Draugas ir priešas kaip pasaulio kategorizacijos atskaitos taškai lietuvių kalbos pasaulėvaizdyje

SILVIJA PAPAURĖLYTĖ-KLOVIENĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language ORCID id: orcid.org/0000-0003-2538-9502 Research areas: ethnolinguistics, cognitive linguistics, linguistic culturology, comparative linguistics. DOI: doi.org/10.35321/all88-10 FRIEND AND ENEMY AS REFERENCE POINTS FOR THE CATEGORIZATION OF THE WORLD IN THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE WORLDVIEW Friend and Enemy as Reference Points for World Categorization in the Worldview of the Lithuanian Language ABSTRACT The article compares the categories of friendliness and hostility associated with the Lithuanian language worldview. Based on an analysis of combinations of the adverbs draugiškai and priešiškai with verbs of various semantics, it seeks to reveal what situations are understood in the Lithuanian language worldview through analogy with friends and enemies. Attention is focused on how the possibility of transmitting a friendly or hostile relationship is recorded in the language worldview, and through which senses, following the logic of naive psychology, such a relationship is perceived. The claims of the article are based on an analysis of examples from the Corpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language compiled at the Centre of Computational Linguistics of Vytautas Magnus University in Kaunas. This study not only provides information about the content of the categories of friendliness and hostility, but also supplements what is already known about the peculiarities of the perception of FRIEND and ENEMY in the Lithuanian language worldview. KEYWORDS: friend, language worldview, categorization of the world, concept, naive psychology, enemy. 206 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVIII Draugas ir priešas kaip pasaulio kategorizacijos atskaitos taškai lietuvių kalbos pasaulėvaizdyje ANNOTATION The article compares the categories of draugiškai (friendly) and priešiškai (hostile) associated with the worldview of the Lithuanian language. Using the analysis of the combinations of the adverbs draugiškai and priešiškai and the verbs of various semantics, the aim is to reveal the situations the understanding of which requires the analogy with friends and enemies in the worldview of the Lithuanian language. Attention is focused on how the worldview of the language captures the possibility of conveying a friendly or hostile relationship and through which senses such a relationship is perceived based on the logic of naïve psychology. The statements of the article are based on the analysis of examples from the Corpus of Contemporary Lithuanian Language compiled at the Centre of Computational Linguistics of Vytautas Magnus University in Kaunas. This study not only provides information about the content of the categories of friendliness and hostility, but also adds to what is already known about the particularities of the perception of FRIEND and ENEMY in the worldview of the Lithuanian language. KEYWORDS: concept, enemy, friend, the worldview of language, naive psychology, world categorization. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Research on the categorization of the world in the Lithuanian language worldview has already made considerable progress. It intensified at the beginning of the 21st century, when many works close to the ideas of cognitive linguistics appeared, analyzing concepts associated with the Lithuanian language worldview (Aleksaitė 2018; Bogdzevič 2020; Gaidienė, Liutkevičienė 2019; Rutkovska, Smetonienė, Smetona 2017; 2019; Smetonienė, Smetona, Rutkovska 2021), and comparing features of the perception of the world characteristic of the worldviews of two or more languages (Cibulskienė 2020; Jurgaitis 2015). Research of this kind is interesting because it makes it possible to describe the specific nature of the image of the world recorded in a language; it reveals the system of values and assumed models of behavior of the people who speak that language. Language helps to categorize reality, that is, to understand it better and distinguish phenomena, objects, and characteristics from one another. To make categorization even simpler, an analogy is made with more familiar and comprehensible fragments of reality that themselves no longer require additional explanation. Aim, objectives, and methods. The aim of the research presented in this article is to describe and compare with one another a part of the categories of friendliness and hostility associated with the Lithuanian language worldview—in other words, to analyze what behavior, states, and characteristics are described in the Lithuanian language worldview as characteristic of a friend and an enemy, through which senses, based on the logic of naive Straipsniai / Articles 207 SILVIJA PAPAURELYTĖ-KLOVIENĖ psychology, a friendly and hostile relationship is perceived. To achieve this aim, the following objectives were set: 1. To analyze the situations described in examples of the use of the adverbs draugiškai and priešiškai collected from the Corpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language, and to classify the examples according to which sense, following the logic of the language worldview, is used to perceive the relationship being transmitted. 2. To compare the actions and states with which the relationships between people are associated and through which senses they are perceived, as described by the adverbs draugiškai and priešiškai. In preparing the article, an analysis was made of combinations of the words draugiškai and priešiškai—more than 1,000 examples were collected from the Corpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language: 829 of the word draugiškai and 360 of the word priešiškai. Considering the aim of the research and the nature of the material studied, descriptive, interpretive, conceptual-analysis, and comparative methods were employed. State of research. The attempt to reveal how the perception of behavior characteristic of friends and enemies is used in categorizing the world is a continuation of similar studies. It has already been described how much the analysis of combinations of all forms of the word lietuviškas, -a reveals the specifics of the national character (Papaurelytė-Klovienė 2009); the characteristics of typical behavior of women, children, and men recorded in language have been compared (Papaurelytė-Klovienė 2008); and the situations for describing which the words dieviškai (Papaurelytė-Klovienė 2015) and velniškai (Papaurelytė-Klovienė 2015a) are used have been discussed. The words draugas and priešas have attracted the attention of Lithuanian linguists. Jonas Klimavičius discussed the use of the words draugas, draugiškas, draugingas and sought to answer the question of whether the word draugingas is acceptable in usage (Klimavičius 2008: 133–140). Elena Akimova and Ina Boikienė, writing about problems in the study of Lithuanian male and female linguistic consciousness, drew on examples from an association experiment in which, among other stimuli, the word draugas was also used (Akimova, Boikienė 2001). Viktorija Makarova’s article presents the results of a comparative analysis of the Lithuanian cultural concept ENEMY and the Russian cultural concept ВРАГ. In conducting the analysis, the author relied on 100 examples from journalistic discourse. The linguist sought to reveal who is called an enemy, what characteristics are typical of an enemy, and what actions an enemy performs (Makarova 2014). Another article by the same scholar is partly related to the description of the image of the enemy; in it, she analyzed how the opposition between Polishness and Lithuanian-ness is presented in the Lithuanian media. According to the author, an information war against the Polish national minority is taking place in Lithuania, the result of which is an association created in public consciousness between Polishness and negative things, the perception of Poles 208 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII Draugas ir priešas kaip pasaulio kategorizacijos atskaitos taškai lietuvių kalbos pasaulėvaizdyje as enemies (Makarova 2013; on the image of hostilely disposed Poles, see also Šeina 2018). The most recent work revealing the peculiarities of the perception of draugo and priešo in the Lithuanian language worldview is the monograph by Loreta Vaičiulytė-Semenienė, Veslava Čižik-Prokaševa, Aurelia Gritėnienė, Danutė Liutkevičienė, and Anželika Gaidienė, Lietuvio kaimynai: draugai ar priešai? Kalbinė vaizdinių analizė (2023). The monograph summarizes that people called friends may be connected by sympathy or physical intimacy. It emphasizes that these types of relationships may replace one another in turn: there is a possibility that friendship will be replaced by physical love; likewise, when physical love fades, people may again become or remain friends—very good acquaintances (Vaičiulytė-Semenienė, Čižik-Prokaševa, Gritėnienė, Liutkevičienė, Gaidienė 2023: 125; see also Vaičiulytė-Semenienė 2020). The same monograph states that, based on various types of texts written in Lithuanian, the image of the enemy may be multifaceted. The term may refer to an army that has attacked another country, a country or nation disposed in an unfriendly manner, an unfriendly person, an abstract phenomenon causing harm, or a specific inanimate thing. Most often, the word denotes people with opposing convictions. It is concluded that the status of enemy and friend tends to change, that is, a former enemy may become a friend, and a friend an enemy (Vaičiulytė-Semenienė, Čižik-Prokaševa, Gritėnienė, Liutkevičienė, Gaidienė 2023: 161–162; see also Gaidienė 2020). It is hoped that the conclusions of the research presented in this article will supplement what is already known, on the basis of linguistic material, about the perception of friends and enemies in the Lithuanian language worldview. Theoretical basis of the research. In order to describe the categories of draugiškumo and priešiškumo, an approach to the essence of the category closer to cognitive linguistics is adopted, maintaining a compromise between structural and cognitive linguistics. Categorization is directly related to the conceptualization of the world: a person receives information from the environment and must perceive, process, organize, and store it so that the information can be quickly found and used at any time. Concepts are formed in consciousness on the basis of the information received and accumulated. This article adopts the view that a concept is a unit of thought, information about an object or phenomenon present in the consciousness of an individual, a group of people, or a nation. The content of a concept can be conveyed in various ways—through works of art, music, acting, etc.—but language is considered the most informative means (for more on the concept, see Papaurelytė-Klovienė 2007: 15–20). It must be acknowledged that even the content of a concept expressed through linguistic means will not necessarily be understood in exactly the same way by all language users. Nevertheless, it can be predicted that, in understanding the meanings of words, there will be more common ground than Straipsniai / Articles 209 SILVIJA PAPAURELYTĖ-KLOVIENĖ for example, when trying to decide what information is conveyed through the forms or colors of a work of art¹ Categorization and conceptualization are linked by their classificatory nature, but their aims and results differ. The result of conceptualization is minimal units of experience, concepts. Categorization unites similar concepts into larger classes—categories. It must be mentioned that although a description of a category provides information about the concept that unites the members of the category in question, an equality sign cannot nevertheless be placed between a description of a fragment of the categorization of the world and a description of the corresponding concept. A significant reason not to equate a description of a category with a description of a concept is the defined scope of the description. When combinations of the words draugiškai and priešiškai with verbs are used as research material, information is obtained only about the actions attributed by language users to FRIEND and ENEMY and the states they experience; therefore, other, more static characteristics of them may remain undescribed. It is also unnecessary to completely separate a description of a category from a description of a concept: some of the information associated with the category and the concept overlaps, and therefore, when seeking to describe the characteristics of the categorization of the world and focusing on a particular reference point, information about a specific concept (or concepts) is also obtained. A description of the categorization of the world always provides information about the specificity of the language worldview. Since the research described focuses on the categories of draugiškumo and priešiškumo associated with human relationships and the sphere of emotions and feelings, it can be specified that the article describes a fragment of naive psychology characteristic of the Lithuanian language worldview. Naive psychology is understood as the perception, explicated through linguistic means, of the nature of phenomena of the human inner world recorded in the language worldview, their causal relations, and the ways in which they are expressed. The language worldview is the entire image of a nation’s way of life, environment, system of values, perception of the world, and behavioral models reflected in language; that is, it encompasses absolutely everything—both what is concrete and what is non-concrete. Naive psychology has preserved a perception of phenomena of the inner world that was the only one until it was replaced by empirically grounded knowledge about the world (for more on the language worldview, see Papaurelytė-Klovienė 2007: 23–26). The terms kalbos pasaulėvaizdžio logika and naiviosios psichologijos logika mentioned in the article are related by the same whole–part relationship. Using the term ¹ It is not appropriate to define a concept as absolutely all information, because its scope changes as experience changes. In addition, the scope of concepts associated with different people or groups of people may differ; cf. laisvės suvokimą in the consciousness of a participant in postwar struggles and that of a third-decade adolescent of the 21st century. 210 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVIII Draugas ir priešas kaip pasaulio kategorizacijos atskaitos taškai lietuvių kalbos pasaulėvaizdyje By kalbos pasaulėvaizdžio logika is meant the image of the world and those relations among objects, phenomena, and processes that are recorded in language, although they contradict the scientific image of the world. For example, the expression saulė leidžiasi does not correspond to reality, but it is used and passed down from generation to generation. The logic of naive psychology consists of relations among phenomena of mental life recorded in language. For example, the expression rudeninė depresija illustrates the logic of naive psychology. EXPRESSION OF FRIENDLY AND HOSTILE RELATIONSHIPS IN THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE WORLDVIEW In the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, the word draugiškai is mentioned in describing two of the five meanings of the adjective draugiškas: 1. characteristic of a friend, companionable: friendly behavior, draugiškai adv.: Usually a friendly person also behaves in a friendly manner. 3. common: [Creation] is the work of the friendly trinity of persons. draugiškai: It weaves in a friendly manner (LKŽe). In the same dictionary, the adverb priešiškai is given alongside the adjective priešiškas under its first meaning, ‘unfriendly, unfavorable’: Their relationship is hostile. priešiškai. Girnius thought that Gedutis was looking down at him, hostilely, with poorly concealed displeasure (LKŽe). The Dictionary of Standard Lithuanian states that the adverb draugiškai has two meanings. The first meaning is associated with the first meaning of the adjective draugiškas (‘characteristic of friends; syn. companionable’), while the second is associated with the third meaning of the adjective mentioned (‘peaceful, neighborly’). The word priešiškas is included in the dictionary manuscript, and information about it is being collected (BLKŽe). In the Dictionary of Antonyms, the adjectives morphologically related to the adverbs under discussion, draugiškas and priešiškas, are given as antonyms (Ermanytė 2003: 90); consequently, draugiškai and priešiškai are also antonyms and therefore have both common and differentiating semes. When classifying examples of the use of the adverbs draugiškai and priešiškai collected from the Corpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language, the starting point was first the fact that, understood in general terms, such situations involve two participants: the one who seeks to transmit their relationship (called the addresser in the article) and the one to whom the information is directed (the addressee). Since a situation would lose its meaning without an addressee, all verbs used with the adverbs draugiškai and priešiškai are classified according to which of the five senses characteristic of humans—sight, hearing, touch, taste, or smell—the actions or states named by those verbs and Straipsniai / Articles 211 SILVIJA PAPAURELYTĖ-KLOVIENĖ the information obtained from them are perceived through (for more on the senses, see Myers 2000: 147–184). Aprašant su kiekvienu iš jutimų siejamų draugiško arba priešiško santykio demonstravimo būdų visumą veiksmažodžiais² is sought to systematize them—by distinguishing and discussing semantic groups where possible³. 1. Sight Sight can perceive not only objects located very nearby but also distant ones. The research showed that, according to the logic of the Lithuanian language worldview, sight is the sense that helps perceive ways of expressing friendliness and hostility associated with verbs of very different semantics. Since, when people communicate, the face is usually seen best, the eyes and gaze are employed to express friendliness and hostility, as shown by the material of the Lithuanian language worldview. Such situations are described by verbs belonging to the semantic group of vision. These verbs can be understood in two ways: both as directly naming perception through the eyes and as the result of centrifugal relations, used to describe a situation in which an attitude toward the object in question or an opinion is expressed. The boundary between the first and second meanings can also be very subtle; the situation described can be understood in two ways, cf.: Tourists are looked at very amicably, after all, they are a source of income; The state could be regarded with sincere friendliness. It would be reasonable to assign examples of the actualization of centrifugal relations of verbs in the semantic group of vision also to those perceived through mixed senses. Some examples describe the situation very clearly, because the semantics of the vision verbs themselves already imply a corresponding evaluation. As is customary in language, the evaluation is usually negative, and the corresponding adverb further intensifies it. In this context, the word priešiškai is used more often; draugiškai used with negation has the same meaning, cf.: […] They peer at us somewhat unfriendly; […] two girls with lacquered topknots passed by and glanced at me hostilely; The railwayman stared hostilely. In some cases, the semantics of the verb partly contradicts the adjacent adverb, possibly creating an effect of surprise, e.g., He smirked quite amiably. ² In selecting examples for the study, quantity was not the guiding consideration; there was no attempt to mention absolutely all words forming combinations with draugiškai and priešiškai—the aim was only to reflect the diversity of those words and their connection with various situations of extralinguistic reality. ³ In order to avoid semantic groups that are too broad or too narrow in scope, there is no attempt to link absolutely all the verbs discussed into semantic groups. 212 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVIII Draugas ir priešas kaip pasaulio kategorizacijos atskaitos taškai lietuvių kalbos pasaulėvaizdyje When a verb belonging to the semantic group of vision is not in itself associated with any evaluation (nužvelgti, pažvelgti, nežiūrėti, stebėti, sužiūrti, žiūrėti), it is precisely the adverb that specifies its meaning, cf.: [...] we look amicably at what we have grown accustomed to; Tomas looked at me amicably with one blue and one brown eye; [...] people in Kaunas look hostilely at cyclists; He slowly glanced hostilely at the few visitors scattered around the room; [...] I saw how the staff that had gathered stared at me hostilely; They evaluated the events they themselves observed from the side rather hostilely. According to the logic of the Lithuanian language worldview, among the ways of expressing a friendly relationship perceived through sight are facial expressions and gestures. One of the most frequent verbs used with the adverb draugiškai and indicating the relationship between the addresser and the addressee is šypsotis ‘to smile’. A smile in itself shows either that the participants in the situation are connected by a friendly relationship or that such a relationship is being sought. A friendly smile may supplement information conveyed through speech, e.g.: – Nothing, nothing. – he smiled amicably through his glasses; He spoke simply, sincerely, smiling in a friendly manner; I tried to give the little one a friendly smile. The examples show that, in order to display a friendly attitude, it is informative simply to smile, creating a relationship through facial expression alone, e.g.: She smiled amicably at me from a distance; [...] he did not lower his eyes, looking at him and also smiling sincerely and amicably; The girls smiled amicably at me and pressed their little albums on me. Other verbs describing similar facial expressions can also be associated with the expression of friendliness according to the logic of the language worldview, although more nuances are recorded in the description of the situation, e.g.: At last he reacted with a friendly grimace; [...] having swallowed it together with the saliva, I forced myself to grin amicably. In this case, the verb emphasizes not so much the friendly relationship as a grimace made out of tension, expressing displeasure, irritation, or anger. In the second example, this impression is further strengthened by the verb prisiversti. Thus, the relationship named by the adverb draugiškai may also be distant from what is prototypically perceived as characteristic of a friend. Besides smiling, ways of expressing a friendly relationship include winking, nodding or raising the head (kilstelėti galvą, linktelėti, mirksėti, mirktelėti, mojuoti, mostelėti ranka), cf.: [...] she raised her head amicably in greeting; [...] he walks through the city with his hands clasped behind his back, nodding amicably to those gathered. Movements of the hands through space are perceived by sight: Levinas and Dieter waved amicably from a distance when I tried to call them over; Hermes waved amicably to him and extended his hand. Some situations expressing a friendly or hostile relationship perceived through sight are static and are not necessarily strictly defined in terms of time. Such situations Straipsniai / Articles 213 SILVIJA PAPAURELYTĖ-KLOVIENĖ generally have no clear result; both the action itself and the relationship expressed during it are important. In the descriptions, both the addresser and the addressee are clear, e.g.: [...] the department, for its part, should receive the auditors amicably; [...] three men whom Abraham received amicably and feasted under the tree; They welcome me very amicably, abandoning their farm work. The same situations can also be described in the opposite way—in meeting, receiving, and accepting, a hostile attitude is expressed, e.g.: [...] some convicts received the medic’s application hostilely and reviled the determined doctor; [...] the Western coalitions accepted as democratically as possible, hostilely; [...] at the admissions department they met us rather hostilely. The situation in which someone is met or received hostilely can be further specified by other descriptions showing how close, in a particular case, the meaning attributed to the word priešiskai is to the center of the category of hostility, cf.: [...] they were received coldly and hostilely; [...] residents received representatives of the Western media extremely hostilely; The Portuguese would receive newcomers particularly hostilely. The verb sutikti stands out through strong centrifugal relations and can therefore also be used to describe an attitude in general terms, cf.: [...] decisions adopted by linguists are often met hostilely; The world into which we came received us hostilely; Critics and the public met such explanations very hostilely and spared no insults or mockery; [...] the agreement in Poland was concluded coldly and even hostilely. The verb dirbti is associated with an action having at least a theoretically possible result; in such a context, the adverb draugiškai can be reinforced by the word kartu. Thus, it can be stated that two possible meanings of draugiškai are actualized: ‘in the way friends do’, ‘together, jointly’, e.g.: [...] this is a way of starting the working day and working together amicably; [...] we continued working amicably and managed to convince the Seimas. The results perceived through sight also include cooking, eating, and consuming drinks. When verbs naming such situations are used with the adverb draugiškai, the adverb’s meaning ‘together, jointly’ is actualized, cf.: [...] to drop by his cabin, have a chat, and down a glass together in a friendly manner; [...] having cleared up the misunderstanding, all three drank together in a friendly spiritpasigėrė; Raselė found some potatoes, and they began preparing lunch together in a friendly manner. In descriptions of situations where attention is focused not on the fact of eating itself but on the nature of the action, the meaning of the adverb draugiškai ‘in the way friends do’ is actualized, e.g.: Lunch passed quite amicably; Nanis drew him toward himself, hospitably offering coffee or a sip of good wine. The ability to act in a friendly and hostile manner, and thus also to be associated with a relationship of friendliness or hostility, is characteristic, according to the image of the world recorded in the Lithuanian language, not only of people but also of cats and dogs. Since animals do not speak in the language customary for humans, the relationship they convey can usually be perceived through sight, cf.: But on seeing a dog wagging its tail in a friendly manner [...]; 214 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII Draugas ir priešas kaip pasaulio kategorizacijos atskaitos taškai lietuvių kalbos pasaulėvaizdyje Morkutis would greet everyone ⁴; The cat was dozing by the radiator. It raised its head and, before looking at the enemy, looked over me. 2. Hearing Hearing provides the most information when not only the sound is heard but the content of the speech is also understood. When focusing primarily on the expression of an emotional relationship, the pace, timbre, and intonation of speech are important, as is the totality of these and other factors, on the basis of which conclusions are drawn about the content conveyed by articulated and non-articulated sounds. The most informative are the verbs of the speech semantic group. There are various combinations both with the adverb in a friendly manner and with the adverb in a hostile manner. Most verbs are associated neither with a positive nor with a negative evaluation, and therefore can be used with both adverbs. Some verbs describe the direct transmission of information without any other nuances of meaning (respond, utter, speak, comment, ask, tell, say, sound, t ar ti), cf.: He told calmly and in a friendly manner; [...] I said to him in a friendly manner; He asked in a friendly manner; [...] uttered in a friendly manner, my voice in my head; [...] local residents are spoken of in a hostile manner; [...] why he spoke so spoke on the phone, Reijus; [...] commented favorably or commented on in a hostile manner; [...] all this because of the hostility was incomprehensible to him or even hostile. All the verbs can be substituted for one another; only the adverb conveys the essence of the situation. Words denoting actions that are not associated with evaluation should be assigned to this group; however, this describes only communication based on a friendly relationship between people (describe, clarify, explain, advise, converse, chat, chatter, speak up, talk, converse), cf.: She amicably explained that there are such cafeterias in the USA; [...] while they drank coffee and chatted; I advised you, amicably advised; [...] the pastor often stopped by the pharmacy to chat amicably; [...] they conversed with him amicably. The linguistic activity described in the examples is continuous and often performs a phatic function; moreover, it is completely ruled out that, in such a situation, the addressee and the addresser might wish each other harm. A group of words associated with specific situations of language etiquette—greeting, saying goodbye⁵, requesting, thanking, and complimenting—can be distinguished (to say goodbye, thank, address, praise, ask, greet, say hello), e.g.: ⁴ In this case, the expression of the relationship can also be perceived through mixed senses. ⁵ Of course, some verbs, for example, greet one another, salute, are assigned conditionally to the group of actions perceived through the sense of hearing, since one can greet in many different ways—not only with words. Nevertheless, it can be argued that prototypically a greeting has a form expressed through sound, so its perception can be associated with hearing, e.g.: “Hello,” I greeted him amicably and sat down on the edge of the bed; “Greetings, Rachmiel,” Uncle Shmulė greeted him amicably. Straipsniai / Articles 215 SILVIJA PAPAURELYTĖ-KLOVIENĖ Warmly and greet one another amicably; Having exchanged friendly greetings, having greeted he wrote: Hela thanked him amicably; “Very beautiful,” I praised her amicably praised. In the linguistic worldview, the possibility of expressing one’s relationship with the environment through sound (in a certain sense, speaking) is attributed to dogs and turkeys. The words naming the sounds produced by these animals do not contain negative semes, while the word draugiškai confirms a positive evaluation of the situation, e.g.: [...] the hound held out its paw to us and barked, greeting us in a friendly manner; [...] guarded by a puppy barking amicably; [...] old Rudis will stop making friendly gobbling noises in the yard; Like no other domestic bird, the turkeys will greet you every morning, bubbling amicably, but cf. The puppy Jack, not entirely draugiškai disposed, yelped by the kennel. Verbs associated with language-etiquette situations form combinations only with the word in a friendly manner, because when the relationship is the opposite, it is impossible to continue communication; most likely, it is not even begun. 3. Touch In the Lithuanian language worldview, on the basis of the examples collected for the study, an attitude is recorded that in some cases, in order to express one’s relationship with the addressee, the subject must touch them or at least attempt to do so—in other words, express the information through gestures⁶. Gestures, as stated in The Dictionary of Sign Language, either accompany communication through language or replace it, but in all cases gestures are connected with the state expressed in words (Dmitrieva 2003: 4–5). The verbs naming such actions of the addresser can conditionally be called the semantic group of physical contact. In situations where the addressee is either touched or the addresser wants to do so, the shoulders and hands figure prominently (embrace, hug, extend a palm, extend the right hand, hold outstretched hand, shake hands, draw close, squeeze the forearm, hold against the chest), e.g.: The old man reaches out a white palm to me in a friendly manner; [...] the ghost wanted to shake hands in a friendly manner; The two young men sincerely and in a friendly manner shook hands with each other. Various verbs denote brief physical contact—a direct touch that does not cause pain (fist-bump, hold by the shoulder, pat, brush across the shoulder, slap on the back, slap, tap, push, smack, put one’s hand on the shoulder, pat), cf.: [...] he tapped him on the shoulders because they were sitting next to each other; Alvydas amicably slaps Laurynas on the thigh; Friendlily, gently, patted him on the arm; [...] strokes the head or amicably punches; [...] pleased, she blushed and wanted to amicably ⁶ Although gestures are first seen, i.e. perceived through sight, in the contexts under discussion, the perception of the relationship conveyed through gestures is primarily connected with touch. 216 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVIII Draugas ir priešas kaip pasaulio kategorizacijos atskaitos taškai lietuvių kalbos pasaulėvaizdyje slap. Such verbs name equal-status communication between the addressee and the addresser, during which brief touching makes the situation even more informal. The Dictionary of Sign Language states that this expresses affection, which is also what connects friends (Dmitrieva 2003: 177–182). Embracing and placing one’s hands on someone’s shoulders are more closely associated with protectiveness; therefore, verbs or word combinations denoting such an action, together with the adverb amicably, describe a situation in which unequal persons interact. The stronger usually places his hands on the weaker, the older on the younger. The friendly relationship expressed in this way differs from the lexical units denoting brief physical contact described above and tends to last longer, e.g.: [...] she sits on my lap, and I embrace her amicably; Neużsuko, as he was accustomed to do, almost amicably embraced him around the shoulders. The adverb hostilely does not form combinations with words naming actions of this type, because the hostile relationship itself is oriented toward confrontation, distancing, rejection, minimal contact, or its absence. 4. Smell Although people are capable of perceiving reality through smell, this sense, according to the logic of the language worldview, is not sufficiently developed to help express a friendly or hostile relationship. No examples were found describing a person’s ability to perceive the essence of a relationship through smelling. 5. Mixed senses Some examples describe situations that cannot be treated unambiguously: it is clear from the description that the relationship expressed by the addresser to the addressee is at issue, but it is difficult or altogether impossible to say through which specific senses, according to the logic of folk psychology, it should be perceived. It may be assumed that in such cases it is perceived in a complex manner—through several senses at once or through an obviously undifferentiated whole of them. The word to behave can describe absolutely any situation, but it requires specification—it is impossible simply to *behave. Both of the adverbs under discussion form combinations with this word. Thus, in such a case the nature of the situation described is understood on the basis of experience already possessed: in saying behaves in a friendly manner, behaves in a hostile manner, what is meant is simply that the subject described in the situation behaves as a friend or an enemy behaves. The addressee must understand what a friend and what an enemy are, cf.: If you behaved hostilely toward your mother [...]; The client hoped that he was behaving quite amicably; Someone with whom one needs to behave particularly amicably; For a moment I thought that the person was behaving in a friendly manner because he cared. Straipsniai / Articles 217 SILVIJA PAPAURELYTĖ-KLOVIENĖ Draugiškai ir priešiskai antonymy can be used to clarify the meanings of these words: The cat continued to behave toward him in an antagonistic and unfriendly manner for several more days. The antonymic relationship between the words in question permits the root draug with a negating element to be used to express the opposite meaning: You, Roli, are behaving rather unfriendly. It is not customary to describe a situation using the word priešiškai with a negating element, e.g., *he behaved in a friendly and non-hostile manner. More specific are those situations in which, alongside forms of the verb to behave combined with the words in a friendly and hostile manner, there are other words with a more defined meaning, distinguished by clearly expressed evaluation. The words constituting such a double, triple, or multiple characterization affect one another: in a friendly and hostile manner meanings are made more specific, while the evaluation conveyed by the other adverbs accompanying them is further intensified, cf.: Doyle behaved offensively and hostilely; [...] behaved freely, simply, and in a friendly manner toward them, as though they were kittens; You can behave tactfully and in a friendly manner. The word in a friendly manner is richer in this respect—there are many examples in which it is specified by one or another word expressing positive evaluation, e.g.: [...] they know how to behave in a friendly and politely; they want to be treated in a friendly and respectfully; [...] behaving nicely, caringly, and in a friendly manner. The content of the characterization is also specified by a more detailed description. This is especially characteristic of the word hostilely: [...] a child can disregard the parents’ opinion and behave hostilely (shout while demanding something); he, behaving hostilely, despising the pupils. It may be assumed that the detail of the description is determined by the effort to specify nuances of meaning and describe more precisely a negatively evaluated situation. The verb to behave is close in scope of meaning to the verb to become disposed—to have, owing to one’s own attitude, the influence of another person, or circumstances, a corresponding predisposition toward another person, process, phenomenon, etc. When a person reflects on an attitude, they rely neither on sight, hearing, nor touch, but nevertheless perceive changes in their emotional relationship and name them: [...] I said that she was hostilely disposed; We became hostilely disposed beforehand; [...] I am hostilely disposed toward her. Likewise, a person acting in the situation perceives their ability to dispose the addressee in a certain way: [...] so that I would dispose him not hostilely but gently. When assessing other people’s relationships from the outside, conclusions are drawn in a complex manner; it is impossible to discern a connection with specific senses, e.g.: [...] tries to help, so the patient should be friendly-minded; [...] a very pleasant and cultured man, friendly-minded; Yashin decided that they were not particularly friendly-minded. Information possibly received through several senses makes it possible to conclude what relationship connects the participants in the situation. When the subject is not interaction between two people or a small group but a more global issue, it is even more likely that a friendly disposition will be characterized by a less clearly defined variety of senses: [...] it was necessary to take advantage of it while Russia 218 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII Draugas ir priešas kaip pasaulio kategorizacijos atskaitos taškai lietuvių kalbos pasaulėvaizdyje in power there is a friendly president disposed toward Germany; [...] the allies are disposed rather amicably toward Lithuania. It should be noted that no examples were found mentioning the possibility of disposing one person in a friendly manner toward another from the outside. According to the logic of folk psychology, such a relationship either arises on its own or does not exist at all. The situation is different with the word hostilely—here a third participant appears between the addressee and the addresser, capable, in a certain sense, of setting them against each other. This may be a person, a force, etc. Naturally, a person disposes someone intentionally, understanding the consequences, and can use various tools and methods, cf.: [...] but that broadcast disposed mehostilely; Natan was clearly disposedhostilely by my words; [...] many citizens are disposedhostilely by NATO and the EU; Is it worth disposing them hostilely until the end of their lives? Such a disposition does not entail that action will be taken in every case. The verb to react is associated with possible actions—not merely expressing a relationship but accompanying it with an action. In situations described using the adverb hostilely, such actions are destructive, cf.: [...] events to which we usually reacthostilely; [...] I try to violate legal norms, and they reacthostilely, obstructing my action if there is still time. A situation less closely associated with action is described using the verb to maintain oneself: [...] the Kuršėnai people remainedhostilely toward strangers. In this article, the group of verbs of intellectual activity includes verbs denoting actions performed by means of reason, human cognitive abilities, and experience (to think, solve, ponder, joke wittily, investigate, treat, evaluate). Such actions have no clear result and are not clearly delimited in time; they may simply be ongoing, since, for example, one may return to reflection many times and each time differently—newly acquired experience allows different conclusions to be drawn. Names of intellectual activities are distinctive in that they denote an action that generally cannot be perceived directly from the outside. When such actions are also characterized by the adverbs in a friendly manner, hostilely, it may be assumed that the implied relationship and its associated consequences are perceived by the sense organs; therefore, the reality of activities that are not ordinarily externally visible can also be established. The variety of verbs forming combinations with the words in a friendly manner and hostilely is similar. When it is stated that a subject thinks or considers something amicably or hostilely, it can be assumed that the process is not limited to what is happening here and now, but that future behavioral strategies are also being developed, e.g.: Therefore, thinking hostilely toward the life to come; Yet many who think in a hostile manner, such as those who gnash their teeth at Him; Thinking about the Jews in a friendly, benevolent, and serious manner thinking about the Jews. Straipsniai / Articles 219 SILVIJA PAPAURELYTĖ-KLOVIENĖ A more passive hostile intellectual activity is evaluation and treatment. In doing this, an opinion is generalized that does not necessarily become action—it may simply be a statement without further consequences, e.g.: He evaluated the parties clearly hostilely; [...] sometimes also openly hostilely evaluating P. Cvirka’s and his comrades’ activism; [...] teaches them to evaluate their own and others’ actions in a friendly manner; [...] the legal codes treat women so hostilely. In this context, the words in a friendly manner and hostilely imply positive and negative evaluation. Intellectual activity characterized as occurring in a friendly manner can be associated with a specific result, for example, the desire to reach an agreement, cf.: Kazimieras Trumpikas solves that matter amicably; He tries to solve these problems amicably. It should be noted that such verbs also form combinations with hostilely, although a hostile relationship provides no prospect—for in such a case the result of the action is not oriented toward benefit for both parties: [...] he wants to be superior to others and solves problems hostilely. In the language worldview, intellectual activity expressing a relationship is also attributed to animals, e.g.: [...] the dog, which, in a friendly manner and probably already accustomed, examined the new visitors. In this case, no result is necessarily expected. The verbs to joke and to jest can be assigned to the verbs of intellectual activity, since these processes are also possible by using the intellect. When joking, a friendly relationship is expressed, which is perceived through other senses: “Surely you haven’t gone crazy?” Jankus joked in a friendly manner. It can be generalized that a friendly or hostile relationship perceived through mixed senses is more often expressed through situations associated with actions or states that have no specific result. CONCLUSION Analysis of combinations of the words in a friendly and hostile manner with verbs, and the conclusions related to it, supplemented the content of the categories of friendliness and hostility associated with the Lithuanian language worldview, provided information about the perception of the world recorded in folk psychology, and supplemented the content of the concepts FRIEND and ENEMY. What both adverbs have in common is that they are associated with verbs that imply an exit from the sphere of the subject performing the action or experiencing the state. This is logical, considering the semantics of the adverbs—both a friend and an enemy are usually an addressee toward whom the addresser expresses a relationship of one type or another 220 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVIII Draugas ir priešas kaip pasaulio kategorizacijos atskaitos taškai lietuvių kalbos pasaulėvaizdyje relationship⁷. The absolute majority of examples describe situations in which the addressees and addressees of expressions of both friendliness and hostility are people. Nevertheless, the Lithuanian language worldview is characterized by attributing the ability to express an emotional relationship to the animals closest to humans as well—there are examples in which dogs, turkeys, and cats are described as capable of expressing friendliness. It was concluded that a considerably greater variety of actions is associated with the word in a friendly manner. The addresser most often transmits such a relationship through means perceived by sight and hearing; friendliness is also expressed through gestures oriented toward seeking contact, whose perception is possible through another sense—touch. Situations in which the parties are connected by friendly relationships can vary: they include not only initiating and maintaining contact but also productive actions with a tangible result. The verbs associated with the word in a friendly manner are more varied because of the very essence of the relationship, since it presupposes the prospect of further cooperation. In the contexts discussed, two main meanings of the word in a friendly manner can be distinguished: in a friendly manner ‘in the way friends do’ and in a friendly manner ‘together, jointly’. The first meaning should be regarded as primary and more important; it motivates the second, since acting together is possible when there are common interests and friendly relationships. When the adverb in a friendly manner is used with verbs naming an action oriented toward a result, the meaning ‘together, jointly’ is actualized. In a friendly manner, used in combinations with verbs naming actions that have neither a specific result nor even an orientation toward one, may be regarded as closer to the center of the category of friendliness if compared with the aforementioned meaning of this word, ‘together, jointly’. The word in a friendly manner can be specified by one or several words; thus, its descriptions are detailed, leave more freedom for interpretation, and the meaning of the word itself is broader. The adverb hostilely is considerably more restricted. The language worldview records the attitude that communication in such a relationship is difficult, and joint activity even more so would not succeed—the enemy wishes harm, so acting together is impossible; at most, one acts against the other, destructively, or they have no dealings with one another at all. By analogy with the category of friendliness, viewing the category of hostility, it can be said that the latter is narrower and has fewer nuances of meaning. The verbs forming combinations with the word hostilely describe less varied situations. They are usually limited to initial contact. According to the logic of folk psychology, a hostile relationship is more often perceived through sight, sometimes through hearing or mixed senses, but there were no examples involving expression through touch—hostility correlates with confrontation and distancing. ⁷ Of course, a person can be hostile toward themselves, but there is no need to express this. Straipsniai / Articles 221 SILVIJA PAPAURELYTĖ-KLOVIENĖ When evaluating the categories of friendliness and hostility as a whole, it can be concluded that analysis of combinations of the words in a friendly and hostile manner with more specific adverbs and/or verbs naming actions and states perceived through various senses reveals nuances of friendly and hostile relationships. It can be stated that some verbs used with the adverbs in a friendly and hostile manner display a tendency toward centrifugal relations, i.e. the content of the sentence can be understood both directly and with the transfer of the name used to describe the content of another semantic group in mind. The actualization of centrifugal relations serves as a premise for the need to express the most general evaluation itself (good vs. bad). When the world is categorized with FRIEND and ENEMY as reference points, i.e. with the categories of friendliness and hostility, it is categorized on the basis of evaluation and this is good vs. and this is bad. LITERATŪRA Aleksaitė Agnė 2018: Meilės konceptas ir jo sinonimai lietuvių kalbos pasaulėvaizdyje. – Bendrinė kalba 91. Prieiga internete: https://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba/article/view/80. Akimova Elena, Boikienė Ina 2001: Lietuvių vyriškosios ir moteriškosios kalbinės sąmonės tyrinėjimo problemos. – Filologija 4(17), 121–129. BLKŽė – Bendrinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas, vyr. red. D. Liutkevičienė, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2013–2022. Prieiga internete: https://ekalba.lt/bendrinės-lietuvių-kalbos-zodynas/. Bogdzevič Monika 2020: PYKČIO, BAIMĖS ir GĖDOS jausmai lietuvių kalboje iš kognityvinės ir kultūrinės perspektyvos: daktaro disertacija, Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas. Cibulskienė Jurga 2020: Cross-linguistic metaphorical representation of the #MeToo movement: communicating attitudes. – Respectus Philologicus 38(43), 54–66. Dmitrieva Ljubov’ I. 2003: Дмитриева, Любовь И. Словарь языка жестов [Slovar’ jazyka žestov], Москва: Издательство АСТ [Moskva: Izdatel’stvo AST]. Gaidienė Anželika, Liutkevičienė Danutė 2019: Žodžių krūmas, pusk rūmis, krūm ošnis, krūmelis samprata (remiantis studentų apklausa). – Bendrinė kalba 92. Prieiga internete: https://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba/article/view/391/469. DOI: 10.35321/bkalba.2019.92.12. 222 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII Draugas ir priešas kaip pasaulio kategorizacijos atskaitos taškai lietuvių kalbos pasaulėvaizdyje Gaidienė Anželika 2020: Priešas „Lietuvių kalbos žodyne“. – Bendrinė kalba 93. Prieiga internete: http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba/article/view/2064. DOI: 10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.12. Jurgaitis Nedas 2015: Krizės konceptas lietuvių ir vokiečių kalbose: daktaro disertacija, Šiauliai: Šiaulių universitetas. Klimavičius Jonas 2008: Draugiškas, draugingas, draugus. – Kalbos kultūra 81, 133–140. LKŽe – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 1–20 (1941–2002), red. kolegija G. Naktinienė, J. Paulauskas, R. Petrokienė, V. Vitkauskas, J. Zabarskaitė, vyr. red. G. Naktinienė, e. variantas, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2008 (atnaujinta versija, 2018). Prieiga internete: https://ekalba.lt/lietuviu-kalbos-zodynas/. Makarova Viktorija 2013: Priešo įvaizdžio formavimas Lietuvos žiniasklaidos priemonėse: lenkų klausimas. – Respectus philologicus 24(29), 213–221. Makarova Viktorija 2014: Литовское слово PRIEŠAS и русское слово ВРАГ [Litovskoe slovo PRIEŠAS i russkoe slovo VRAG]. – Res humanitariae 16, 182–191. Myers David G. 2000: Psichologija, Kaunas: Poligrafija ir informatika. Papaurel ytė–Klovienė Silvija 2007: Lingvistinės kultūrologijos bruožai, Šiauliai: Šiaulių universiteto leidykla. Papaurel ytė–Klovienė Silvija 2008: Vaikų, moterų ir vyrų elgesys kaip pasaulio kategorizacijos atskaitos taškas (remiantis lietuvių kalbos pasaulėvaizdžio medžiaga). – Filologija 13, 106–119. Papaurel ytė–Klovienė Silvija 2009: Lietuvių nacionalinis charakteris lietuvių kalbos pasaulėvaizdyje: ar galime vadintis darbščia isiais pavyd uoliais? – Acta humanitarica universitatis Saulensis 8: Vardas kultūroje, 244–252. Papaurel ytė–Klovienė Silvija 2015: Dieviškumo kategorija lietuvių kalbos pasaulėvaizdyje. – Valoda dažādu kultūru kontekstā 25: zinātnisko rakstu krājums, Daugavpils: Daugavpils Universitātes akadēmiskais apgāds „Saule“, 231–237. Papaurel ytė–Klovienė Silvija 2015a: Velnias kaip pasaulio kategorizacijos taškas. – Acta humanitarica universitatis Saulensis 22: Šventieji ir nelabieji kultūroje, 193–206. Rutkovska Kristina, Smetonienė Irena, Smetona Marius 2017: Vertybės lietuvio pasaulėvaizdyje, Vilnius: Akademinė leidykla. Rutkovska Kristina, Smetonienė Irena, Smetona Marius 2019: Kalba. Tauta. Valstybė, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Straipsniai / Articles 223 SILVIJA PAPAURELYTĖ-KLOVIENĖ Smetonienė Irena, Smetona Marius, Rutkovska Kristina 2021: Žemė. Duona. Motina, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Šeina Viktorija 2018: Priešas, svetimkūnis, kenkėjas: lenko vaizdinys tarpukario lietuvių literatūroje. – Naujasis Židinys-Aidai 7, 25–30. Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė Loreta 2020: DRAUGO konceptas publicistikoje. – Vertybės lenkų ir lietuvių kalbų pasaulėvaizdyje. D. 1. Teorinės prielaidos ir interpretacijos, sud. K. Rutkovska, S. Nebrziegowska-Bartminska, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 337–365. Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė Loreta, Čižik-Prokaševa Veslava, Gritėnienė Aure­lija, Liutkevičienė Danutė, Gaidienė Anželika 2023: Lietuvio kaimynai: draugai ar priešai? Kalbinė vaizdinių analizė: kolektyvinė monografija, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Friend and Enemy as Reference Points for World Categorization in the Worldview of the Lithuanian Language SUMMARY The research aims to describe and compare some of the categories of friendliness and hostility, i.e. to analyse what actions and states are described as typical of friend and enemy in the worldview of the Lithuanian language. The research was based on the analysis of the combinations of the adverbs draugiškai (friendly) and priešiškai (hostile). Over 1,000 examples were drawn from the Corpus of Contemporary Lithuanian Language: 829 words draugiškai and 360 words priešiškai. Considering the purpose of the research and the nature of the research material, descriptive, interpretive, conceptual analysis and comparative methods were employed. The classification of the examples of adverbs draugiškai and priešiškai was based on the fact that such situations generally connect two sides: the one who seeks to send his/her relationship and the one to whom the said message is sent. Since the situation without the addressee would lose its meaning, all verbs used with the adverbs draugiškai and priešiškai are classified taking into account through which of the five human senses, namely sight, hearing, touch, taste or smell, the information is perceived. 224 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVIII Draugas ir priešas kaip pasaulio kategorizacijos atskaitos taškai lietuvių kalbos pasaulėvaizdyje It was concluded that a much wider range of actions is associated with the word draugiškai. The addressee usually sends such a relationship perceived by sight and hearing; friendliness is also expressed by gestures aimed at the pursuit of contact, the perception of which is possible with the help of another sense, i.e. touch. The nature of a situation where both sides are on friendly terms can be diverse: it is not only the establishment and maintenance of contact, but also productive actions with a tangible result. Verbs used with the word priešiškai describe less diverse situations. It is usually limited to initial contact, as communication and cooperation are not possible in such a relationship. Įteikta 2023 m. balandžio 18 d. SILVIJA PAPAURĖLYTĖ-KLOVIENĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas Petro Vileišio g. 5, LT–10308 Vilnius, Lietuva [email protected] Straipsniai / Articles 225