JOLANTA VASKELIENĖ Vilnius University Šiauliai Academy ORCID id: orcid.org/0000-0002-8516-8608

Research areas: word formation, morphology, text linguistics, stylistics, variation. DOI: doi.org/10.35321/all88-17

Daiva Murmulaitytė

PERSPECTIVES ON RESEARCH INTO NEOLOGISM FORMATION AND MORPHEMICS (THE CASE OF THE LITHUANIAN NEOLOGISM DATABASE)

Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 2021, 184 pp. DOI doi.org/10.35321/e-pub.16.naujadaros-tyrimu-perspektyvos ISBN 978-609-411-289-8

Daiva Murmulaitytė’s monograph is the first book devoted to the Lithuanian Neologism Database, which began to be created in 2011 and is continuously supplemented^¹ (hereafter, ND or the database), and to discussing the research opportunities it offers. At present, ND contains more headword neologisms and illustrative examples than it did when the monograph was being prepared^²; thus, some of the monograph’s insights can already be substantiated and supplemented even further (or perhaps

¹ “This database collects new words (borrowings and neologisms) that emerged in the Lithuanian language from the end of the 20th century and are emerging in current public usage, word combinations and abbreviations, new word meanings, as well as information about the origin, usage, and standardization of neologisms.” (https://ekalba.lt/naujažodžiai/apie/ND%20%C4%AEvadas [accessed 2023-01-25]).

² According to the ND creators, at the end of 2022 the database contained 7920 described neologisms and more than 28,000 illustrative examples (https://ekalba.lt/naujažodžiai/apie/ND%20Duomenyno%20sandara, accessed 2023-01-25); the monograph’s Introduction (“Research Source”) states that in November 2020 ND contained 6300 neologisms and 23,000 illustrative examples.

326

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVIII

Daiva Murmulaitytė. Naujažodžių darybos ir morfemikos tyrimų perspektyvos (Lietuvių kalbos naujažodžių duomenyno atvejis)

and refuted?) on the basis of the results of the analysis of new data^³. The author of the monograph, Daiva Murmulaitytė, chose to investigate Lithuanian neologisms (using ND material) and to present this database as a tool for research into word formation and morphemics^⁴. For this purpose, the author of the monograph is fully prepared; she has examined the object of research in great depth—this book is a continuation and synthesis of Daiva Murmulaitytė’s various studies related to ND, begun in 2017. Clearly, she is also thoroughly familiar with the work of other scholars who have chosen the same object of research, and has delved not only into word-formation, neology, and contamination studies conducted in Lietuva, but also into those carried out worldwide. Those wishing to develop further the various kinds of knowledge presented in the book will be able to make use of the literature published in various languages and indicated in the references (111 entries in the list).

The structure of the monograph is logical, appropriate, and clear—it consists (apart from a brief Acknowledgements section) of an Introduction, two parts divided into chapters and subchapters, detailed conclusions correlating with the analysis, lists of sources and literature, and a 9-page summary in English^⁵, enabling non-Lithuanian-speaking readers interested in neologisms, new words, databases, and related topics to become acquainted with the principal results and insights of the research. Thus, the content of the monograph is highly well-considered and coherent. The Introduction presents the source of the research (ND), its object, aim, and the tasks required to achieve it; discusses the research methodology; provides an overview of studies based on ND; and presents the structure of the monograph. The first part of the monograph (“The Database of Neologisms: A Source of New Words and a Tool for Their Research”) discusses ND as a repository of new words and as a tool for researching them. This part consists of 3 chapters, which present the types of neologisms included in ND, discuss lexical and semantic neologisms^⁶ and revived vocabulary, and focus primarily on neologisms subject to word-formation analysis. The principles governing the selection of ND data are also discussed here (including the regularity of verb abstracts, reflexive derivatives, polysemy, and a summary). The discussion then focuses on

³ It should be said that the empirical material of ND underlies not only this monograph but also the doctoral dissertation of Agnė Aleksaitė (2022), supervised by the author of the monograph and defended last year. The dissertation author relied on 3098 derivatives selected from 5319 units lexicographically described in ND in 2017–2019. Both conceptual works (the monograph under review and the dissertation) provide a sound basis and starting point for research into neologisms; other scholars investigating neologisms (or new words) can make use of the insights of both works (by juxtaposing and comparing the results obtained from the analysis of new words), as the reviewer has already done, see Vaskelienė 2022a).

⁴ This is justified by the fact that the author does not limit herself to new words but also includes in the field of research words that have acquired new meanings and revived words.

⁵ The summary was translated by Jovita Bagdonavičiūtė.

⁶ Using highly apt examples, the author clearly shows which of the words presented in ND should be regarded as newly formed words (lexical neologisms), and for what reasons, while others could be considered products of semantic development.

Recenzijos / Reviews

327

JOLANTA VASKELIENĖ

ND data on word formation and morphemics (its structure, the extent to which it has been studied, and the results of research) and the question of adapting the ND database for a comprehensive analysis of neologism formation. The second part of the monograph is devoted to presenting directions for research into new words and pilot studies. This part consists of two chapters, thematically divided into subchapters. The first chapter of the second part of the monograph (“Recording and Analysis of Word-Formation Tendencies in New Lithuanian Words”) presents tendencies in the formation of new words and discusses in greater detail the formation of nouns, devoting particular attention to word-formation regularities, word-formation types, the morphemic composition of their base stems, and classification problems. It is valuable that the monograph analyzes not only neologisms that emerged through morphological word formation (i.e., new words), but also formations created by non-morphemic means, namely contaminants: it introduces the concept of contamination, discusses formations regarded as contaminants, addresses problematic cases, and outlines guidelines for further research into contaminants⁷. The second chapter of the second part (“Research on Word-Formation Relations of Neologisms”) is devoted to discussing and presenting research into word-formation nests, word-formation categories, word-formation types, and lexical-semantic groups. It is very useful that the subchapters conclude with summaries. In general, it should be said that the insights and research results presented in the monograph raise no doubts in most cases. Particular mention should be made of the 18 illustrative tables and 12 figures supplementing the text⁸. It is well-founded that, when considering one aspect or another, the author does not avoid debatable questions, points out the problems that arise, and proposes possible solutions; thus, the monograph not only (and not so much) reviews what has been done, but also, with great motivation and precision, demonstrates inconsistencies and aspects and possibilities of supplementing, improving, and adapting ND for various types of research. Moreover, the discussion is not vague but demonstrates its points by providing concrete examples. It should be said that both the monograph as a whole and its individual parts may be useful for various purposes: for example, those wishing to become acquainted with formations produced by morphological word formation may choose to read one chapter; those interested in contamination may read another; those concerned with the formation of new words may study the chapter devoted to it; and those interested in individual word-formation categories (names of tools, names based on gender distinctions) may accordingly choose the chapters devoted to their analysis

^⁷ Daiva Murmulaitytė is, in general, one of the few Lithuanian scholars who consistently research contaminational formations.

^⁸ For example, the types of neologisms presented in ND are shown very clearly and illustratively in Table 2; Table 3 provides informative data on possible aspects of research into neologisms and morphemics and indicates whether they can (or cannot) be studied; and the data on the types of compounds and examples of those types presented in Table 9 can be used for various purposes, and so on.

328

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII

Daiva Murmulaitytė. Naujažodžių darybos ir morfemikos tyrimų perspektyvos (Lietuvių kalbos naujažodžių duomenyno atvejis)

and so on⁹. Daiva Murmulaitytė’s monograph is written in a scholarly style and is orderly and properly edited. This book is also useful in practical terms: the material, insights, and suggestions it presents can contribute to improving and further expanding ND—the largest source of Lithuanian neologisms.

Another aspect that should be regarded as no less valuable is that the monograph not only provides new information but also prompts one to think, raise questions, and engage in discussion. Thus, I would like to mention several such points.

In Lithuanian linguistics, (unfortunately) there is no single (uniform) view of certain issues of word formation (this still calls for a more detailed examination and discussion, but it should not be passed over in a review either). It is excellent that the author of the monograph (see pp. 14–15) writes about differences in approaches to word-formation methods, for example, about the varying treatment of formations with be- (begalvis, -ė), and states that “[I]n this study of the neologisms of the Database, the traditional approach to prefix derivatives is also followed [emphasis in the review] [...] largely because the tendencies of neologism formation are compared with the regularities of traditional word formation described in grammars of the present-day language.” Following the traditional approach, the formation begalvis, -ė would be treated as a derivative with the prefix be from the single base word galva¹⁰. On p. 68 of the monograph, the varying treatment of formations with be is returned to¹¹, and, in discussing the formation bežidinis, -ė, two possibilities are indicated: it is stated that this could be a formation of mixed derivation—prefixal and suffixal—from židinys, or that a suffixal word-formation method could be discerned here, with the base being not a word (židinys) but a word combination (be židinio). It should be noted that, as a rule, the mixed word-formation method suffixation–paradigmation (prefixal–suffixal) is not indicated¹²; another question is why, in the case of bežidinis, -ė, the traditional view that it is a derivative with the prefix be from the single word židinys is no longer written? Thus, it nevertheless remains unclear to the end,

⁹ The term used by the author, alternatyvių daryba (p. 66), deserves separate mention: it seems not to be used by other specialists in word formation, but it is appropriate; most likely, it would correspond to Vinco Urbutis’s (2009: 109–110) formations with parallel base words (used when discussing the derivation of a formation from both one and another [other] word[s]).

¹⁰ See also p. 11 of the monograph, where betarmis, -ė is regarded as a derivative with the prefix be and a secondary word-formation device (the ending); cf. in Urbutis’s monograph (2009: 260) the formation bedarbis, -ė, which illustrates the prefixal word-formation method, in which the prefix functions together with a change of the ending.

¹¹ This is indeed important, because one position or the other determines the word-formation method of a neologism.

¹² See p. 13 of the monograph: “[...] in Lithuanian, mixed derivation also occurs, when two word-formation methods are applied simultaneously, for example, prefixal-suffixal (prefixation-suffixation; this is how the already attested povestuvinis, -ė, prieškarinis, -ė, pakylėti, paeiliui and others were formed) or compounding-suffixal (composition-suffixation, for example: pelėkautai, žmožgėdar and others) (Urbutis 2009: 340–342; Jakaitienė 2009: 254; Keinys 1999: 82–83, 97, 102).”

Recenzijos / Reviews

329

JOLANTA VASKELIENĖ

what position is taken regarding formations with be- (the traditional one¹³ or that of Antanas Smetona (2005), Aldona Paulauskienė (1983: 100–103; 1994: 81; 2007: 20–22), and in some other cases, is followed in the monograph. In works on word formation, the role of reflexivity is also understood differently, and this is related to whether a reflexive word-formation method is distinguished. Usually, two methods of verb formation are indicated—suffixation and prefixation—that is, suffixal and prefixal derivatives are discussed (see LKE 593; Paulauskienė 1994: 363–279; LKG 1971: 247–298; R užė 2012: 53–62). DLKG (2005: 385; 406–409), in addition to the two aforementioned methods of verb formation, identifies one more—the reflexive word-formation method. This position is also followed in the monograph under review¹⁴. Incidentally, because of the aforementioned view of reflexivity, reflexive verbs of mixed formation are understood very broadly in DLKG: the grammar regards as results of mixed formation not only derivatives formed by the prefixal-suffixal method but also those formed with a suffix and reflexivity or with a prefix and reflexivity (DLKG 2005: 409–410). Thus, in the monograph the reflexive method is regarded as a separate word-formation method characteristic only of verbs¹⁵: p. 12 mentions suffixal, prefixal, and ending derivatives and states that “verbs are also formed with the reflexive affix characteristic only of them (the reflexive particle). Thus, derivatives are classified according to their principal word-formation device.”¹⁶ There is no doubt about the examples of suffixal, prefixal, and ending derivatives, but immediately afterward the following verbs formed (?) with the reflexive particle are written: įsikatinti ‘take in to raise a lost cat’ (: įkatinti), užsigr ybauti ‘earn money from mushrooms sold’ (: užgrybauti). Is the role of reflexivity here really the same as in suffixal, prefixal, and ending derivatives? Works on morphology indicate various numbers of meanings for reflexivity, but the following are most often mentioned: direct (prausia ‘washes’ – prausiasi ‘washes oneself’), indirect (neša ‘carries’ – nešasi ‘carries for oneself’, perka ‘buys’ – perkasi ‘buys for oneself’), restriction of the domain of the action to the performer (kelia ‘raises’ – keliasi ‘gets up’), and others (LKE 471). These latter meanings can also be sensed when comparing the non-reflexive and reflexive forms įkatinti (‘take a lost cat to raise it’) and įsikatinti (‘take [i.e., take for oneself / personally—reviewer] to raise a lost cat’), užgrybauti (‘earn money from mushrooms sold’) and užsigr ybauti (‘earn for oneself [i.e., earn for oneself, one’s own

¹³ It should be noted that the possibility of forming derivatives (see p. 68 sočiapi lvis) with an ending from the phrase sočių pilvu is in general contrary to the traditional view, according to which derivatives and compounds (respectively, derivation and compounding) are distinguished precisely according to the number of base words, and formations of the sočiapi lvis, -ė type are regarded as compounds (see Keinys 1999: 18; Urbutis 2009, 333; LKE 148, 590, etc.).

¹⁴ The same position is also evident in Žodžių darybos vedlys (Murmulaitytė, Aleksaitė 2021) and in A. Aleksaitė’s dissertation (2022: 167–170).

¹⁵ The fact that this word-formation method is characteristic exclusively of one part of speech, rather than of all parts of speech (of formations belonging to all parts of speech), also strengthens the chosen position not to regard the reflexive method as a separate one.

¹⁶ Section 1.5.2 of the monograph is devoted to discussing reflexive derivatives; see pp. 39–41.

330

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVIII

Daiva Murmulaitytė. Naujažodžių darybos ir morfemikos tyrimų perspektyvos (Lietuvių kalbos naujažodžių duomenyno atvejis)

for the purposes – ed.] money from mushrooms sold¹). Attention should be drawn to the fact that on p. 53 the same verb užsigrybauti is already explained as a derivative formed with a prefix and the reflexive affix: “[...] several [words] formed by analogy with other words, using a prefix and a reflexive affix (užsigrybauti ‘to earn money from mushrooms sold’, cf. užsidirbti, atsiseimauti ‘to have had enough, to the point of no longer wanting to remain a member of the Seimas’, cf. atsivalgyti)” (p. 53). It is assumed that verbs of the užsigrybauti type are prefix derivatives, while reflexivity is an additional derivational device¹⁷, part of a complex formant; cf. the verbs considered prefix derivatives užsibūti (: būti), atsivalgyti (: valgyti), išsigulėti (: gulėti) (Keinys 1999: 89–90), persivalgyti (: valgyti), užsižiopsoti (: žiopsoti) (Barauskaitė 1985: 30), atsivalgyti (: valgyti), įsiplepėti (: plepėti) (Ružė 2012: 58), and others. The monograph essentially follows the position of A. Paulauskienė and DLKG, and this is the author’s right and choice (which means that this position is convincing to the scholar). Nevertheless, the monograph should have devoted more attention to this reflexive derivational method, regarded as a separate word-formation method¹⁸; moreover, this method should not have been omitted when discussing word-formation methods¹⁹.

Reflexivity is somewhat related to another passage in the monograph, where the selection of the base word (and its form) is discussed—on p. 11 we read: “The prefix or reflexive affix of the base word may also be omitted, for example: džiugena ‘a person who rejoices’ (: džiaugtis), išvarža ‘a huge eruption of solar plasma’ (: išsiveržti) (for more on changes in the derivational base, see: Urbutis 2009: 231–246; Jakaitienė 2009: 243; Barauskaitė 1985: 21–25; Keinys 1999: 19–20).” Two points should be made here: while fully agreeing that the reflexivity of the base word is sometimes omitted and does not carry over into the derivative, one should also mention the view discussed in the review that in the works of some scholars reflexivity is sometimes regarded as a secondary derivational device, part of a complex formant. The other point is that, having mentioned the possibility that the prefix of the base word may not carry over into the derivative, at least one example illustrating this claim should have been provided—the two derivatives (džiugena, išvarža) illustrate only the omission of the base word’s reflexivity.

¹⁷ The two possibilities could be indicated as follows: už(si)grybauti ‘to earn money from mushrooms sold’ (: grybauti).

¹⁸ A monograph is precisely the genre in which controversial and variously interpreted issues can (and should) be discussed.

¹⁹ Elsewhere in the monograph (when discussing word-formation methods), the reflexive derivational method is not mentioned—on p. 13, four basic methods and a mixed method are discussed: “Alongside the basic word-formation methods listed—suffixal derivation, or suffixation; prefixal derivation, or prefixation; ending derivation, or paradigmatization; and compounding, or composition (Urbutis 2009: 333–340; Keinys 1999: 22–23)—mixed derivation [...] also occurs in Lithuanian,”—as can be seen, the works of V. Urbutis and S. Keinys are cited here, but they do not discuss a separate—reflexive—word-formation method.

Recenzijos / Reviews

331

JOLANTA VASKELIENĖ

The principle for presenting base words and forms is not entirely clear, e.g.: agurkžuvė (: agurkas + žuvis), įvairiareligis, –ė (: įvairus, –i + religija), kalbaknisys, –ė (: kalba + knisti), but klišakalbė (: kliša kalba), kalbokūra (: kalbą kūrė), and others. Since derivative types are indicated with a plus (+) sign (see Table 9—noun + noun, adjective + noun, etc.), such a presentation would seemingly be expected throughout²⁰. As for the selection of the form of the base verb: in some places not only the infinitive is given, but also the verb form on which the derivative directly depends, whereas elsewhere only the infinitive is provided; cf., for example, p. 12 pojautis (: pajausti, pajautė) and keitėjimas (: keistėti), p. 63 vargospūdis (: vargas + spaudė) and skrajutė (: skrieti)—keitėjimas is based on the stem of the past simple tense (keitėjo), while skrajutė is based on skrieja or skriejo, and so on. In any event, the principle for presenting base words and forms could have been explained.

A few more details. kūnovara and megztipaltis are regarded as compounds of an unclear type; the examples provided in ND (with explanations) show that semantically they are related to two nouns—kūnas, vara and megztinis, paltas (thus they are most likely of the noun + noun type, although the disintegration of megztipaltis should be discussed); alternatively, this derivative could perhaps be written alongside rašyt namis and others (see p. 85). The noun + verb compound regarded as a type of compound and presented with a question mark in Table 9 (p. 80), šokvaikštis, could also be included among the unclear cases. It is assumed that, when indicating the type of derivational formants²¹ in Table 4, it would have been more precise to write not “Suffixes” but “Suffixes (endings),” since it is stated in more than one place that words with identical endings may be both derivatives and non-derivatives (e.g. p. 52 reasonably states: “Thus, –acija cannot be regarded as a derivational formant in all cases; sometimes neologisms simply contain these morphemes (the suffix –acij– and the ending –a), because they were borrowed in this form rather than formed in Lithuanian.”).

In concluding the review, it should be said that the discussion-oriented observations (considerations) in no way diminish the author’s work. Daiva Murmulaitytė succeeded in preparing a high-level monograph in terms of both content and form—from the selected research object and aim to the consistent implementation of the tasks set to achieve it. This monograph should be regarded as a significant contribution to the development of the sciences of word formation, neology (and, in part, lexicology and lexicography). And although Daiva

²⁰ In grammars and works on word formation, derivatives are usually accompanied not by word combinations but by two base words (without a plus sign). The varying presentation of base words in the monograph is most likely related to the author’s choice as to what is regarded as the derivational base—two separate words or a word combination.

²¹ The wording “derivational formant” (see p. 11 of the monograph) implies that the word is a derivative (i.e., a word formed from a base word or words), whereas –(i)acija occurs both in forms that can be regarded as derivatives and in borrowings (on the treatment of words with –(i)acija and their cognate counterparts with –imas, see Vaskelienė 2022).

332

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVIII

Daiva Murmulaitytė. Naujažodžių darybos ir morfemikos tyrimų perspektyvos (Lietuvių kalbos naujažodžių duomenyno atvejis)

Murmulaitytė has published a book that is most useful to scholars (primarily specialists in word formation, morphology, and lexicology), but it (or parts of it) should also be interesting and useful to readers generally interested in neologisms, new coinages, and corpora; lecturers, students, and teachers could make educational and creative use of the monograph.

LITERATURE AND SOURCES

Aleksaitė Agnė 2022: Word Formation of Lithuanian Neologisms (2011–2019, Based on the Neologism Database): doctoral dissertation, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language.

Barauskaitė Dalia 1985: Derivational Analysis of Words: methodological aid, Šiauliai: Šiauliai Pedagogical Institute.

DLKG 2005: Grammar of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language, 4th revised edition, ed. V. Ambrazas, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing.

Jakaitienė Evalda 2009: Lexicology, Vilnius: Vilnius University Press.

Keinys Stasys 1999: Word Formation in Standard Lithuanian, Šiauliai: Šiauliai University Press.

LKE – Encyclopaedia of the Lithuanian Language, comp. K. Morkūnas, ed. V. Ambrazas, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing, 2008.

LKG 1971: Grammar of the Lithuanian Language 2, chief ed. K. Ulvydas, Vilnius: Mintis.

Murmulaitytė Daiva, Aleksaitė Agnė 2021: Guide to Word Formation [electronic resource], Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language. Available online: https://ekalba.lt/zo-dziu-darybos-vedlys/. DOI: 10.35321/zodziu-darybos-vedlys.

ND – Miliūnaitė Rita, Aleksaitė Agnė. Lithuanian Neologism Database [Continuously updated online reference work since 2011], comp. R. Miliūnaitė, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language. Available online: https://ekalba.lt/nauja zodziai/naujienos [accessed 2023–01–25–27].

Paulauskienė Aldona 1983: Outline of Lithuanian Morphology, Kaunas: Šviesa.

Paulauskienė Aldona 1994: Lithuanian Morphology. Lectures for Students of Lithuanian Studies, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing.

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

Ružė Albertas 2012: Lithuanian Morphology II, Vilnius: Vilnius University Press.

Recenzijos / Reviews

333

JOLANTA VASKELIENĖ

Smetona Antanas 2005: On the issue of distinguishing the main methods of word formation. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 52, 83–89.

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

Vaskelienė Jolanta 2022: On Lithuanian common-root nouns with the suffixes –(i)acija and –imas. – Respectus Philologicus 41, 94–106. DOI: 10.15388/RESPECTUS.2022.41.46.111.

Vaskelienė Jolanta 2022a: Productive types of neologistic derivatives of nouns and adjectives. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 87, 177–199. DOI: 10.35321/all87–09.

Submitted on 2 February 2023.

JOLANTA VASKELIENĖ Vilnius University Šiauliai Academy Vytauto St. 84, LT-76352 Šiauliai, Lithuania [email protected]

334

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII