Darybos formantų homonimiškumas ir jo žymėjimas žodžių darybos žinyne

Daiva Murmulaitytė

doi:10.35321/all87-10

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/all87-10

HOMONYMY OF DERIVATIONAL FORMATIVES AND ITS MARKING IN THE GUIDE TO WORD FORMATION

Homonymy of Derivational Formatives and Its Marking in the Word Formation Manual

ABSTRACT

The article examines the homonymy of Lithuanian word-formation devices, whose relevance became apparent during the development of the Word Formation Guide, a digital reference work on the formation of Lithuanian nouns. The aim of the study is to substantiate the need to mark homonymous derivational formatives in dictionaries of word formation, morphemes, and morphemic structure, reference works, and similar lexicographic publications, and to discuss the problems encountered when presenting homonymous word-formation devices in practice. The view is adopted that homonymy should be discussed at the level of derivational formatives, rather than morphemes (affixes). The indisputable criteria for identifying homonymous derivational formatives are different derivational meanings of derivatives and different origins of the word-formation devices, whereas the difference in the parts of speech of derivatives and the difference in the parts of speech of their base words do not, in themselves, probably determine the homonymy of word-formation devices. Only derivational affixes (formatives) of the same type should be regarded as homonymous. The problem of marking the homonymy of derivational formatives used to form mobile nouns (substantiva mobilia) is discussed. The preliminary marking of homonyms in the Word Formation Guide not only highlighted the relevance and problems of the issue of word-formation-device homonymy, but also demonstrated its scope: about half of Lithuanian noun suffixes and almost all endings are homonymous.

KEYWORDS: word formation, derivational formative, affix, morpheme, homonymy, semantics.

200

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII

Darybos formantų homonimiškumas ir jo žymėjimas žodžių darybos žinyne

ANNOTATION

The article deals with the homonymy of the means of Lithuanian word formation, the relevance of which has become apparent in the development of the Word Formation Guide, a digital manual of Lithuanian word (noun) formation. The study aims to justify the need for marking homonymic derivational formatives in dictionaries of word formation, dictionaries of morphemes, dictionaries of morphemic composition, word formation manuals, etc., and to discuss the problems encountered in practice when the homonymic means of word formation are presented in these publications. It is considered that homonymy should be discussed at the level of derivational formatives, not at the level of morphemes (affixes). The difference in the derivational meaning of derivatives and the origin of the means of word formation are considered to be indisputable criteria for the identification of homonymous derivational formatives, while the difference in the part of speech of derivatives and the difference in the part of speech of their base words is not in itself likely to lead to the homonymy of derivational means. Only affixes (formatives) of the same type are homonymous. The problem of marking the homonymy of the derivational formatives used to form mobile nouns (substantiva mobilia) is discussed. The preliminary marking of homonyms in the Word Formation Guide has not only highlighted the relevance and problems of homonymy of derivational formatives but has also shown the extent of homonymy – about half of the suffixes of Lithuanian nouns and almost all the inflections are homonymous.

KEYWORDS: word formation, derivational formative, affix, morpheme, homonymy, semantics.

INTRODUCTION

Homonyms are two-sided (meaningful) language elements having the same form. The essence of the phenomenon of homonymy is the identical form (phonetic and/or graphic) of several, usually two, language elements and their completely different meanings. For various types of homonyms according to the phonetic/graphic form of words (homophones, morphological and partial homonyms, homographs, etc.) and their differing treatment in various sources, see Rimkutė 2003: 34–38 and the literature cited there. Cf. the fact that in English homonyms may refer to words of three different classes: 1) pronounced alike (e.g., to, too, two); 2) pronounced and written alike (e.g., quail ‘putpelė’ and quail ‘krūptelėti, (su)drebėti’), or 3) written alike only (e.g., bow [baʊ] ‘laivo priekis, pirmagalys’ and bow [bəʊ] [‘lankas strėlėms laidyti’). In all cases, the words, naturally, differ in meaning. Words of the first and second types are sometimes called homophones, and those of the second and third types homographs. Some researchers tend to regard only words of the third class as homonyms¹.

^¹ https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homonym [accessed 2022–08–08]; https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bow [accessed 2022–09–08].

Straipsniai / Articles

201

DAIVA MURMULAITYTĖ

In Lithuanian linguistics, the semantic feature is sometimes deliberately omitted from the definition of a homonym (usually a word) as redundant and non-differentiating, since “normally all two-sided elements differ in meaning; exceptions are perhaps synonyms” (Urbutis 2008: 214; cf. Gaivenis, Keinys 1990: 80)^². In addition, the difference between the meanings of two language elements must be complete, i.e. their meanings must be so remote that one cannot speak of the polysemy of the same language element. Homonymy is most often examined at the lexical level; however, it is characteristic not only of words but also of their forms and morphemes. Homomorphemes may be not only roots (for example, dor¹-as, -a, dor²-oti, -oja, -ojo, san-dor³-is), but also suffixes³ (for example, stip-ena¹, rank-ena², iškas-ena³, smeig-ena⁴, zuik-ena⁵), prefixes (be¹-norėti, be²-dugnė), and endings (skund-as¹, nars-as² ‘narsumas’, sarg-as², įdar-as⁴, apav-as⁵, atbrad-as⁶) (cf. Urbutis 2008: 2014–2015; 2009: 116; Jakaitienė 2009: 101–111). It is precisely the homonymy of elements at this level of language—morphemes, more specifically affixes and derivational formatives—that became relevant in creating a digital reference work on the formation of Lithuanian nouns, the Word Formation Guide (hereinafter ŽDV, the Guide; available online at: https://ekalba.lt/zodziu-darybos-vedlys/).

This reference work is one of the services of the Lithuanian language resources information system E. kalba; more precisely, the ŽDV together with Kalbos patarimais (KP) constitutes the service E. patarimai. It “is intended to advise how to form new Lithuanian words,”

^² In explanations of the terms homonym and homonymy in sources on the linguistics, lexicography, etc. of other languages, the feature of differing meaning is nevertheless most often mentioned; cf.: “Vardus ar vienadų skanėjimų un vienādu rakstījumu, bet ar dažādām, savstarpēji nesastatītām nozīmēm sauc par homonīmiem.“ (http://valoda.ailab.lv/latval/vidusskolai/leksikologija/leksikolog/leks5.htm [accessed 2022-08-08]); „Homonīmi ir vārdi ar atšķirīgu nozīmi, kas izrunājami un rakstāmi vienādi.“ (https://lv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homon%C4%ABms [accessed 2022-08-08]); „[...] one of two or more words spelled and pronounced alike but different in meaning (such as the noun quail and the verb quail)“ (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homonym [accessed 2022-08-08]); „ОМОНИМЫ [...] Слова, одинакови за звучаннем, але зовсім різні за значенням, наприклад: коса (волосся), коса (мис), коса (сільськогосподарське знаряддя), ОМОНІМІЯ [...] Звуковий збіг різних за значенням слів або їх форм.“ (SUM-11, http://sum.in.ua/p/5/695/1 [accessed 2022-08-11]); „ОМОНИМИ [...] Слова, а також інші мовні одиниці, однакові за звучанням, але цілковито відмінні за значенням [...], ОМОНІМІЯ [...] Звуковий збіг різних за значенням слів або їх форм – омонімів“ (SUM-20, https://sum20ua.com/Entry/index?wordid=66229&page=2094 [accessed 2022-08-11]); „Омонимы [...] — разные по значению, но одинаковые по звучанию и написанию единицы языка (слова, морфемы и др.)“ (https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ruwiki/2024 [accessed 2022-08-10]); „Омонимия – звуковое совпадение различных языковых единиц, значение к-рых не связаны друг с другом.“ (LES 344).

^³ In Lithuanian word-formation literature, suffixes are usually indicated together with endings. For their homonymy, see also 3.1.

202

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII

Darybos formantų homonimiškumas ir jo žymėjimas žodžių darybos žinyne

based on word-formation rules”^⁴. The Guide systematizes information presented in the noun-formation chapters of two Lithuanian grammars—the academic grammar (LKG) and Contemporary Lithuanian Grammar (DLKG)—(author: Vincas Urbutis). The idea of adapting the ŽDV in the future to data on the formation of other parts of speech has not been abandoned; the database structure would be adjusted accordingly. However, in the first stage of its development, viewing the ŽDV as part of the service E. patarimai, the focus was first placed on nouns, with the assumption that it is precisely their formation patterns that would be of interest when creating new names or checking the correctness of already created ones. Since this digital tool is intended more for the general public, its data structure is simplified. (In a database intended for professional research into Lithuanian word formation, information should be more finely differentiated both semantically and formally, which would provide more possibilities for data retrieval and classification.) However, in some respects the presentation of data cannot be simplified; on the contrary, compared with its presentation in grammars, it must be made more precise, although more complex. One such aspect is the homonymy of word-formation devices, which must be marked even in a simpler database.

In foreign dictionaries of morphemics and word formation, of which there are many and various kinds—especially in Russian (see the bibliography), but also in Latvian (Metuzālė–Kangere 1985), English (DPSCF), and other languages—morpheme homonymy is not always marked. Lithuanian Morpheme Database (LKMDB) and the Reverse, Alphabetical, and Frequency Dictionaries of Lithuanian Morphemes prepared on its basis (Rimkutė, Kazlauskienė, Raškinis 2011; 2011a; 2011b) likewise do not reflect morpheme homonymy.

The aim of this article is to substantiate the necessity of marking the homonymy of derivational formatives (and morphemes in general) in lexicographic works and to raise the problems encountered in practice when presenting homonymous word-formation devices. It seeks to accomplish the following tasks: to register homonymous Lithuanian noun-formation devices—suffixes, prefixes, and endings; to discuss, on the basis of scholarly literature, the criteria for the homonymy of word-formation devices; and to identify problematic aspects of the marking methodology. The study used synchronous word-formation, morphemic, and semantic analyses, as well as analytical and descriptive research methods.

⁴ “The Lithuanian language is rich in word-formation devices, and sometimes inspiration is not enough for a new word to emerge; a little encouragement is needed—to look through the word-formation devices and examine examples” (Rita Miliūnaitė, https://www.delfi.lt/projektai/suprasti-interneta/lietuviu-kalbanetrukus-taps-lengvesne-internete-kuria-patogia-sistema.?id=78879667 [accessed 2022-08-04]).

Straipsniai / Articles

203

DAIVA MURMULAITYTĖ

1. HOMONIMINIŲ MORFEMŲ TYRIMAI IR PRAKTINIAI JŲ REZULTATAI

In theory, the homonymy of word-formation devices—suffixes and prefixes—is a known and intelligible matter (although contrary opinions existed earlier; for instance, N. Janko-Trinickaja and M. Brodowska-Honowska did not recognize formative homonymy (Urbutis 2009: 180)). In Russian-language lexicography, characterized by an abundance of dictionaries of word formation, morphemes, and morphemic structure (Cyганenko 1982; Kuznecova, Efremova 1986; Bardovič, Šakun 1989; Efremova 1996; Efremova 2000; Tichonov 1990; Tichonov 1996; Širšov 2004; Efremova 2005; Raciburskaja 2009; Lopatin, Uluсhanov 2016, etc., not counting works published earlier), various issues of word-formation-device homonymy are considered theoretically and resolved in practice: the relationship between affix homonymy and polysemy, criteria for distinguishing this type of homonym, the distinction between morphemes and derivational formatives with respect to homonymy, the homonymy of native and foreign-origin (international) morphemes, the presentation of homonymous morphemic word segmentation in a dictionary of morphemic structure, and so on.

The relevance of marking morpheme homonymy becomes most apparent in their registers, indexes, and lists. In word-formation dictionaries, where derivatives are presented in nests, or in dictionaries of the morphemic structure of words, where they are presented segmented into morphemes, this is not as relevant. For example, in the Morphemic Dictionary of the Belarusian Language (Bardovič, Šakun 1989), an effort is made to show morpheme homonymy not by numbering morphemes but by other means. In dictionaries of this kind, it is important only to distinguish derivational homonyms that differ morphemically; if words segmented into morphemes coincide completely, their homonymy is not shown in any way. In dictionaries of morphemic structure, rather than dictionaries of the morphemes themselves, such information is probably excessive and inappropriate. The situation is different in dictionaries, reference works, or other registers of the morphemes themselves, where morphemes are presented not within words but as separate units, and their cases of homonymy must be marked in order to distinguish and display all morphemes.

Explaining morpheme meanings, especially interpreting their polysemy, has always been a difficult task for lexicographers (Osilbekova 2017: 334). For example, morphemes with identical sound forms are proposed to be regarded as homonymous if they belong to words from different parts of speech (1) or to different semantic groups within the same part of speech (2), for example: 1) за-nemo (verb) – за-речье (noun), 2) бо-ец – руб-ец. In the second case, the morphemes express different meanings (in other words, the affixes give derivatives different derivational meanings). If the meanings are related to one another, these are not homomorphemes but one

204

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII

Darybos formantų homonimiškumas ir jo žymėjimas žodžių darybos žinyne

polysemous morpheme (Cyganenko 1982: 102, 15)^⁵. The broad sense of polysemy of word-formation affixes, i.e. polysemy and homonymy, should be one of the principles for compiling a dictionary of such affixes (Osilbekova 2017: 335)^⁶.

In Lithuanian linguistics, the homonymy of word-formation devices or morphemes is mentioned sporadically when examining other topics (most often those related to lexical homonymy), for example, (morphological) polysemy (Rimkutė 2003: 38; 2003a: 63). It has apparently not been studied specifically.

2. THE NEED TO MARK THE HOMONYMY OF WORD-FORMATION DEVICES

2.1. In the academic grammar, one of the sources of the ŽDV, it is written: “The semantic classification of derivational types prevailing in the chapters on noun and adjective formation is not convenient for the reader when they wish to obtain information about a particular derivational affix (suffix, prefix, or ending). To avoid this inconvenience, an ‘Index of Noun and Adjective Formation Affixes’ is appended at the end of Volume I, by means of which it is easy to find the grammar section (or sections) dealing with words containing the affix in question” (LKG I 5–6). The index (LKG I 722–728) is indeed essential; without it, this grammar could not be used as a reference work. However, the presentation of information in it could be more precise and convenient for the reader. For example, readers interested in diminutives and looking for information about their suffix –ukas find the following references in the index:

–ukas § 652 –ukas, –ė §§ 385, 521, 558; see –iukas, –ė –iukas, –ė §§ 385, 521, 558; see –ukas, –ė (LKG I 727, 725).

Diminutives, e.g., valandžiukė, pragiedruliukas; varneniukas, are discussed only in § 385 (LKG I 265–269). In other cases, these are suffixes of other derivational categories, with which names of agents and possessors of verbal characteristics are formed, e.g., krapštukas, –ė 1. ‘one who fusses for a long time, works slowly’; 2. ‘a person who likes fiddling with small tasks, a tinkerer’, žindukas ‘a suckling pig, a piglet’ (§ 521,

^⁵ This explanatory-comparative dictionary of Russian affixes presents the most common word-formation and inflectional affixes of Russian and Ukrainian, the different meanings of the same morpheme, homonymous morphemes (of the same and different parts of speech), as well as international homomorphemes.

^⁶ Other principles include the following: morpheme variation must be shown; suffixes must be presented together with endings; the semantic components of derivational affixes must be indicated; and the functions of morphemes in derivatives must be specified (idem).

Straipsniai / Articles

205

DAIVA MURMULAITYTĖ

LKG I 328), names of possessors of nominal characteristics, e.g., kavinukas, musinukė, atvirukas, pirštukas ‘a sewing ring worn on the finger’ (§ 558, LKG I 348–349), names of tools, e.g., krapštukas ‘a tool for scratching, a scratcher’, šluputas, žindukas ‘a small product with an elastic nipple-shaped part, given to a baby to suck; syn. čiulptukas’ (§ 652, LKG 393; BLKŽ), and among neologisms, migdukas ‘a toy whose music and lights help a child fall asleep’ (ND). Thus, in this case, one could speak not of one but of four homonymous suffixes, whose derivatives differ in derivational meanings.

After the initial ŽDV database was created, DLKG data were first entered into it, and then supplemented with information from LKG. Suffixes were entered in the form in which they are presented in the relevant grammar sections, rather than in the aforementioned LKG index, where in some cases they are written somewhat differently from the cited section. Specifically, in the case under discussion, the suffix for names of possessors of verbal characteristics is written –(i)ukas (ė) in LKG I § 521, whereas in DLKG § 251 it is written –(i)ukas, (ė), with the possible feminine ending set off by a comma. (For more on the alternation between masculine and feminine forms of word-formation devices, see 3.3. Here, attention is drawn only to the difference in formal presentation that affects the marking of homonymy in the Guide.) Thus, in terms of form, the suffix of this derivational category differs from the suffix –(i)ukas, –ė of diminutives and names of possessors of nominal characteristics, and from the suffix –ukas of tool names, which has only a masculine form. In the Guide, homonym numbers were assigned only to completely identical sequences of characters. Consequently, before the ŽDV data were edited, the automatically sorted list of –ukas suffixes looked as follows:

–(i)ukas, (–ė) –(i)ukas, –ė^¹ –(i)ukas, –ė^² –ukas.

Clearly, compared with the LKG index, the separate word-formation devices are presented more accurately in substantive terms; it is immediately apparent that this is not one suffix. However, their homonymy is not yet marked consistently. Moreover, the numbering of homonyms is misleading, as it suggests that there are only two homonymous suffixes.

2.2. V. Urbutis, in the Encyclopedia of the Lithuanian Language (2008: 215), states when discussing homonymous morphemes that they may be of various kinds: “roots (e.g., apsi-rik-ti – su-rik-ti), suffixes (e.g., berž-yn-as – pelėd-yn-as ‘pelėdžiukas’),

^⁷ Cf. his statement in the noun-formation chapter he wrote for LKG and DLKG concerning the suffix –(i)ukas, –ė: “[w]ith this suffix, various other derivatives (especially diminutives) are formed more often, but nominal

206

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII

Darybos formantų homonimiškumas ir jo žymėjimas žodžių darybos žinyne

prefixes (e.g., be-norėti – be-nāmis), endings (e.g., rank-os, gen. sg. – rank-os, nom. pl.).” The latter examples illustrate the homonymy of inflectional endings; however, the systematized grammar data show that this phenomenon is also characteristic of derivational endings. Indeed, in the Guide, only the plural endings –ai, –ės, and –os, used to form names of festivals and rituals, have no homonyms. All other derivational endings belong to groups of two, three, four, six, or seven homonyms. Thus, the Guide presents seven homonyms of the ending –ė, i.e. seven endings –ė performing different functions in the derivational process. They form:

1) names of actions (verbal abstracts), for example, pergalė (: pergalėti);

2) names of properties (nominal abstracts), for example: vertė (: vertas, –a), kaltė (: kaltas, –a);

3) names of possessors of nominal characteristics, for example: plikė (: plikas, –a), lekštė (: lekštas, –a), strukė (: strukas, –a);

4) names of results of actions, for example: riekė (: riekti, riekia, riekė), brydė (: bristi, brido), pynė (: pinti, pynė);

5) names of tools, for example: dildė (: dildyti, dildo, dildė), pašluostė (: pašluostyti, pašluostyti, pašluostė), sklendė (: sklęsti, sklendė);

6) names of places, for example: nuošalė (: nuošalus, –i), plynė (: plynas, –a);

7) names based on sex distinction, for example: vilkė (: vilkas), liūtė (: liūtas), kalakutė (: kalakutas).

It seems appropriate to arrange and number homonyms according to the regularity and productivity of the word-formation device, perhaps also taking into account the frequency of derivative usage. Before doing so, however, more extensive studies of current usage are needed, which would confirm or revise in essential respects the state of noun formation described in grammars mainly in the second half of the 20th century. Among other things, tendencies in the formation of neologisms must also be taken into account. For instance, in the case of the aforementioned endings –ė, it is highly likely that the ending used to form names based on sex distinction is the most frequent and that this formation is the most regular compared with the other homonymous –ė endings. It should also be noted that with this ending, not only are new words denoting females of animals easily and regularly formed whenever needed from any animal name. The Database of Lithuanian Neologisms also records quite a few neologisms denoting, as a rule,

names of possessors of characteristics formed with it [...] (LKG I 348; DLKG 117), i.e. it can be understood that derivatives of different derivational categories are formed with the same suffix. Elsewhere, this idea is formulated unambiguously: “The term polysemy is applicable not only when analyzing homophonous forms differing in morphological features, but also when discussing derivational (e.g., išvirtėlis – dobilėlis: the same derivational formative provides different meanings) [...] polysemy” (Rimkutė 2003: 38).

Straipsniai / Articles

207

DAIVA MURMULAITYTĖ

femininity of a human being, another living or personified creature, e.g.: autoritetė, subjektė, kūdikė, urėdė, robotė, narcizė, etc. (for more, see Murmulaitytė 2021: 58–59). Such “activity” of the suffix indicates that it could be marked with the number one in the list of homonyms. When the Guide was created, comprehensive results of current work and usage studies were not yet available, so the homonyms were intended to be numbered mainly with regard to information in grammars about the productivity of suffixes, prefixes, and endings (the number of derivatives), i.e. homonyms of rare, dialectal, and nonstandard word-formation devices would receive subsequent numbers.

Thus, having established that each word-formation device must be presented separately in the list, it is necessary to answer the following questions: 1) how to treat suffixes whose derivatives are mobile nouns (substantiva mobilia), i.e. may have either masculine or feminine forms, for example: -inis, -ė (miškinis, mišk inė); cf. formally coinciding suffixes -inis (vat-inis, šalt-inis) and -inė (skard-inė¹, palaid-inė¹, šimt-inė¹; malk-inė²); 2) what should be regarded as the basic unit—morphemes (affixes) or derivational formatives (composed of primary and secondary derivational affixes); 3) what the criteria for distinguishing homonyms should be; 4) how to treat formally analogous native and foreign-origin (neoclassical, international) derivational affixes (formatives); 5) on what basis, besides the matters already listed, the order of homonymous word-formation devices should be established, and so on.

3. ISSUES IN IDENTIFYING AND MARKING THE HOMONYMY OF WORD-FORMATION DEVICES

3.1. Affix / derivational formative

The Dictionary of Unique Morphemes of Contemporary Russian (Raciburskaja 2009) presents not the homonymy of derivational formatives but specifically that of morphemes and affixes. In the case of suffixal derivational formatives, this means that the secondary word-formation device (the ending), if the word has one, is disregarded; only suffix homonymy is considered—different meanings with an identical form. Thus, for example, -ин in the words баранин-а and сахар-ин is regarded as homonymous suffixes. In the view of Danija Osilbekova, such an interpretation of morpheme ambiguity is questionable, and one of the principles in compiling a dictionary of word-formation affixes must be

208

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII

Darybos formantų homonimiškumas ir jo žymėjimas žodžių darybos žinyne

the presentation of suffixes together with endings (2017: 335, 336). This view should apparently also be accepted with respect to Lithuanian word-formation formatives. In the ŽDV, the rare terminological derivational formatives –esas, –a (diminutives vaik–esas, merg–esa (LKG I 286)) and –esas, –ė (names of agents and possessors of verbal characteristics švelp–esas, švelp–esė ‘one who švelpia, švelpys’ (LKG I 335)), although they contain the suffix –es– of identical form, are not regarded as homonymous; among other things, their derivative paradigms also differ. Here are several more examples.

• –ykla (kirp–ykla), –yklas (sal–yklas¹, vyst–yklas²) and –yklė (rod–yklė¹, gul–yklė² ‘gulykla, guolis’, bob–yklė³ ‘menka boba’);

• –tuvas (laisty–tuvas¹, paleis–tuvas² ‘pasileidėlis, ištvirkėlis’) and –tuvė (kep–tuvė¹, spaus–tuvė², gyven–tuvė³ ‘gyvenimas’), –tuvis, –ė (paleis–tuvis, –ė), –tuvis (–tuvys) (prikais–tuvis, grūs–tuvys), –tuvės (sužadė–tuvės);

• derivational formatives with the suffix –al– (see Table 1), which shows that the suffix –al– as the primary word-formation device forms part of the composition of twelve derivational formatives, some of which constitute two homonym groups (–alas and –alius, –ė).

^{¹ LENTELĖ.}Word-formation formatives with the suffix –al–

^⁸Nomina attributiva – names of bearers of a nominal property, nomina actionis – names of actions, nomina agentis – names of agents, nomina resultativa – names of results of actions, nomina instrumenti – names of instruments, deminutiva – diminutives.

Straipsniai / Articles

209

DAIVA MURMULAITYTĖ

3.2. Criteria for Morpheme Homonymy

The criteria for morpheme homonymy have already been touched upon briefly in presenting the state of research on the topic (Section 1). The most important criterion is, of course, semantic: homonyms must differ fundamentally in meaning. To claim that their meanings cannot share any semes (cf. Osilbekova 2017: 337) would probably be too categorical, but it is obvious that their difference must be essential. Moreover, this criterion should apparently be used not only when establishing the homonymy of particular derivational means, but also when assessing the other criteria.

3.2.1. Indisputable Criteria

3.2.1.1. Different Derivational Meaning. It is usually categorical, so this criterion is most often also a criterion of different derivational categories. For example, in the derivatives mentioned above, dobilėlis and ištvirdėlis, the suffixes –ėlis are homonymous because of completely different derivational meanings (Jakaitienė 1980: 42): the former is a diminutive, while the latter belongs to the derivational category of names of agents and bearers of a verbal property (for a different interpretation of the polysemy of these words, see Rimkutė 2003: 38).

Homonyms may also be distinguished by a more specific, group-based derivational meaning. This can be illustrated with an example of a terminological suffix.

In the Lithuanian language, elements that coincide in other respects but differ in the position of stress, intonation, the length of a vowel, or the softness of a consonant are not considered homonyms (Urbutis 2008: 214). This is most often applied to words, cf. perėjimas – perėjimas, aušti – aušti, kąsti – kąsti, sušti – sušti. In the case of derivational devices, these criteria are not particularly relevant, unless one mentions the terminological suffix –ėlis, –ė, concerning which LKG states that “from the perspective of present-day word formation” [1965 – author’s note] it should be regarded more as a separate, independent suffix than as a simple phonetic variant of the diminutive suffix –ėlis, –ė, because it differs from the latter not only in pronunciation but also in meaning. Moreover, it is known only to some western Dzūkai, who use both of these suffixes—both –ėlis, –ė and –ėlis, –ė. “Diminutives with this suffix are formed from names of animate beings and inanimate objects and have a meaning of largeness (this largeness may also be understood as an abundance of the things denoted), e.g., kojelė ‘a large, big leg’, langelis ‘a huge window’ [...], rugeliai ‘a very large amount (large areas) of rye’ [...] (LKG I 284). On this (difference in meaning) basis, in the Guide these diminutive suffixes are presented as homonyms –ėlis, –ė¹ (e.g., the usual diminutives kojelė, langelis, rugeliai, etc.) and –ėlis, –ė² (the aforementioned kojelė, langelis, rugeliai); the second suffix also bears a label indicating terminological usage. The derivational category of both suffixes, and thus their categorical derivational meaning, is the same: diminutives are formed with them. However

210

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII

Darybos formantų homonimiškumas ir jo žymėjimas žodžių darybos žinyne

the term diminutives, judging from the definition of the categorical meaning⁹, is understood in the broadest possible sense, since derivatives with diminutive, endearing, amplificative (augmentative), or pejorative (deteriorative) meanings are all regarded as diminutives. There are relatively few amplificatives (augmentatives) and pejoratives (deterioratives) in Lithuanian, and their formation is closely connected with the formation of diminutives with diminutive and/or endearing (“true” diminutive) meanings; it is sometimes difficult to distinguish derivatives with one or another meaning, and derivatives with transitional meanings (between smallness and largeness, between endearment and disparagement) occur (LKG I 253–254). Thus, derivatives with such diverse semantics fit within a single derivational category of diminutives. Nevertheless, if the semes of smallness and endearment are insufficient to distinguish homonyms (there are many cases where both occur in one word, e.g.: Lovoj, pasieny, sėdėjo trys vaikai... papurusiosiomis galvelėmis, rankelėmis ir nosimis raudonomis nuo šalčio ŽemR I 58 (LKG I 258), then the difference between smallness and/or endearment and largeness is diametrical and sufficient to serve as a criterion for establishing the homonymy of derivatives and their derivational means. Thus, in this case, the criterion distinguishing the homonyms is not categorical but group-based derivational meaning.

3.2.1.2. Different Origin of the Affix. According to this criterion, the suffix –ija³ distinguished in international words, for example, garant-ija, amnest-ija, reviz-ija (DLKG 99; LKG I 303)¹⁰, is homonymous with respect to the Lithuanian suffixes -ija¹ (place names, for example, vyskup-ija) and -ija² (collective names, for example, gyvūn-ija). Cf. Russian машин–ицм and волк–ист–ый (Efremova 1996: 12; on the relation between the derivational affix and formative, see 3.1.), прокурaт–ура and the affectionate name Саш–ура (Osilbekova 2017: 337). The language of origin of the derivational formative may not be the only difference. The prefixes be– are also understood as having different origins: particle-derived (be¹-daryti) and preposition-derived (be²-kelė (: be kelio), be²-globis, -ė (: be globos)). Since only the preposition-derived prefix be– is used in noun formation, this

⁹ Diminutives (nouns) are “suffixal derivatives formed from nouns and denoting the same thing, or at least a thing of the same kind, as the base word, but usually of a different size (most often smaller, more rarely larger), or at least described in such a way that the evaluation of that thing and the emotions associated with it, which may be extremely varied (from admiration to disgust), are apparent” (LKG I 253). The definition of the derivational meaning of derivatives, formulated more simply for the general public, is: “usually a smaller (more rarely larger) or emotionally evaluated thing denoted by the base word.”

¹⁰ In terms of origin, garantija, amnestija, revizija, the subsequently mentioned asimetrija, etc., are undoubtedly borrowings, but in Lithuanian they are classified as correlative formations. Such words function as derivatives “because of derivational relations established with other words of foreign origin having the same roots” (Urbutis 2009: 292–293). For more on correlative formation, see Marchand 1969: 216–219; Pakerys 2013: 2; Inčiuraitė, Stundžia 2015: 32–33.

Straipsniai / Articles

211

DAIVA MURMULAITYTĖ

In ŽDV it has no homonym, and its homonymy with respect to all Lithuanian prefixes is not shown.

3.3.2. Debatable Criteria

3.3.2.1. Type of Derivational Affix. In some works of Russian linguistics, a difference in the type of word-formation affix is regarded as an indisputable criterion of homonymy; cf. the Russian prefixes and suffixes а–мунч ы й and ч и т–а–т ь, ин–вариант and равн–ин–а, об–нести and жал–об–а, от–бросить and ик–от–а (Osilbekova 2017: 336). However, this contradicts the principle discussed above of assessing suffixes for homonymy together with endings, which the same author, as mentioned, supports (idem, see also 3.1.). A review of the list of derivational means provided in ŽDV shows that in Lithuanian this criterion could be relevant only in the case of the international prefix a– (a–tipinis, a–simetrija) and the Lithuanian ending –a. It must also be borne in mind that there is more than one such ending: they coincide in form but differ in meaning and therefore should be considered homonymous, cf. the name of an action trauk–a¹, the name of a property gaus–a², the name of an agent žliumb–a³, the name of a place prieplauk–a⁴, the name of an action result skald–a⁵, the name of an instrument pakab–a⁶, etc. If the homonymy of the prefix a– and the endings –a were recognized, it would be necessary to speak of several levels of homonymy and to create a multilevel system for marking homonyms. At least in Vedlyje, intended primarily for the general public, this would apparently be inappropriate. Here homonymy is discussed only within the group of affixes of the same type, i.e. a suffix homonym is a suffix, a prefix homonym a prefix, and an ending homonym an ending.

3.3.2.2. Part of Speech of the Base Word. In some cases this may not be important. For example, the diminutives šv ar utėl is staltiesėlė differ both in the parts of speech of the base words (švarus, –i, staltiesė) and in the parts of speech of the derivatives themselves, yet their suffix –ėl is, –ė is the same, because it gives the same meaning of smallness and endearment both to the adjective šv ar utėl is, –ė and to the noun staltiesėlė. The noun, adjective, and verb nemalonė, nemalonus, –i, nemylėti are formed from, respectively, the noun (malonė), adjective (malonus, –i), and verb (mylėti) with the same prefix ne–, used to negate what is expressed by the base word. On the other hand, a different part of speech of the base word may condition a difference in derivational meaning, in which case one can speak of homonymy of derivational means (for the possible homonymy of the prefix in–, see Section 4). The essential semantic criterion (identical or different meaning) should help determine the homonymy of a derivational formative in particular cases, but this possibility of a twofold interpretation shows that a difference in the part of speech of the base word should not be regarded as necessary.

212

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII

Homonymy of Derivational Formatives and Its Marking in the Word-Formation Guide

3.3.2.3. Part of Speech of the Derivative. In some of the Russian morpheme dictionaries consulted (Efremova 1996; Cyganenko 1982), morphemes distinguished in words belonging to different parts of speech are considered homonymous, e.g. the prefixes bez in the noun без-участие and adjective без-нравственный. Elsewhere, this criterion is questioned on the basis of the same meaning imparted by the prefix (Osilbekova 2017: 335). The derivatives with the prefix ne and the diminutive suffix -ėlis, -ė mentioned above (Section 3.3.2.2) may likewise support the view that the part of speech of a derivative is not a necessary criterion of homonymy of a derivational means; cf. also derivatives of other formatives belonging to different parts of speech: smulk-utė moč-iutė, maž-ukas kač-iukas, plon-ytė rank-ytė, į-mušti į-vartį, etc. In these cases, too, the semantic criterion prevails: the identity of the derivational meanings imparted to derivatives by derivational means of identical form precludes recognizing those means as homonymous.

3.3. “Mobile” Derivational Means

Another problem is whether a derivational formative containing endings of both genders (masculine and feminine) should always be regarded as one derivational means, with which mobile nouns (substantiva mobilia) are formed, or whether, at least formally, it could be regarded as two means if the derivatives are exclusively masculine or exclusively feminine.

There is no complete consistency in the academic grammar on this point. The presentation of essentially the same information in LKG and DLKG also differs. It was mentioned that the suffix –(i)ukas, (–ė) of the category of names of bearers of a verbal property is written at the beginning of its subsection in the academic grammar without a comma between the masculine and feminine forms, i.e. –(i)ukas (–ė), whereas in Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatikoje it is written with a comma; cf. LKG I 328 and DLKG 110. The examples show that derivatives with this suffix may be masculine (bildukas ‘a piece of furniture, a goblin, an imp’, žindukas) or substantiva mobilia (slapukas, –ė, krapštukas, –ė); derivatives having only the feminine form are not provided in the grammars. The situation is different with the suffix of the category of names of bearers of a nominal property, which both grammars present analogously as –(i)ukas, –ė and state that its “derivatives denote highly varied things in reality and may have either only a masculine form (most often), or only a feminine form, or, when necessary, both one and the other” (LKG I 348–349; DLKG 118), for example: rankinukas, raudonukė ‘a contagious childhood disease with a rash of small red spots’, rastinukas, –ė. The question may arise whether in the cases of rankinuko and raudonukės it would not be possible to see the suffixes –ukas and –ukė (cf. –inis (vat-inis) and –inė (skard-inė)). Or should the derivational formative be presented at least by writing the full forms of both genders –ukas, –ukė,

Straipsniai / Articles

213

DAIVA MURMULAITYTĖ

since the current presentation, separating only the feminine ending with a comma, is customary for mobile nouns? Diminutive derivatives with the suffixes -elis, -ė regularly have the masculine form when based on a masculine noun and the feminine form when the base noun is feminine, e.g.: vejelis (: vėjas), lapelis (: lapas), gatvelė (: gatvė), duonelė (: duona), etc.; exceptions are rare – upelis, upelė (: upė)^{(DLKG 90)}¹¹. The essence of this distribution is undoubtedly that the derivative denotes the same reality, only smaller, evaluated more favourably or unfavourably, or that its meaning has other semes characteristic of diminutives; thus, the retention of morphological gender is entirely understandable. When the name of a new reality belongs to another derivational category, the gender of the derivative is not so regularly predictable. The same question arises: perhaps in such cases, as in the case of the diminutives mentioned above, the forms of the suffix should be given separately (–elis, –elė), so that they would differ from mobile nouns belonging to other derivational categories, cf. –tojas, –a, e.g., rašytojas, –a (: rašyti); –ėjas, –a, e.g., gerbėjas, –a (: gerbti, gerbia, gerbė); –ininkas, –ė, e.g., mokslininkas, –ė (: mokslas)? Then perhaps the homonymy of each form should also be marked separately (for mobile nouns, it would probably be appropriate to present the feminine forms conventionally, writing only the ending, thereby showing that the derivational formative has both masculine and feminine forms). Vedlyje, the technical possibility of marking the homonym sign after both the masculine and feminine forms has been provided; thus, in the mentioned diminutive and other cases where derivatives have only one gender, it could be marked, for example, –elis¹, –elė¹, (vej–elis¹, gatv–elė¹), –elis², –elė² (terminological diminutives with a meaning of largeness lang–elės¹, koj–elė²), cf. –elis, –ė³ or –elis³, –ė (name of a bearer of a verbal property čiup–elis, čiup–elė ‘one who grabs, a grabber’), –elis, –ė⁴ or –elis⁴, –ė (name of a bearer of a nominal property jaun–elis, jaun–elė ‘youngest, young one’). However, here too the problem of several levels of homonymy would arise, cf. –ikė as a separate suffix (3 homonyms: diminutives mergi–ikė¹, voland–ikė¹, varl–ikė¹; a rare dialectal name of an instrument kas–ikė² ‘potato-digging machine’; dialectal names of places žas–ikė³ ‘place where geese are kept’, avi–ikė³); –ikė as the form of the derivational formatives –ikas, –ė, which also have 3 homonyms in ŽDV (name of an agent neš–ikė beside neš–ikas¹; name of a bearer of a nominal property, did–ikė beside did–ikas²); a correlative formation matematik–ikė beside matematik–ikas³); –ikė as the form of the derivational formative –ikis, –ė (name of a bearer of a nominal property raudon–ikis, raudon–ikė ‘a person with a red, healthy complexion’). Also, recalling the possibility that derivatives of the same derivational formative may have only a masculine or only a feminine form, or both

¹¹ The academic grammar also mentions very rare derivatives from common-gender nouns, which may have forms of both genders or may be of common gender: dvasnelis, –ė (: dvasna), blūselė (: blūsa ‘sleepyhead’) (LKGI 260–261).

214

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII

Darybos formantų homonimiškumas ir jo žymėjimas žodžių darybos žinyne

one or the other (the aforementioned rankin-ukas, raudon-ukė and rastin-ukas, -ė), it becomes obvious that, if homonym marking were to take the morphological gender of derivatives into account, it would become excessively complicated for non-specialists in word formation. Therefore, at least in Vedlyje, which is essentially intended for the general public, such a methodology is unacceptable.

4. HOMONYMY OF DERIVATIONAL MEANS BY TYPE IN THE WORD-FORMATION GUIDE (PRELIMINARY STATISTICS)

After the initial processing of the data, it became clear that 364 of the 770 noun suffixes (about 47 percent) are homonymous: 202 of them form pairs of homonyms, in 33 cases there are three homonyms, in 8 cases four, and groups of five and six homonyms number 2 each. However, these are only preliminary indicative figures, which provide an approximate picture of the scale of noun-suffix homonymy and allow it to be compared with the homonymy of other derivational means. Endings, as mentioned, are almost uniformly homonymous. This can of course be explained by the fact that the inventory of endings itself (considering form alone) is almost one hundred times smaller than that of suffixes; consequently, endings of identical form perform more functions and give derivatives more different derivational meanings than suffixes that are far more varied in form.

At the first stage of data processing, 5 pairs of prefixes marked with homonym numbers were distinguished (in-, pa-, prie-, prieš-, pro-), accounting for about 21 percent of all prefixes. However, it must be borne in mind that in Vedlyje the homonymy of prefixes is currently more formal, since no comprehensive study has yet been carried out and no comparison has been made with similar phenomena in other languages. It should be noted that in the scholarly literature the homonymy of Lithuanian prefixes is usually illustrated by the sole example of prefixes be-¹ and be-² of different origins—particle-derived and preposition-derived, respectively—cf.: be-norėti – be-namis (Urbutis 2008: 215), be-norėti – be-darbis (Jakaitienė 2009: 111). All other prefixes are probably treated as polysemous, i.e. the meanings they impart to their derivatives, even if they differ, do not differ fundamentally but are interrelated. For instance, the terminological variant in of the prefix į is used to form words denoting 1) a place extending into, inserted into, or forming the beginning of the thing denoted by the base noun, e.g.: inklonis (: klonis), or 2) a thing intended to be in, or located in, the thing (place) denoted by the base noun, e.g.: inlopsis ‘the inside of a cradle’ (: lopšys), inlūpis ‘the inside of a lip’ (: lūpa). In this case, one can speak not of prefix homonymy but of polysemy of the same prefix, since both meanings imparted to its derivatives share the seme of penetration into the interior of the thing denoted by the base

Straipsniai / Articles

215

DAIVA MURMULAITYTĖ

denoted by the base noun. (The same applies to the prefix po-, which is considered polysemous because all the derivational meanings it conveys (see Table 2) indicate a connection with the semantics of the preposition po, and in all cases the base word is a noun.) The case of inkiauris ‘a crack in a wall’ (: kiauras, -a), insiauris ‘a narrow place (between two marshes, between mountains)’ (: siauras, -a) is different: these are based on adjectives, and their derivational meaning differs fundamentally from that of the prefix in derivatives mentioned earlier (primarily because the base word is an adjective, i.e. it denotes a property rather than a thing) (cf. DLKG 147,149; LKG 429, 435; ŽDV). On this basis (the difference in derivational meaning conditioned by the difference in the part of speech of the base word), Vedlyje two homonyms are distinguished: ⁱⁿ⁻¹ (inklonis) and ⁱⁿ⁻² (inkiauris)¹². Cf. the diminutive case mentioned earlier, which shows that a difference in the parts of speech of the base words should not be regarded as a criterion of homonymy, since it does not entail such a significant semantic difference that derivatives from nouns and adjectives (and their derivational formatives) should be considered homonyms. Consequently, the part of speech of the base word is important in determining the homonymy of derivational formatives only insofar as the derivational meaning depends on it, not in itself (see also 3.3.2.2.).

TABLE 2. Polysemy of the prefix po (ŽDV)

Description | Derivational meaning | Examples of derivatives 1. | ‘a place beneath the thing denoted by the base word’ | pokis, pogrindis, požemis, požievis 2. | ‘a thing located or intended to be beneath the thing denoted by the base word’ | poeržlė, pogalvis 3. | ‘a smaller unit of a system or simply a section belonging within a larger unit or section denoted by the base word’ | pobūris, pogrupis, poklasis, porūšis, poskyris, pošeimis 4. | ‘a time immediately following the time denoted by the base word or somewhat earlier than it’ | pokaris, popietė, porytis, povakaris 5. | ‘a stepchild’ | podukra, posūnis, povaikis 6. | individual | požodis ‘an unnecessary word repeatedly picked up in speech, a filler word’

¹² Cf. Funkcinėje lietuvių kalbos gramatikoje, the difference in the parts of speech both of the base words and of the derivatives themselves is not a basis for recognizing homonymy of the prefix į- (in-). In it, the verb į-mesti (: mesti), the adjective į-saulus, -i (: saulė), and the noun į-nagis (: nagas) are all regarded as derivatives with the same prefix į- (cf. Ambrazas (ed.) 1998: 314). It should be added that in this grammar such nouns are regarded as formed with the prefix į- from prepositional constructions. However, if the prepositional construction į saulę is recognized as the derivational base, the adjective įsaulus, -i should apparently be regarded as an ending derivative rather than a prefix derivative, since į would belong to the derivational base (cf. https://www.smetona.lt/bdv-daryba/ [accessed 2022–08–12]).

216

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII

Darybos formantų homonimiškumas ir jo žymėjimas žodžių darybos žinyne

In grammars and descriptions of noun prefixation, a small number of nouns have been distinguished that are not derived from nouns but could nevertheless be regarded as derivatives with the prefixes pa-, prieš-, prie, for example, pa-sukos, prieš-gina, prie-kalas. Almost all such derivatives are based on corresponding non-prefixed verbs (unlike nouns formed with endings, which also often have prefixes but acquired them from prefixed verbs, cf. pamok-a (: pamokyti, pamoko, pamokė), priepuol-is (: pripulti, pripuola, pripuolė). However, this does not yet permit speaking of any clear tendency in present-day Lithuanian to form nouns from verbs with prefixes, because: 1) there are very few such nouns; 2) they may be individual analogical formations; 3) in part, they may even be understood as ending derivatives (DLKG 149; LKG 435). In Vedlyje, such cases are presented separately from the usual cases of prefixal pa-, prieš-, prieformation from nouns (cf. pa-jūris, pa-stalė, pa-brolys, pa-vasaris, pa-tarmė, pa-muilės, pa-dūmė (historical) ‘a tax levied on a peasant’s household (dūmas)’; prieš-aušris, prieš-kambaris; prie-angis, prie-linksnis), and are marked as homonyms of these prefixes. It is evident that the homonymy of prefixes in ŽDV is not yet marked consistently, according to the same criteria and a unified methodology in all cases, because the problem of homonymous prefixes only emerged clearly when the grammatical data were structured, and resolving it requires more thorough research into prefixal formation (especially neologisms).

GENERAL REMARKS

1. The Word Formation Guide was created for the general public as a tool helping users check their knowledge of word formation, create a correct neologism, and so on, but it is also useful to researchers of word formation or morphemics. For example, during its creation, the structuring of noun-formation data and the reclassification of the index of derivational devices (suffixes and prefixes) highlighted the relevance of the issue of homonymy among derivational devices. Preliminary calculations show that about half of Lithuanian noun suffixes are homonymous, while nearly all endings are. Until then, the homonymy of affixes and morphemes in general had not been studied thoroughly.

2. In the Word Formation Guide, preliminary marking of the homonymy of derivational devices was carried out. It was established that marking homonymy is necessary in reference works of this kind and similar lexicographic sources. Depending on the aims and lexicographic methods employed, it would be necessary, or at least useful, to mark homonymy in dictionaries of word formation and morphemics (morphemes, morphemic structure) as well. Morpheme dictionaries should

Straipsniai / Articles

217

DAIVA MURMULAITYTĖ

reflect the homonymy of all types of morphemes, both derivational affixes and roots. Only morphemes of the same type should be considered homonymous.

3. Homonymy should be discussed at the level of derivational formatives (in the case of suffixation, this would be the suffix together with the ending, e.g., -ikas, -ikis, -ikė), rather than at the level of individual morphemes (e.g., the suffixes -ik- considered separately).

4. Establishing unambiguous and firmly grounded criteria for the homonymy of derivational devices in the WFG is difficult, among other reasons, because this reference work covers word-formation information for only one part of speech. A different picture of homonymy would emerge in the general context of derivational devices, not limited to nouns. At this stage, when only noun-formation formatives are being assessed, the criteria for distinguishing homonyms should be considered to be a difference in the derivational meaning of derivatives (usually categorical, more rarely group-related) and a difference in the origin of the derivational devices. Differences in the parts of speech of the derivatives and in the parts of speech of their base words (if this is not essentially connected with different derivational semantics) do not in themselves determine the homonymy of derivational devices and probably should not be regarded as its criteria.

5. It is not yet entirely clear how to treat some derivational formatives whose derivatives may have forms of both genders (masculine and feminine) and/or forms of one of them. This is important because the marking of homonymy also depends greatly on it, especially in cases where the form of one gender formally coincides with a separate suffix, cf. merg-ikė (suffix -ikė), neš-ikas, neš-ikė (suffix -ikas, -ikė), raudon-ikis, raudon-ikė (suffix -ikis, -ikė).

6. More research, especially on neologisms, is needed to establish the homonymy of prefixes. The indisputable homonyms are the particle-derived and preposition-derived prefixes be- (in noun formation, only the latter is used, so in the WFG it is presented without a second homonym and is unnumbered). In some cases (pa-, prieš-, prie-), prefixes are marked as homonyms because of differences in word formation; some of their derivatives may be based on nouns.

7. In the future, on the basis of an expanded Word Formation Guide, it would be possible to prepare an explanatory dictionary of Lithuanian derivational formatives. In addition to the noun-formation information already provided in the Word Formation Guide and refined with regard to homonymy, it should also present the word-formation devices of other parts of speech and more neoclassical (international) formatives, not only initial but also final ones. Their homonymy, both in relation to native derivational devices and among themselves, must certainly also be investigated and marked.

LITERATURE AND SOURCES

Bardovič Anatolij M., Šakun Leu M. 1989: Бардовіч, Анатолій М., Шакун, Леў М. Марфемны слоўнік беларускай мовы [Marfemny slovnik belaruskaj movy],

218

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII

Darybos formantų homonimiškumas ir jo žymėjimas žodžių darybos žinyne

2nd edition, revised and supplemented [2-е vyd., peraprac. і dap.], Minsk: Vyšejšaja škola [Minsk: Vyšeiša škola].

BLKŽ – Dictionary of the Standard Lithuanian Language, editor-in-chief D. Liutkevičienė. Available online: https://ekalba.lki.lt/bendrinės-lietuvių-kalbos-zodynas [accessed 2022-08-15].

Cyганенко Galina P. 1982: Tsyganenko, Galina P. Dictionary of Function Morphemes of the Russian Language [Slovar’ služebnyx morfem russkogo jazyka], Kyiv: Radianska shkola [Kiev: Radjans’ka škola].

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

DPSCF – A Dictionary of Prefixes, Suffixes, and Combining Forms from Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged 2002. Prieiga internete: https://secure.spellingbee.com/forms/M_W_pre_suf_comb.pdf [žiūrėta 2022–07–30].

Efremova Tatjana F. 1996: Efremova, Tatjana F. Explanatory Dictionary of Word-Formation Units of the Russian Language [Tolkovyj slovar’ slovoobrazovatel’nyx edinic russkogo jazyka], Moscow: Russkij jazyk [Moskva: Russkij jazyk].

Efremova Tatjana F. 2000: Efremova, Tatjana F. New Dictionary of the Russian Language: Explanatory and Word-Formation [Novyj slovar’ russkogo jazyka: tolkovо-slovoobrazovatel’nyj] 1–2, Moscow: Russkij jazyk, Drofa [Moskva: Russkij jazyk, Drofa].

Efremova Tatjana F. 2005: Efremova, Tatjana F. Explanatory Dictionary of Word-Formation Units of the Russian Language [Tolkovyj slovar’ slovoobrazovatel’nyx edinic russkogo jazyka], 2nd edition, corrected [2-е izdanie, ispravlennoe], Moscow: Lingua, Astrel’, AST [Moskva: Lingua, Astrel’, AST].

Gaivenis Kazimieras, Keinys Stasys 1990: Dictionary of Linguistic Terms, Kaunas: Šviesa.

Inčiuraitė-Noreikienė Lina, Stundžia Bonifacas 2015: On word formation patterns of hybrid neoclassical nouns and adjectives in Lithuanian. – Contributions to Morphology and Syntax. Proceedings of the Fourth Greifswald University Conference on Baltic Languages, ed. by A. Judžentis and St. Kessler, Berlin: Logos Verlag, 27–50.

Jakaitienė Evalda 1980: Lexicology of the Lithuanian Language, Vilnius: Mokslas.

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

Kuznecova Ariadna I., Efremova Tatjana F. 1986: Kuznecova, Ariadna I., Efremova, Tatjana F. Dictionary of Russian Morphemes [Slovar’ morfem russkogo jazyka], Moscow: Russkij jazyk [Moskva: Russkij jazyk].

Straipsniai / Articles

219

DAIVA MURMULAITYTĖ

LES – Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary [Lingvističeskij èncikloped ičeskij slovar’], chief editor V. N. Yartseva [gl. red. V. N. Jarceva], Moscow: Soviet Encyclopedia [Moskva: Sovetskaja ènciklopedija], 1990.

The Lithuanian language will soon become easier: a convenient system is being created online. – delfi.lt, August 24, 2018. Available online: https://www.delfi.lt/projektai/suprasti-interneta/lietuviu-kalba-netrukus-taps-lengvesne-internete-kuria-patogia-sistema.d?id=78879667 [accessed 2022-08-04].

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

LKMDB – Database of Lithuanian Language Morphemics, compiled by E. Rimkutė, A. Kazlauskienė, G. Raškinis, I. Markevicz. Available online: https://klc.vdu.lt/morfema/ [accessed August 2022].

Lopatin Vladimir V., Uluchanov Igor’ S. 2016: Лопатин, Владимир В., Улуханов, Игорь С. Dictionary of Word-Formation Affixes of Modern Russian [Slovar’ slovoobrazovatel’nyx affiksov sovremennogo russkogo jazyka], Moscow: Azbukovnik [Moskva: Azbukovnik].

Marchand Hans 1969: The Categories and Types of Present-day English Word Formation: a Synchronic–Diachronic Approach, 2ⁿᵈ edition, München: C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.

Metuzāle–Kangere Baiba 1985: A Derivational Dictionary of Latvian / Latviešu valodas atvasinājumu vārdnīca, Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.

MW – Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Available online: https://www.merriam-webster.com/ [accessed 2022-08-08].

Murmulaitytė Daiva 2021: Lithuanian neologisms from the perspective of gender expression. – Lithuanian Language 16, 51–59. Available online: https://www.zurnalai.vu.lt/lietuviu-kalba/article/view/24927/24771 [accessed 2022-08-15].

ND – Miliūnaitė Rita, Aleksaitė Agnė. Lithuanian Neologism Database [a test online reference work since 2011], compiled by R. Miliūnaitė, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language. Available online: https://ekalba.lt/naujazodziai/ [accessed 2022-07-26].

Pakerys Jurgis 2013–2014: The morphology of verbs in the Database of New Loanwords. – Applied Linguistics 3, 1–26. Available online: http://nsdb.sociolingvistika.lt/failai/files/PDF/Pakerys_2013_Nauj%C5%B3j%C5%B3%20skolinių%20duomenų%20bazės%20veiksmažodžių%20morfologija.pdf [accessed 2022-09-12].

Rimkutė Erika 2003: Homonyms, homophones, and homographs from the perspective of corpus linguistics. – Terminology 10, 33–41.

220

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII

Darybos formantų homonimiškumas ir jo žymėjimas žodžių darybos žinyne

Rimkutė Erika 2003a. Typology of morphological polysemy. – Lituanistica 4 (56), 60–78. Available online: https://www.lituanistika.lt/content/13209 [accessed 2022-08-12].

Rimkutė Erika, Kazlauskienė Asta, Raškinis Gailius 2011: Backwards Lithuanian Dictionary of Morphemics 1–3, Kaunas: Vytautas Magnus University.

Rimkutė Erika, Kazlauskienė Asta, Raškinis Gailius 2011a: Alphabetical Lithuanian Dictionary of Morphemics 1–3, Kaunas: Vytautas Magnus University. Available online: http://donelaitis.vdu.lt/lkk/pdf/AbcI.pdf, http://donelaitis.vdu.lt/lkk/pdf/AbcII.pdf, http://donelaitis.vdu.lt/lkk/pdf/AbcIII.pdf [accessed 2022-08-08].

Rimkutė Erika, Kazlauskienė Asta, Raškinis Gailius 2011b: Frequency Dictionary of Lithuanian Morphemics 1–3, Kaunas: Vytautas Magnus University.

Osilbekova Danija A. 2017: Осильбекова, Дания А. On the principles of compiling a dictionary of word-formation morphemes [O principų sostavlenija slovarja svoobrazovatel’nyx morfem]. – Преподаватель XXI век [Prepodavatel’ XXI vek] 3(2), 333–341. Available online: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/o-printsipah-sostavleniya-slovarya-slovooobrazovatelnyh-morfem [accessed 2020-08-14].

Raciburskaja Larisa V. 2009: Рацибурская, Лариса В. Dictionary of Unique Morphemes of the Modern Russian Language [Slovar’ unikal’nyx morfem sovremennogo russkogo jazyka], Moscow: Flinta, Nauka [Moskva: Flinta, Nauka].

Smetona.lt. Lithuanian Language and Linguistics. Available online: https://www.smetona.lt/ [accessed 2022-08-10].

Širšov Ivan A. 2004: Ширшов, Иван А. Explanatory Derivational Dictionary of the Russian Language [Tolkovyj slovoobrazovatel’nyj slovar’ russkogo jazyka], Moscow: AST [and others] [Moskva: AST [i dr.]].

Tichonov Aleksandr N. 1990: Тихонов, Александр Н. Derivational Dictionary of the Russian Language [Slovoobrazovatel’nyj slovar’ russkogo jazyka] 1–2, 2nd edition, stereotyped, Moscow: Russian Language [Moskva: Russkij jazyk].

Tichonov Aleksandr N. 1996: Тихонов, Александр Н. Morphemic and Orthographic Dictionary of the Russian Language. Russian Morphemics [Morfemno-orfografičeskij slovar’ russkogo jazyka. Russkaja morfemika], Moscow: Shkola-Press [Moskva: Škola-Press].

Urbutis Vincas 2008: Homophones, homoforms, homographs, homonyms. – Encyclopedia of the Lithuanian Language. Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing.

Urbutis Vincas 2009: Word-formation theory, 2nd edition, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing.

Straipsniai / Articles

221

DAIVA MURMULAITYTĖ

Valeckienė Adelė 1998: Functional Grammar of the Lithuanian Language, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing.

ŽDV – Murmulaitytė Daiva, Aleksaitė Agnė 2021: Word Formation Guide [electronic resource], Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language. Available online: ekalba.lt/zodziu-darybos-vedlys/ [accessed 2022–07-08].

Homonymy of Derivational Formatives and its Marking in the Word Formation Manual

SUMMARY

Lexical homonymy is the most commonly studied type of homonymy, but this is not only a phenomenon of words but also of their forms, as well as morphemes. It is the homonymy of elements at this level of a language – morphemes, or more precisely, affixes, formatives – that has become relevant in the development of the Word Formation Guide (WFG, https://ekalba.lt/zodziu-darybos-vedlys/), a digital Lithuanian noun word formation manual, mainly intended for the general public.

The study aims to justify the necessity of the marking of homonymy of derivational formatives (and morphemes in general) in lexicographic publications and to raise the problems encountered in the practical presentation of the homonymic means of word formation. To achieve this goal, the homonymic means of the formation of nouns in the Lithuanian language – suffixes, inflections, (partially) prefixes – have been registered, the criteria of homonymy of the means of word formation have been discussed, and the problematic aspects of homonymy marking have been highlighted.

The Word Formation Guide provides a preliminary marking of the homonymy of the noun derivational formatives presented in the Lithuanian grammar. It has become evident that it is useful or even necessary to mark homonymy in such manuals and other lexicographic sources (dictionaries of word formation, morphemes, morphemic structure). Such dictionaries should reflect the homonymy of all types of morphemes – derivational affixes and roots. Only morphemes of the same type should be considered homonymous. Moreover, homonymy should be discussed at the level of formatives, not at the level of morphemes (e.g. in the case of suffixation, it would be a suffix together with the ending –-ikas, –ikis, –ikė, not just –ik–).

It is also difficult to establish homonymy criteria for derivational means in the WFG firmly and unambiguously, in particular because the manual only covers nouns. A different picture of homonymy would be apparent in the context of the derivational means of all

222

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII

Darybos formantų homonimiškumas ir jo žymėjimas žodžių darybos žinyne

parts of speech. As far as nouns are concerned, the criteria for distinguishing homonymy are the different derivational meanings of derivatives and the different origins of the means of derivation. The difference in the part of speech of derivatives and the difference in the part of speech of their base words (unless this is also fundamentally related to different derivational semantics) does not in itself lead to homonymy of the means of derivation and is unlikely to be a criterion for it.

It is not yet entirely clear how to mark the homonymy of derivational formatives whose derivatives may have both masculine and feminine forms and/or either one of them. Cf. merg-ikė ‘little, cute girl’ (diminutive, the suffix -ikė), neš-ikas, neš-ikė ‘bearer’ (the suffix -ikas, -ė), raudon-ikis, raudon-ikė ‘person with a red, scarlet face’ (the suffix -ikis, -ė).

More research is needed to establish the homonymy of prefixes. The prefixes beoriginating from the particle be and from the preposition be are unquestionable homonyms (only the latter is used in nouns, e.g. be-dugnė ‘abyss’ – cf. be dugno ‘without bottom’). In some cases (pa-, prieš-, prie-), prefixes are marked as homonyms in the WFG due to their different formation, and some of their derivatives may refer to non-nouns.

In the future, an explanatory dictionary of Lithuanian derivational formatives could be compiled based on the supplemented WFG. In addition to the homonymy-corrected information already provided in the WFG, it should also contain the derivational formatives of other parts of speech and more neoclassical formatives, not only initial but also final ones. Their homonymy, both concerning the indigenous derivational means and with each other, should, of course, also be investigated and marked.

Received 12 September 2022.

DAIVA MURMULAITYTĖ

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

5 Petro Vileišio Street, Vilnius, LT-10308, Lithuania

[email protected]

Straipsniai / Articles

223

Document details