearers of verbal properties, or bearers of nominal properties) (cf. the descriptions of these word-formation devices in ŽDV).

¹⁴ “According to the currently prevailing view in Lithuania, women are still perceived, and perceive themselves, primarily as representatives of a sex—as women, wives, potential mistresses, mothers, rather than as people, žmogаs—citizens, professionals, colleagues. [...]” (15min.lt, 2015–12–14, quoted from ND: see https://ekalba.lt/naujazodziai/%C5%BEmoga?paieska=%C5%BEmoga&i=566420fd-308c-4036-8452-0e6f494dc614 [accessed 2023-09-03]).

Straipsniai / Articles

129

DAIVA MURMULAITYTĖ

usage, or whether its semantic structure will expand. However, it is clear that žmogą is an occasionalism, an atypical neologism irregular in both form and semantics. As such, and by itself, it in no way indicates that one of the word-formation categories of Lithuanian—the names based on sex differences—has been enriched by a new word-formation device, the ending -(i)a (cf. Aleksaitė 2022: 231–233, 239). Thus, the plan to reform the Lithuanian surname system cannot be supported by this example from the perspective of word formation (neologism formation) either.

1.4. Thus, in contemporary Lithuanian there is no word-formation type consisting of derivatives naming female humans, animals, personified creatures, and so on, formed with the word-formation ending –(i)a from corresponding names of male humans, animals, personified creatures, and so on. This applies both to common-word and surname microsystems. It should also be noted that, in the case of the proposed surname reform (at least its initial stage, since there is no concealment of the intention to expand it), the base word and the derivative would be completely identical in form. Both male and female surnames would have the ending –(i)a. The Lithuanian word-formation system apparently also has no cases in which the ending of the base word would be replaced by an analogous one. For the ending -ė in this respect, see Section 2.2.

2. THE WORD-FORMATION ENDING -ė

2.1. The principal word-formation device for nomina feminina is the ending -ė (LKG 1965: 417–418; DLKG 2006: 142–143; cf. Ambrazas 2000: 79). On the basis of existing word-formation oppositions¹⁵ vilkė: vilkas, balandė: balandis, etc. (this word-formation category formerly consisted mainly of names of female animals), new words are formed that differ from their bases by the seme of femininity: budelė (: budelis), piratė (: piratas), popiežė (: popiežius), patrulė (: patrulis). The base nouns of the neologisms robotė (: robotas), kūdikė (: kūdikis), lavonė (: lavonas), elitė (: elitas), having a grammatically masculine form, are not even semantically associated with the male sex. However, when it is necessary to mark or emphasize sex (femininity), the word-formation device customary for this purpose—the ending

¹⁵ The principle of analogy is essential in word formation (Urbutis 2009: 327–328). A word-formation type consists of words related through word formation, made with the same word-formation formant from base words belonging to the same part of speech and having the same word-formation meaning; in the present case, words meaning a person, animal, personified being, or the like of the opposite (female) sex are formed from nouns with the ending –ė.

130

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX

Moterų pavardžių reforma lietuvių kalbos žodžių darybos aspektu

–e¹⁶. “Female” names of professions, titles, and the like that previously applied only to men are probably formed most consistently in this way (for more on this and other semantic groups of such neologisms, see Miliūnaitė 2022: 290–292). In cases where the masculine-gender base noun has the ending –a (for example, viršila), the feminine-gender counterpart is likewise regularly formed with the ending –ė, as follows:

(1) By order of V. V., head of the Utena County Chief Police Commissariat, the following were awarded the third-degree police distinction badge “For Merit”: R. S., senior investigator, police commissioner inspector of the Response Division of the Anykščiai District Police Commissariat; V. K., senior patrol officer of the Response Division of the Anykščiai District Police Commissariat, senior warrant officer;¹⁷

(2) The head of the Klaipėda County Chief Police Commissariat awarded, for impeccable and exemplary performance of official duties and on the occasion of Guardian Angels’ Day—the police holiday—the third-degree police distinction “For Merit” to the senior post officer of the Criminal Police Division of the Palanga City Police Commissariat, viršilę A. C. [...]¹⁸.

2.2. Two decades ago, a reform of Lithuanian surnames was carried out, under which the formation of women’s surnames not indicating marital status with the ending –e was legalized¹⁹. Today, this reform can apparently be regarded as motivated by and justified for sociocultural reasons. Women, like every person, have the right not to disclose their personal data; in this case, not to have their surname reveal their social status. Previously, such a desire would have seemed strange; nowadays it seems natural, and there truly is a need to have such a derivational means allowing a surname not to disclose marital status. On June 26, 2003, the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language,

¹⁶Since this is a typical and productive nomina feminina derivational means, based on a base word that does not have the sex seme, it could be regarded as a new word-formation tendency, revealing the continuing and even growing functionality of the ending –ė: to indicate, express, or emphasize the femininity of what the derivative denotes, or its association with the female sex. The situation is different in the case of the ending –a, which has nothing to do with the expression of sex difference (cf. section 1.3).

¹⁷See https://www.anyksta.lt/anyksci-policijos-pareigun-veikla-ivertino-ir-policijos-generalinis-komisaris/ [accessed 2023-07-10].

¹⁸On the occasion of Police Day—awards for officers. – Palangos tiltas, 2014–10–06; available online: https://www.palangostiltas.lt/policijos+d dienos+proga++apdovanojimai+pareigunams,7,2,5170.html [accessed 2023-07-10].

¹⁹A decade later, R. Miliūnaitė quantitatively and qualitatively investigated the public’s linguistic attitudes toward such surnames and prepared a comprehensive scholarly study showing the views of the society of that time toward women’s surnames and changes in their use (Miliūnaitė 2013).

Straipsniai / Articles

131

DAIVA MURMULAITYTĖ

“having considered the opinions expressed by the public and the proposal of the Office of the Equal Opportunities Ombudsperson for Women and Men concerning the formation of women’s surnames,” decided that “in cases where one wishes to have (grant) a surname form that would not indicate marital status, a surname may be formed from a man’s surname with the ending –ė, e.g.: Alminė (from Alminas), Talmantė (from Talmantas), Butkė (from Butkus) [...]. When a man’s surname has the ending –ė, the woman’s surname remains unchanged, e.g.: Lapė, Kregždė.”²⁰ The latter statement is formulated unclearly and ambiguously²¹. Should it be understood that the woman’s surname was already like that? Or that the woman receives the same surname as the man? In that case, it would follow that the woman receives the man’s unchanged surname, and that this is not word formation? Such an interpretation can also be discerned in the overview of the relevant legislation on the VLKK website, where the case in question is described as follows (underlined in the quotation—author’s note): “On May 4, 2023, Seimas member I. P. Riegistravo the draft law amending Article 3 of the Law on the Writing of Personal Names and Surnames in Documents No. XIV-903 [...]. It provides for an exception concerning the form of Lithuanian women’s surnames—surnames would become non-derived and not only have the ending –ė, but also –a, –ia.”²²

However, in the cases of surnames Lapė, Kregždė, Paukštė, Dirse, Gaulė and the like with the ending –ė, a derivational opposition could also be discerned, e.g., Kregždė (man’s surname): Kregždė (woman’s surname), because in this case the endings of the masculine and feminine surnames are merely formally analogous. From the perspective of word formation, the ending –ė in the surname of a man and that of his wife/daughter is not the same. The man’s surname simply has it; it is an inflectional ending, whereas the woman’s surname may be formed with it; it would be a derivational ending, adding the meaning of the opposite sex to the base word (the man’s surname). Thus, essentially, these would be two endings – inflectional and derivational –ė, so replacing the former (which the man’s surname has) with the latter, in order to give the neologism, its derivative, the feminine seme and feminine grammatical gender, would be logical. Formally, nothing seems to change, but together with the derivational ending –ė, the woman’s surname acquires the paradigm of feminine grammatical gender: that Mrs./Miss Kregždė is quite pleasant, I have not seen the elder Kregždė for a long time, the floor is given to Professor Kregždė, we meet our neighbor Kregždė in the stairwell, the teacher has still not found common ground with little Kregždė, and so on. The ending –(i)a, as mentioned, does not perform such a derivational function and

²⁰ VLKK Resolution No. N–2(87) of June 26, 2003. It was updated on April 27, 2023 (No. N–1 (199)), but the provision for which it was created—specifically, concerning surnames with the ending –ė—remained unchanged.

²¹ In Kazimieras Garšva’s opinion, the resolution itself is hasty, while the fact “that in certain cases a neologistic woman’s surname will not differ from a man’s surname (when it has the ending –ė: Bložė, Gervė, Kielė, Kregždė, Mitė, Ropė, Skrebė, Vegelė, Žagrė, etc.)” is supposedly an oversight (Garšva 2012: 220).

²² See https://vardai.vlkk.lt/teises-aktai-reglamentuojantys-asmenvardziu-klausimus [accessed 2023-08-11].

132

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX

Moterų pavardžių reforma lietuvių kalbos žodžių darybos aspektu

does not confer the feminine seme—there is no group of words formed in this way, no derivational type by analogy with which new words could be formed—so it cannot be regarded as a derivational means for forming names according to sex difference. Natural language development shows no tendency toward such a new derivational type, while its artificial, unmotivated creation, not arising from the language itself, may have unpredictable consequences. Thus, if the ending –(i)a is not a derivational means, Šarka (man’s surname): Šarka (woman’s surname) is not a derivational opposition. Consequently, the emergence of a word denoting a woman is not word formation.

3. SUBSTANTIVA MOBILIA

Sometimes the supposed formation with the ending –a of words containing the feminine-sex seme is supported by examples of so-called mobile nouns (substantiva mobilia): mokytojas – mokytoja, veikėjas – veikėja, and so on.^²³ In general, there is no complete clarity or consensus concerning mobile nouns (at the theoretical level)—whether they are different words or morphological forms of one word, that is, whether the feminine-gender noun is formed from the corresponding masculine-gender noun (veikėja – from veikėjas), or whether both are based on the same base word (veikėjas, veikėja – from veikti). Depending on how the relationship between these words/forms is interpreted, that relationship is regarded as either word formation or inflection (for more on this and the indicated literature, see Murmulaitytė 2021: 60–63). It cannot be ignored that substantiva mobilia are atypical nouns because they possess both adjectival and nominal properties (Judžentis 2012: 34). Nevertheless, Lithuanian grammars state that the forms of the two genders constitute one word here—a noun having forms of two genders (cf. LKG 1965: 416–417; DLKG 2006: 142). This is logical and understandable when the meaning of word formation is taken into account (cf. also Urbutis 2009: 200, 202 concerning words with the ending –ė). How this occurs (the motivation and logic of formation) can be imagined using one example.

Artojas is an agent noun, formed with the suffix –tojas, –a from the verb arti (aria, arė). From olden times, only the masculine form of this noun was realized and widely used, because the feminine form was not relevant; plowing was generally

^²³This is more often characteristic of non-scholarly discourse, but such an interpretation of the feminine-gender form—as formed from the masculine-gender form—also occurs in publications by philologists (cf. Jezukevičienė 2023: 21) and language specialists (Paulauskienė 1994: 48; 2007: 72; Ambrazas 2000: 79, and elsewhere). In an expert clarification concerning the possibilities for the development of women’s surnames (see section 4), stating that “the systematic phenomenon is the formation of names of persons of feminine gender from the masculine gender with endings and suffixes: draugas / draugė, klasiokas / klasiokė, uošvis / uošvė / uošvienė, sargas / sargienė, karalius / karalienė [...]”, the word klasiokė is evidently considered a derivative of the base word klasiokas, formed with the ending –ė (see https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAP/e557d8a0ea5611eda305c-b3bdf2af4d8?jfwid=-bxdpcdur9, Appendix 3, p. 2 [accessed 2023–09–28]).

Straipsniai / Articles

133

DAIVA MURMULAITYTĖ

were generally performed by men. The potential, that is, language-system-prescribed, feminine form artoja is recorded in the Supplementary Card Index of LKŽ from old dictionaries (Dionizas Poška’s Polish–Lithuanian Dictionary and Simonas Daukantas’s Great Dictionary of the Lithuanian and Polish Languages (1850–1856)). Clearly, because there was no need for it, it was not realized in living usage; LKŽ, DLKŽ, and other dictionaries provide only the masculine form artojas. When it became necessary to name a woman who plows, in reference to present-day realities, artoję: emerged:

(3) Those who did not dare compete with experienced ploughmen had the opportunity to test their skills in the ploughing competition for townsmen and village lads. All those who wished could plough a furrow and thus touch upon the old traditions of ploughing with horses in agriculture. […] The winner of this competition was the self-proclaimed “village girl” ploughing from Kapčiamiestis, B. S.^²⁴;

(4) The only artoje won “bronze.” […] Participating in a plowing competition for the first time, the only artoje N. R. won third place^²⁵;

(5) Plower Ž. […] She did not win an outstanding place, but was the only artoje woman and was awarded a prize for that. […] For the first time in the five years of the festival, artoję also decided to compete in Trumpiškiai, namely Z. S. from our district^²⁶;

(6) Austria had a team of four people who helped its women artojėms^²⁷;

(7) It is also very important not to go too far. I like wit, but not vulgarity. Finding a balance, the middle ground, is not easy—one can easily end up with either a silent beauty who is afraid to utter a word, or someone like a artoję straight from the plow…^²⁸.

²⁴ The First Furrow Festival—with traditional rites and a spring fair. – AlytusPlius.lt, 2017–05–03; available online: https://m.alytusplius.lt/naujienos/pirmosios-vagos-svente-su-tradicinemis-apeigomis-ir-pavasariniu-jomarku [accessed 2023-07-09].

²⁵ The district’s best plowmen—the young farmers. – Šiaulių kraštas, 2007–06–23; available online: http://old.skrastas.lt/?data=2007–06–23&rub=1144745056&id=1182533319 [accessed 2023-07-09].

²⁶ After the “First Furrow Competition” festival. – Rokiškio rajono vietos veiklos grupė, available online: http://senas.rokiskiovvg.lt/index.php/en/news/67-po-pirmosios-vagos-varytuvi-vents [accessed 2023-07-09].

²⁷ Audronė Puišienė, From Canada—with new experience and impressions. – Vakarų Lietuva, 2013–08–06; available online: https://www.pajurionaujienos.com/?act=exp&sid=9890 [accessed 2023-07-09].

²⁸ R. Velijevaitė: I do not want to love blindly. – Moters savaitė, 2011–11–22; available online: https://www.tv3.lt/naujiena/zmones/r-velijevaite-nenoriu-myleti-aklai-n566733 [accessed 2023-07-09].

134

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX

Moterų pavardžių reforma lietuvių kalbos žodžių darybos aspektu

Thus, when it became necessary to name a new concept— a woman who ploughs—, instead of realizing the potential form artoja, based, like artojas, on the verb arti, a new word artoje was formed with the derivational suffix -ė, which conveys feminine-gender semantics, taking the usual masculine-gender noun artojas as its derivational base. It is obvious from the different ending that this is not the morphological feminine form of the mobile noun artojas, -a, but an independent derivative, a separate word, artoje, connected with the base word artojas by derivational relations. In particular, the seventh example of usage shows that its semantics is related to the verb arti only indirectly and rather remotely. It can be seen that in this case artoje is based not even on the primary, but on the figurative meaning of the base word artojas—namely, not ‘a person who ploughs, a tiller of the soil’, but ‘an uncultured, uneducated person, a “country bumpkin”’. Thus, the feminine-gender word should undoubtedly be treated as a derivative of the noun artojas, rather than as a derivative of the primary word of the derivational nest—the verb arti. Artojas, alongside its primary meaning, ‘a person who ploughs’, has various additional semes in different contexts—cf. valgyti, kirsti kaip artojui, i.e. to eat or drink a great deal, heartily, so as to have the strength needed by ploughmen when performing heavy physical labor, ploughing (8–10); būti pavargusiam kaip artojui nuo sunkaus darbo, to be tired like a ploughman from hard work (11); (pasi)gerti kaip artojui, i.e. to drink a great deal, without restraint (12); generally, to look and behave in an uncultured manner (13), and so on. As the examples show, in such more or less fossilized word combinations, even when women are being referred to, the masculine-gender noun is used considerably more often:

(8) [...] she was scolded for being thin. This greatly annoyed the girl, because she is naturally slender, although eats like a plowman^²⁹;

(9) A city dweller eats like a plowman during sowing, while burning no more calories than a medieval lord who spent his time in bed³⁰;

(10) One of the most charming actresses of the last century, the Swedish Greta Garbo, was unpredictable not only in films but also in everyday life: sometimes a perfect hostess and gourmet, and sometimes fond of eating like a plowman and completely inept in the kitchen...³¹;

²⁹ See https://books.google.lt/books?id=g8E0DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT66&lpg=PT66&dq=%22kaip+artojas%22&source=bl&ots=Onqxw8zppP&sig=ACfU3U1EI-m2c9PM7FcQZOg11jQKdo-74tA&hl=lt&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi-6azXr8-AAxWfhf0HHQ48BJY4HhDoAXoECB4QA-w#v=onepage&q=%22kaip%20artojas%22&f=false [accessed 2023-08-09].

³⁰ See https://www.savaite.lt/ar-zinai-kad/verta-zinoti/2352-didmiescio-sindromas-arba-kai-miestas-tampa-zudiku.html [accessed 2023-08-09].

³¹ See https://zmones.15min.lt/naujiena/mitybos-taisykles-pagal-greta-garbo-7y5yYr0A58O [accessed 2023-08-09].

Straipsniai / Articles

135

DAIVA MURMULAITYTĖ

(11) [...] sitting thoughtfully like a plowman, exhausted after a day of plowing^³²;

(12) [...] the number of syllables and the rhyme winding along. like a plowman after a drink^³³;

(13) [...] no one will let you into the club if you look like a plowman, prepared to drink the cheapest vodka and get into a fight with other [...] visitors^³⁴.

4. TRADITION VS. SYSTEM

Although the initiators of the draft and the supporters of the proposal to legalize Lithuanian women’s surnames with the ending –(i)a emphasize that the opinion of language specialists concerning this idea is unimportant, an expert conclusion (a specialist’s clarification concerning the possibilities for the development of women’s surnames) was nevertheless obtained when the proposal was submitted (see Appendix 3 to the draft in question)^³⁵. Having reviewed the current situation of Lithuanian women’s surnames and the prospects for changes in their system, discussed natural language development and the need for standardization and responsiveness to sociocultural circumstances, and considered the relationship between tradition and grammar, the expert moves away from the subject of surnames and, in summary, reasons about the paradigms and grammatical genders of Lithuanian nouns. The general impression is as if the proposal to legalize women’s surnames with the ending –(i)a in Lithuanian were not opposed (moreover, p. 2 states that the language system is also not opposed to referring to women with words ending in –is and –uo (cf. Žuvis, Sesuo); admittedly, in this context only pseudonyms, not surnames, are mentioned). However, some statements can be interpreted or logically extended to arrive at the opposite conclusion. Thus, apparently, the expert’s opinion should not be accepted as the sole and indisputably correct one; one can and should debate with the author of the clarification—seeking the truth in precisely this way is customary in scholarship.

For example, one might first ask according to what criteria the expert distinguishes tradition from grammar (the system). Can/should they always be separated so categorically? What is the situation with the ending –a, which until now has not had in Lithuanian the productive function that this draft attempts to impose on it,

^³² See https://www.google.com/search?q=%22kaip+artojas%22&rlz=1C1GCEB_enLT1039L-T1039&sxsrf=AB5stBizs2pE9QXHbTN982c4GL0uK4hVjw:1691576208837&ei=kGfTZNHN-MqSM9u8Px4e-2AU&start=30&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwjR1aa4rM-AAXUkhv0HHceDD1s4FB-Dy0wN6BAgPEAk&biw=1468&bih=783&dpr=1.25 [accessed 2023-08-09].

^³³ See https://www.rasyk.lt/kuriniai/249099.html [accessed 2023-08-09].

^³⁴ See https://tomasgluosnistyla.com/2014/09/29/gyvenimas-dar-pries-akis/ [accessed 2023-08-09].

^³⁵ See https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAP/e557d8a0ea5611eda305cb3bdf2af4d8?jfwid=-bxdpcdur9 [accessed 2023-09-28].

136

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX

Moterų pavardžių reforma lietuvių kalbos žodžių darybos aspektu

and on what basis should this function be artificially implanted in it? Are Lithuanian words really “formed” merely by changing their meaning (not speaking of a transfer of meaning, e.g., from galva ‘body organ’ to galva ‘boss’), because in the case of Šurka (man) – Šurka (woman—wife, daughter), when transforming the first surname into the second, formally nothing changes? Why change an existing ending to another ending of exactly the same form; is it really a different one, and what examples from living language could support such a formation? If not examples recorded earlier, then perhaps at least neologisms—might some new word-formation tendency have been overlooked? Are the already legalized surname pairs Kiaunė (man) – Kiaunė (wife, daughter), Dirsė (man) – Dirsė (wife, daughter) analogous to the mentioned surname pairs with the ending –(i)a, or can these cases, on the basis of the derivational function of the ending –ė to name persons according to sex difference, be treated as derivational oppositions? Among other things, one could clarify whether the word klasiokė is really formed from klasiokas, as stated in the conclusion. Is it not formed from the word klasė in both cases? For then it would follow that klasiokė means ‘female-gender klasiokas’ (precisely the function performed by the ending –ė—to name according to sex difference), rather than ‘female classmate, a schoolgirl studying in the same class.’ It would hardly be possible to agree that persons are called, according to the action they perform, siuvėju and rašytoju, rather than *siūtoju and *rašėju, because this is a tradition, because somehow it developed this way. Nevertheless, this is a regularity of Lithuanian word formation—the derivatives with the suffixes –ėjas, –a are based on primary verbs without suffixes (siuvėjas, –a: siūti, siuva, siuvo), whereas those with the suffixes –tojas, –a are based on verbs with suffixes (rašytojas, –a: rašyti); exceptions are rare, for example, the previously discussed artojas (LKG 1965: 320, 317; DLKG 2006: 106, 105). Thus, this is a system, not (merely) a tradition.

This clarification states that “[...] it is better not to touch what is grammatical and systematic in language, because one does not know from the movement of which brick the entire edifice of language might collapse, whereas what is lexical and merely traditional can easily be adjusted to the changing sociocultural needs of life.” One can only agree with the idea concerning the systematic nature of (grammar) and the danger of dismantling it. However, from several examples (some doubtful and debatable), it is not clear to everyone what in this case is tradition and what is system, whether these things can be strictly separated, and what to do if the same phenomena can be both traditional and systematic^³⁶. One may agree that it is traditional to transmit a family surname through the male line, but Lithuanian

³⁶Spelling matters could apparently be assigned, at least in part, to tradition, since in a certain sense they are matters of convention. For example, for a long time the words in the derivational nests of piauti, spjauti, bjaurus were written with –i–: piauti, spiauti, biaurus. In 1976, their spelling with –j– was introduced (according to pronunciation); several generations have grown up for whom this is entirely natural, while older people can easily remember the former spelling. Yet even in this area, when reforming anything, all advantages, disadvantages, and consequences must be carefully weighed. For instance, the attempt to reform spelling in 1929–1933—to abandon traditional elements (e.g., nasal letters), standardize the marking of long vowels, and preserve the morphological principle more consistently—was unsuccessful (https://www.vle.lt/straipsnis/rasyba/ [accessed 2023-08-15]).

Straipsniai / Articles

137

DAIVA MURMULAITYTĖ

surname formation is a system historically based on regularities, rules, and formal means, not merely a tradition.

In discussions, the authors of the draft law under consideration do not conceal that this initiative concerning the ending -(i)a is merely the beginning of surname reform. The next aim would be the so-called “Anglo-Saxon” surname model, that is, the same surname for the entire family. In that case, the reform would encompass not merely a small portion of surnames (those having this ending), but the entire surname system. Legalizing the ending -(i)a would open the way to such a model, and the consequences would be that women’s surnames, formally indistinguishable from men’s surnames in the nominative case (cf. Ragauskas, Petronis, Mackevičius and others (men) – Ragauskas, Petronis, Mackevičius and others (the respective wives/daughters)), would become indeclinable. This would violate the morphological and syntactic system of Lithuanian, not to mention that communication would become much more difficult—additional appositives, attributes, pronouns, or other means signaling the sex of the person referred to would be needed—Mr. Ragauskas, the elder Petronis, this Mackevičius, and so on. The fact that Lithuanian surnames indicate a person’s sex is both a matter of the system (word formation, inflection, i.e., morphology, as well as syntax) and of tradition. It is also a distinctive feature of the Lithuanian language which, in caring for the native language, should be fostered rather than destroyed, thereby disrupting natural language development.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

1. Surnames are words, that is, part of the lexicon, and therefore belong to the language system. Consequently, it cannot categorically be claimed that their reform (especially when essentially based on subjective factors rather than determined by natural language development) is a matter only of human rights and not of linguistics.

2. The fact that present-day Lithuanian women’s surnames are connected with the expression of sex and family relations should not categorically be judged as an obsolete tradition. The systematic nature of this lexical sublayer, its interrelationships, and the characteristic regularities of word formation, morphology, syntax, and so forth cannot be ignored.

3. The need to reform the surname system should be based on very substantial motives, while the means of implementing it should be comprehensively considered by modeling possible changes in the language system and assessing the dangers to its development. In the case under discussion, the need is based mainly on aesthetic, subjective criteria (“beautiful,” “I want”), while the damage to the language could be fundamental. First, because of the destabilization of the morphological system, and second—and this is even more important—because of the possible further reform of the surname system and its “Anglo-Saxon” model, that is, the identification of men’s and women’s surnames. This “need” is already being openly voiced even before the legalization of the ending -(i)a as a means of forming women’s surnames (?)

138

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX

Moterų pavardžių reforma lietuvių kalbos žodžių darybos aspektu

as a means—and it would unquestionably destroy the system of Lithuanian surnames and eliminate their distinctiveness.

4. In the Lithuanian language, other derivational means are normally used to form names according to sex difference; in the case of words denoting the feminine sex, leaving aside suffixes, this means the ending -ė. Since ancient times, names of female animals have been formed with this ending (vilk-ė: vilkas, baland-ė: balandis, etc.); studies of neologism formation show that the semantics of the base words of derivatives is expanding (viršil-ė: viršila, kūdik-ė: kūdikis, etc.). This is the most universal means of forming names according to feminine sex difference, indicating nothing other than membership in this sex. In the surname microsystem, the same derivational category also includes derivatives with the suffixes -ienė, -uvienė; -aitė, -ytė, -(i)utė, etc.; however, in addition to sex, they indicate a woman’s family relationships and, usually, her social status—whether she is married or unmarried.

5. Considering the sociocultural reasons for the 2003 reform of Lithuanian surnames, which legalized the formation of women’s surnames not indicating marital status with the ending –ė, today, viewed from a 20-year perspective, it could apparently be regarded as justified. However, it must be acknowledged that it also created one exception: when men’s surnames have the ending –ė (e.g., Bložė, Gaulė, Lapė, Paukštė, etc.), women’s surnames not indicating marital status coincide with them in form. Even if an opposition in the formation of masculine and feminine surnames is discerned, that is, if women’s surnames are regarded as derivatives with the ending –ė formed from men’s surnames, this exceptional case cannot be considered a precedent in the Lithuanian surname system, and this exception should not be used as a basis for further expanding the reform of women’s surnames.

6. A derivational opposition between formally identical masculine and feminine surnames could, with certain reservations, be discerned precisely only in cases where they have the ending –ė. The basis is the aforementioned productive function of the ending –ė: in Standard Lithuanian, names according to sex difference are formed with this ending, more specifically—nomina feminina. In the case of surnames with the ending -(i)a (Šarka, Dausa, Biekša, Pajeda, Mulia, etc.), such a derivational opposition cannot exist because the ending -(i)a does not perform the derivational function of distinguishing the derivative from the base word with respect to the feminine-sex aspect.

7. The proposal to legalize the formation of women’s surnames with the ending –(i)a is unscientific, unsupported by studies of word formation and language usage, does not reflect any tendencies in the formation of new surnames or common-word neologisms, and contradicts the regularities of Lithuanian word formation.

Straipsniai / Articles

139

DAIVA MURMULAITYTĖ

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

Current legislation. Available online: http://vardai.vlkk.lt/teises-aktai-reglamentuojantys-asmenvardziu-klausimus/ [accessed 2023–08–10].

Aleksaitė Agnė 2022: New names according to sex difference. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 87, 224–244. Available online: https://journals.lki.lt/actalinguisticalthuanica/article/view/2193/2297 [accessed 2023–07–29].

Ambrazas Saulius 2000: The Development of Noun Formation 2: Lithuanian Name-Forming Derivatives, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing.

Round-table discussion “A Person’s Surname—A Person’s Choice?” – Atviras Seimas, 2023–05–31. Available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I678BYMkntg [accessed 2023–07–25].

Bilkis Laimutis 2023: Own or Foreign? On the proposal to permit the use of Lithuanian women’s surnames ending in -a. – Lrt.lt, 2023–02–22. Available online: https://www.lrt.lt/naujienos/nuomones/3/1920190/laimutis-bilkis-sava-ar-svetima-del-siulymo-leisti-vartoti-lietuviu-moteru-pavardes-su-galune-a [accessed 2023–07–10].

BLKŽ – Dictionary of Standard Lithuanian, editorial board D. Liutkevičienė, D. Murmulaitytė, V. Sakalauskienė, A. Gritėnienė, A. Gaidienė, D. Daugirdienė, L. Jonušys, editor-in-chief D. Liutkevičienė, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 2013–2022. Available online: https://ekalba.lki.lt/bendrinės-lietuvių-kalbos-žodynas [accessed 2022–08–15].

DLKG – Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian, ed. V. Ambrazas, 4th revised edition, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing, 2006.

DLKŽ – Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian, editor-in-chief St. Keinys, 8th revised and supplemented edition, electronic version, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 2021. Available online: https://ekalba.lt/dabartines-lietuviu-kalbos-zodynas/.

Garšva Kazimieras 2012: Non-suffixed (of Latvian formation) surnames of Lithuanian women. – Kalbos kultūra 85, 216–224.

Jezukevičienė Rima 2023: On the issue of women’s surnames. – Gimtoji kalba 5, 21–22.

Judžentis Artūras 2012: Grammatical categories of the Lithuanian language, Vilnius: VU Publishing House.

Kiseliūnaitė Dalia 2023: Once again about the bubble surrounding women’s surnames. – 15min.lt, 2023–06–06. Available online: https://www.15min.lt/naujiena/aktualu/nuomones/dalia-kiseliunaite-dar-karta-apie-moteru-pavardziu-burbula-18-2064732 [accessed 2023–07–10].

LKG – Grammar of the Lithuanian Language 1, ed. K. Ulvydas, Vilnius: Mintis, 1965.

140

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX

Moterų pavardžių reforma lietuvių kalbos žodžių darybos aspektu

Conclusion of the Research Council of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language “Concerning the Draft Law No. XIVP-2700 Amending Article 3 of the Law No. XIV-903 of the Republic of Lithuania on the Writing of a Person’s Name and Surname in Documents.” Prepared by the working group: Dr Laimutis Bilkis, Acad. Prof. Habil. Dr Grasilda Blažienė (head of the group), Prof. Dr Dalia Kiseliūnaitė, Dr Rita Miliūnaitė, Dr Daiva Murmulaitytė. Available online: http://lki.lt/lietuviu-kalbos-instituto-mokslo-tarybos-nutarimas-del-isvados-lietuvos-respublikos-as-mens-vardo-ir-pavardes-rasymo-dokumentuose-istatymo-nr-xiv-903-3-straips-nio-pakeitimo-istatymo-projekto/ [accessed 2023–09–15].

Draft Law No. XIVP-2700 Amending Article 3 of Law No. XIV-903 of the Republic of Lithuania on the Writing of a Person’s Name and Surname in Documents. Available online: https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAP/e557d8a0ea5611eda305cb3bdf2af4d8?jfwid=-bxdpcdur9 [accessed 2023–06–25].

Session of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, 4 July 2023. Available online: https://www.lrs.lt/sip/portal.show?p_r=35826&p_k=1&p_a=media_object_viewer&gui-d=4B73D31A-AF71-4D4C-8D76-9FC73E0B3717, from approximately 54:45 into the recording [accessed 2023–08–10].

LKŽe – Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language 1–20 (1941–2002), editorial board G. Naktinienė, J. Paulauskas, R. Petrokienė, V. Vitkauskas, J. Zabarskaitė, editor-in-chief G. Naktinienė, electronic version, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 2005 (updated version, 2018). Available online: https://ekalba.lt/lietuviu-kalbos-zodynas/.

Miliūnaitė Rita 2013: What do you think about non-suffixed women’s surnames? Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language.

Miliūnaitė Rita 2022: Variable and New Phenomena of the Lithuanian Language at the Beginning of the 21st Century: Systematics and Directions of Change, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language.

Miliūnaitė Rita 2023: Language Is Not a Request Show, or What Does Grammar Say about Šarkas? – Respublika.lt, 2023–02–07; republished: RaseiniaiTV.lt, 2023–02–10. Available online: http://raseiniaiTV.lt/kalba-nera-pageidavimu-koncertas-arba-ka-gramatika-sako-apie-sarkas/ [accessed 2023–08–01].

Miliūnaitė Rita 2023a: Lithuanian Is Intentionally Being Confused So That It Becomes Repulsive. – Alkas.lt, 2023–07–26. Available online: https://alkas.lt/2023/07/26/r-miliunaite-norima-sujaukti-lietuviu-kalba-taip-kad-ji-taptu-atgrasi/#comments [accessed 2023–08–01].

Murmulaitytė Daiva 2021: Neologisms of the Lithuanian Language from the Perspective of Gender Expression. – Lietuvių kalba 16, 51–69. Available online: https://www.zurnalai.vu.lt/lietuviu-kalba/article/view/24927/24771 [accessed 2023–07–10].

Murmulaitytė Daiva 2022: Homonymy of Derivational Formants and Its Marking in the Word-Formation Reference Guide. – Acta Linguistica Lituanica 87, 200–223. Available online:

Straipsniai / Articles

141

DAIVA MURMULAITYTĖ

online: https://journals.lki.lt/actalinguisticalithuanica/article/view/2192/2296 [accessed 2023–09–20].

Murmulaitytė Daiva 2023: Boiled, Boiled the Porridge, or Once Again about Surnames “Ending in a”. – Delfi.lt, 2023–08–11. Available online: https://www.delfi.lt/news/ringas/lit/daiva-murmulaityte-vire-vire-kose-arba-dar-syki-apie-pavardes-su-a-pabaigoje.d?i=d=94130745&fbclid=IwAR31vsiw su12YtMt3ASqobpHfJHk2gkrW3wRNFAJgY6cT-ojndAdlWrvNxpk [accessed 2023–08–11].

ND – Miliūnaitė Rita, Aleksaitė Agnė. Lithuanian Neologism Database [continuously updated online reference work since 2011], compiled by R. Miliūnaitė, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language. Available online: https://ekalba.lt/naujazodziai/ [accessed 2023–07–03].

Paulauskienė Aldona 1994: Lithuanian Morphology: lectures for Lithuanists, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing.

Paulauskienė Aldona 2007: Foundations of Lithuanian Morphology, Kaunas: Technologija.

Press conference of Seimas member Stasys Tumėnas “Is It Necessary to Quarrel with Grammar and Change the Established Traditions of Forming Women’s Surnames?” – Atviras Seimas, 2023–05–17. Available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxT4yQfp_ds [accessed 2023–05–18].

Skardžius Pranas 1996 [1943]: Selected Writings 1: Lithuanian Word Formation, facsimile edition, prepared by A. Rosinas, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing.

Urbutis Vincas 2009: Theory of Word Formation, 2nd edition, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing.

Resolution of the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language on the Formation of Women’s Surnames No. N–2(87) (26 June 2003). Available online: https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/TAIS.214783 [accessed 2023–09–03].

Conclusion of the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language concerning the draft amendment to the Law on Personal Names. Available online: https://www.vlkk.lt/naujienos/komisijos-posedziai/vlkk-pateike-seimui-isvada-del-asmenvardziu-istatymo-pakeitimo-projekto [accessed 2023–09–30].

ŽDV – Murmulaitytė Daiva, Aleksaitė Agnė. Word-Formation Guide [electronic resource], Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 2021. Available online: https://ekalba.lt/zodziu-darybos-vedlys/ [accessed 2023–09–03].

142

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX

Moterų pavardžių reforma lietuvių kalbos žodžių darybos aspektu

The Women’s Surname Reform in the Lithuanian Language from the Perspective of Word Formation

SUMMARY

Personal names encompass more than just an individual’s identity; a surname should not be considered the exclusive property of a person. As a lexical layer, personal names belong to the language system. Therefore, surname reforms, particularly those motivated by subjective reasons rather than natural language evolution, involve not only matters of human rights but also linguistic considerations. Customary Lithuanian women’s surnames reflect gender and family relationships. However, for this reason, they should not be regarded categorically as an obsolete tradition. The systematicity of this lexical layer, the interrelationships, and the inherent patterns of word formation, morphology, syntax, etc., cannot be overlooked. For significant socio-cultural reasons, beyond mere aesthetics, it is essential to evaluate the prospects for the development of the Lithuanian language and anticipate the potential consequences of change when reforming this system. The paper underscores specific aspects of Lithuanian language morphology (word formation) that are frequently overlooked or ignored in the discussions regarding the proposal to legalize Lithuanian female surnames ending in –(i)ą.

This proposal is seen as unscientific, not based on research into word formation and usage, and does not reflect any new word formation tendencies, for both surnames and common words. It contradicts the regularities of Lithuanian word formation. The need for the surnames in question is based mainly on subjective (aesthetic, etc.) criteria, but the potential damage this innovation could inflict on the Lithuanian language is substantial. Primarily because of the disruption of the morphological system of the Lithuanian language. Secondly, and more significantly, it is likely to lead to further reform of the surname system and the adoption of the “Anglo-Saxon” model, i.e. equalization of male and female surnames. It is this model that would undoubtedly erode the Lithuanian surname system and destroy its uniqueness.

In the Lithuanian language, other means of derivation customarily are used to form nomina generis. In the surname microsystem, nomina feminina includes derivatives with the suffixes -ienė, -uvienė; -aitė, -ytė, -(i)utė. In addition to gender, such surnames also indicate a woman’s social status – whether she is married or single. As far as not only surnames are concerned, the universal means of forming nomina feminina is the ending -ė. In 2003, the use of this ending for female surnames nondemonstrating women’s marital status, was legalized. From the perspective of 20 years, this motivated reform likely could be considered a success. However, it has created one exception: when male surnames have the ending -ė (e.g., Bložė, Gaulė, Lapė, Paukštė, etc.), female surnames nondemonstrating women’s marital status are formally identical to them.

Straipsniai / Articles

143

DAIVA MURMULAITYTĖ

The only way to see a derivational opposition between such formally identical masculine and feminine surnames, with some reservations, is the derivational function of the ending -ė – this is the ending used to form nomina feminina in standard Lithuanian. Nonetheless, even if feminine surnames are considered derivatives of masculine surnames, this exceptional case cannot be considered a precedent and used to develop feminine surname reform further. In the case of surnames ending in -(i)a (e.g., Šarka, Dausa, Biekša, Pajeda, Mulia, etc.), there can be no such derivational opposition because the ending -(i)a does not serve this derivational function – to differentiate the derivative from the base word in terms of (female) gender.

Submitted on 4 October 2023

DAIVA MURMULAITYTĖ

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

5 Petro Vileišio St., Vilnius, LT-10308, Lithuania

[email protected]

144

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX

Document details