Motivation and semantics of the present-day Vilnius county toponym oppositions: the concept of the object’s position in space

PAVEL SKORUPA Lietuvių kalbos institutas ORCID id: orcid.org/0000–0003–3903–7006 Fields of research: Toponymy, Cognitive Onomastics, Cognitive Semantics. DOI: doi.org/10.35321/all84–12 MOTIVATION AND SEMANTICS OF THE PRESENT-DAY VILNIUS COUNTY TOPONYM OPPOSITIONS: THE CONCEPT OF THE OBJECT’S POSITION IN SPACE Dabartinės Vilniaus apskrities toponimų opozicijų motyvacija ir semantika: objekto padėties erdvėje samprata ANNOTATION The article presents both synchronic and diachronic analysis of the motivation and semantics of the present-day Vilnius County lexical toponym oppositions based on the concept of position in space, esp. their relationship with other objects. The relative position of objects in space is characteristic of merely any class of toponyms: oikonyms, potamonyms, limnonyms, etc. At the lexical level, in both complete and incomplete lexical toponym oppositions, the ‘upper’ or ‘lower’ position of the objects is expressed by the antonymic correlation of pronominal adjectives Lith. aukštãsis ‘the high; higher’ – žemãsis ‘the low; lower’, simple adjectives Lith. áukštas ‘high’ – žẽmas ‘low’, and Lith. kalnìnis ‘of the mountain/hill’ – klõninis ‘of the valley’. KEYWORDS: toponyms, synchronic and diachronic analysis, etymology, semantics, motivation, toponym lexical oppositions. 254 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIV Motivation and semantics of the present-day Vilnius county toponym oppositions: the concept of the object’s position in space ANOTACIJA Straipsnyje pateikiama dabartinės Vilniaus apskrities toponimų, sudarančių leksines antonimines opozicijas, motyvacijos ir semantikos analizė tiek sinchroniškai, tiek diachroniškai, remiantis įvardijamų objektų padėties erdvėje požiūriu, t. y. jų santykiu su kitais objektais. Santykinė objektų padėtis erdvėje būdinga bet kuriai vietovardžių klasei: oikonimams, potamonimams, limnonimams ir kt. Leksiniame lygmenyje tiek pilnose, tiek nepilnose toponimų opozicijose objektų santykinė padėtis išreiškiama įvardžiuotinių būdvardžio formų aukštasis – žemasis ir paprastųjų būdvardžio formų aukštas – žemas bei kalninis – kloninis antonimine koreliacija. ESMINIAI ŽODŽIAI: toponimai, sinchroninė ir diachroninė analizė, etimologija, semantika, motyvacija, toponimų leksinės opozicijos. 0. INTRODUCTION Since the emergence of toponyms, their main natural function has been the indication of a place (address), i.e., they were meant to provide information about the object itself and its relationship with other objects. Therefore, the representatives of many onomastic schools have been paying attention to the plethora of toponyms based on correlations, such as upper – lower, closer – further (near – far), old – new, big – small, wet – dry, etc., as well as a multitude of ‘coloured’ or ‘black-and-white’ place names in various toponymic classes. The problem of antonymy and opposition in toponymy has been dealt with by many onomasticians (cf. Superanskaja 1970; Korepanova 1973; Kondrashina 1980; Štěpán 2009; Ahundova 2011; Tkachenko 2003, 2013, 2014; Hontsa 2014; Bukharova et al. 2016; Ilchenko, Isachuk 2016; Gataullin, Fatykhova 2018; Stachowski 2018), who claim that the antonymic relationships between place names of different classes are typical to most territories. In Lithuania, however, toponym oppositions still do not receive due attention. The first attempts to look into the problem of opposition and antonymy in regional toponymy were made by Pavel Skorupa (2019). This adds to the relevance of the current research, as the motivation and semantic studies of Lithuanian regional toponymy, esp. toponymy of the present-day Vilnius County, are still incomplete. The above-mentioned scholars believe that such nomination patterns are not only of a great importance in the designation of geographical objects, but also play a key role in the formation of the national onomasticon, as such formal and semantic sequences of toponyms are formed taking into consideration both linguistic and extralinguistic conditions in the area under investigation. Thus, Straipsniai / Articles 255 PAVEL SKORUPA the analysis of structural-semantic oppositions in toponymy may at least to a certain extent help identify and explain many motivating factors that had led to the origins of toponyms and may help to establish the principles of nomination of toponymic units in Lithuanian lands. However, plenty of logical questions arise before plunging into the tremendous variety of simple, derived, compound, and composite place names of Vilnius County, e.g., Can toponyms express the antonymic relations in general? What elements in the names of geographic objects create the opposite semantic meaning? What categories do such toponyms create? What linguistic or extralinguistic factors determined the origins of such names? etc. The object of the current research is present-day Vilnius County toponym oppositions (both settlement and non-settlement names) based on the concept of the named object’s relative position in space. The aim of the present paper is to examine motivation and semantics of constituent parts of toponyms with the homogeneous name lexemes and antonymic differentiating markers. Research Material and Sources. The main body of the research comprises toponym oppositions based on the concept of the named object’s relative position in space selected from the corpus of 5126 present-day Vilnius County toponyms1 collected by the author in the period from 2018 to 2020. The investigation is based on toponyms and the actual data collected from various modern electronic, printed and manuscript (archival) sources (see Toponym Sources and References). These materials complement each other, help to derive and substantiate sound etymological (including toponym motivation) versions, and form the basis of the research. Toponyms are investigated both synchronically and diachronically. 1. THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK 1.1. Concept of Opposition in Toponymy Antonymic relationships exist in merely every class of toponyms – oikonyms, hydronyms, microtoponyms (names of ravines, floodplains, ridges, tracts, capes, 1 3900 settlement (city, town, village, railway stations with a settlement) names, 718 lake names, 362 river and stream names, and 146 pond names. 256 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIV Motivation and semantics of the present-day Vilnius county toponym oppositions: the concept of the object’s position in space islands, etc.) – and is expressed by means of binary oppositions², i.e., pairs of related place names that are opposite in meaning. According to Nataliya Podolskaja (1978: 40), a binary opposition in toponymy is the opposition or contrast of two related objects to distinguish them by means of names with the same base lexemes and antonymic differentiating markers (elements). As observed by Vera Kondrashina (1980: 29), sometimes the opposition may be formed by more than two members, one or several of which may have no differentiating marker, i.e., may have a clear base. The identification of antonyms or (binary) oppositions in toponymy, therefore, is the identification of the dependent uses of toponyms that make up the simplest microsystem (Tkachenko 2014: 68). This means that antonymic toponyms (toponymic antonyms) are typically examined in a toponymic context and explained by the correlation of objects that are limited both linguistically and geographically, i.e., spatially. Most often toponyms that form the oppositional (antonymic) relationship are within the boundaries of a certain territory, i.e., in close proximity to each another, reflecting the relativity of the location of the objects they designate and, thus, create a certain (micro)system (cf. Štĕpán 2009; Tkachenko 2003, 2013, 2014; Ilchenko, Isachuk 2016). Therefore, antonymic pairs in regional toponymy (hydronymy, oikonymy, etc.) are purely contextual and are limited by the hydronymic, oikonymic, or any other (micro)system they create within their own class³: limnonym × lymnonym, potamonym × potamonym, oikonym × oikonym, oronym × oronym, drimonym × drimonym, etc. As maintained in the onomastic literature (Kondrashina 1980: 29–35; Štĕpán 2009: 915–919; Tkachenko 2003: 58–60; 2013: 399–404; 2014: 67–69; Ilchenko, Isachuk 2016: 100–101 and others), antonymic relationships in toponymy are created by both composite (complex) and compound names⁴, ² The concept of binary oppositions in language was first proposed in Ferdinand de Saussure’s structuralism theory, under the framework of which the binary opposition is a pair of related terms or concepts that are opposite in their meaning. According to de Saussure (1959: 53ff.), (binary) opposition is a means by which language units have value or meaning, i.e., each language unit is defined in relation to another unit. This is not by any means a contradictory (i.e., relationship of negations) but rather a structural, complementary relationship. Therefore, the meaning of the linguistic unit is not absolute, but rather relative (contextual) and may be derived from both syntagmatic (contextual) and paradigmatic (group) relationships of the unit. ³ Hereinafter, the correlation of onyms forming the opposition will be marked with “×”. ⁴ In Lithuanian toponomastics, the studies of both composite and compound toponyms were carried out in works by Renata Endzelytė (2005), Nerija Bartkutė (2008), Dalia Kačinaitė (2008), Marija Razmukaitė (1998, 2002, 2003, 2009), Dalia Sviderskienė (2006, 2006a, 2007), Aleksandras Vanagas (1970) and others. The key focus of these studies is on the toponyms of various classes derivation models, from the perspective of toponym–formation and origin. Certain Straipsniai / Articles 257 PAVEL SKORUPA based on the correlation of lexical and/or grammatical differentiating attributes or differentiating markers⁵, which are used as preor post-modifiers to distinguish between two identical name lexemes. In composite toponyms, the opposite relationship is formed when the common component of opposition members (the identical part of names) is modified with an autonomous DM, usually the qualifying adjectives of size, age, horizontal or vertical position in space, colour, etc. with antonymic relationships, such as big – small (also, great – small), old – new, upper – lower (sometimes – middle), further – closer, black – white, etc. In compound toponyms, the opposite relationship is created by names that share a common lexeme and a lexeme (usually the first element of a compound name), whose role is similar to a DM that creates an opposite (antonymic) relation between the opposition members. DMs in both composite and compound toponyms, according to Pavel Štěpán (2009: 915–917), create antonymic semantic relationships that fall into categories, based on the concepts of extent, position, age, owner, colour, etc. of the designated object. In the majority of cases, oppositions in toponymy are motivated by a variety of extralinguistic factors, determined by the needs of the society at a certain stage of its development, namely to express the relationship of new names to existing ones with the help of linguistic means (Ilchenko, Isachuk 2016: 101). In addition, they reflect various spheres of human activities, including, but not limited to, territorial and natural-geographic features of human life, as well as cognition (Ilchenko, Isachuk 2016; Gataullin, Fatykhova 2018). Therefore, it may be claimed that such constructions in the broadest sense are the product of both historical and cultural development of a nation. Yevgeniy Tkachenko (2014: 68) maintains that not all onomasticians acknowledge the existence of antonyms at the level of proper names due to the fact that names with etymologically antonymic lexemes form a single onomastic sequence and the objective correlation of names is more important than their conceptual aspect, whereas in appellatival antonyms this phenomenon is strictly conceptual, as the correlation of appellatives is restored only through the correlation of concepts. Nevertheless, two distinct categories of toponymic antonyms resp. oppositions, which are structurally similar to appellatival antonyms, can be aspects of antonymy in the class of hydronyms were observed in Vanagas (1981a). The diversity of Lithuanian place names with the pronominal forms of adjectives Lith. áukštas, aukšta ‘high’ was discussed in Razmukaitė (2003a). ⁵ The terms “differentiating attribute” and “differentiating marker” are used synonymously by the mentioned researchers of oppositions in toponymy. Therefore, for the sake of language economy and in order to avoid the use of multiple synonymous terms, hereinafter, we will use the term “differentiating marker” (hereinafter, DM). 258 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIV Motivation and semantics of the present-day Vilnius county toponym oppositions: the concept of the object’s position in space pointed out, i.e., lexical and grammatical toponymic antonyms. Lexical toponymic antonyms are formed by homogeneous name lexemes (roots; hereinafter, HNL) in both compound and composite names6. Grammatical toponymic antonyms are formed by HNLs marked with different affixes that are opposite in meaning. Both lexical and grammatical toponymic oppositions, according to their types, can be either complete or incomplete, as pointed out in the onomastic literature (cf. Korepanova 1973: 31; Kondrashina 1980: 30–32; Tkachenko 2013: 400–404; 2014: 68–69; Ilchenko, Isachuk 2016: 100–102 and others). The complete opposition presents the complete antonymic expression of the constituent parts in all names forming the opposition, i.e., identical name lexemes are marked with a certain DM (a suffix, prefix, or any other composite element). The incomplete opposition presents an incomplete antonymic expression of the constituent parts in one of the names in opposition, i.e., one of the names is clear/unmarked with a DM (a suffix, prefix, autonomous word, etc.). 1.2. Research Methods and Limitations Research methods. With reference to the theories of Cognitive Linguistics and Cognitive Onomastics as well as the traditional onomastic research models, the linguistic research and the semantic classification of motivating concepts of Vilnius County toponym oppositions is based on the etymological, derivational, and semantic analyses of both the DMs and HNLs of toponyms. The etymological analysis is based on works of Kazimieras Būga (1958, 1959, 1961), Jonas Jurkštas (1985), Marija Razmukaitė (1998, 2002, 2003, 2009, etc.), Aleksandras Vanagas (1970, 1981, 1981a, 1996), and others, as well as various lexicographic sources (Lithuanian, Russian, Polish, etc. dictionaries). The composition analysis of toponym oppositions is based on the structural–grammatical classification of water names proposed by Vanagas (1970: 21–27). In order to determine the motivation of selected toponyms, the semantic classification of hydronyms proposed by Vanagas (1981b: 19–120) is applied. Both Vanagas’ classifications are believed to be easily adapted to the study of various classes of toponyms (not just hydronyms). 6 This also can be observed in Lithuanian toponymy among both compound names, cf.: oikonyms Senādvaris × Naujàdvaris, and composite names, cf.: limnonyms Ílma Didžióji × Ílma Mažóji or oikonyms Seniẽji Miežionys × Naujíeji Miežionys, etc. In the compound oikonyms the antonymic relationship is formed by the semantics of the lexemes (name roots) in pre-position Lith. sėnas ‘old’ and naujas ‘new’, whereas in the case of composite names the antonymy is expressed by the DM (autonomous words) in preor post-position to the homogeneous name lexemes. Straipsniai / Articles 259 PAVEL SKORUPA According to the known theories of Cognitive Onomastics (Coates 2006, 2012, 2015, 2016; Van Langend... In addition to the linguistic analysis, to understand the semantics and motivation of the DMs in lexical toponym oppositions, the extralinguistic (geographical, historical, socio-cultural) data, esp. the named object’s relation to the neighbouring object (hills, valleys, rivers, settlements, etc.) and its position in the terrain (including the position above the sea level – MSL7) was considered. Research Limitations. The current research is limited to the analysis of 21 toponyms forming 10 toponym oppositions (see Appendix) based on the correlation of autonomous words as DMs of toponyms with HNL, taking into consideration motivation and semantics of toponyms’ constituent parts, focusing on the named object’s relative ‘upper’ – ‘lower’ position in space. The selection of such toponym oppositions was limited by the factor of distance. Researchers of oppositions in regional toponymy (cf. Korepanova, 1973; Štěpán, 2009; Ahundova, 2011; Tkachenko, 2003, 2013, 2014; Stachowski, 2018 and others) observe that the toponym oppositions, the correlation of the additional features of which is either semantically antonymic or not, are only possible in 7 MSL – meters above sea level. In the current research, this information was obtained using object elevation measurement tools on GP and UETK websites. Of course, it is unlikely that at the time of nomination the information about the position of the object above the sea level was known. People most probably simply considered the position of the object in relation to other neighbouring objects in the specific location, regarding the relief of the given area. 260 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIV Motivation and semantics of the present-day Vilnius county toponym oppositions: the concept of the object’s position in space a certain (micro)system, i.e., in a certain territory, since such names actually correlate with each other. Hence, we believe the distance of up to 20 ± 5 km is the maximum distance to consider two or more correlating toponyms an opposition⁸. In this research, the distance between the objects (oikonym, potamonym, limnonym, etc.) was measured using the distance measuring tools (a straight line) on GP and UETK web sites (see Toponym Sources). All the toponyms that form oppositions are within the borders of Vilnius County. 2. MOTIVATION AND SEMANTICS OF LEXICAL TOPONYM OPPOSITIONS It is observed in toponymy studies that the differentiating adjectives indicating the ‘upper’ – ‘lower’ toponym’s position in space, esp. in oikonymy, usually indicate either 1) the position of the named object in relation to the river flow with the meaning either ‘located in the lower part of the river’, i.e., downstream – close to the mouth of the river, or ‘located in the upper part of the river’, i.e., upstream – close to the source of the river, or 2) the location of the object on the hill/mountain, or at the foot of the hill/mountain (cf. Kondrashina 1980, Tkachenko 2013, Ilchenko, Isachuk 2016). In Lithuanian toponymy the position of the objects in space is most often expressed by: 1) the correlation of simple adjectives Lith. m s aukštas, f s aukšta ‘high’ – m s žemas, f s žemà ‘low’; Lith. m pl kalniniai ‘of the mountains/hills’ – klóniniai ‘of the valleys’⁹; 2) the correlation of pronominal adjectives¹⁰ Lith. m s aukštàsis, f s aukštóji ‘the high; higher’ – žemàsis, žemóji ‘the low; lower’; Lith. m ⁸ This is in line with Kamil Stachowski’s (2018: 201) observation about the distance one can regularly travel, esp. on foot, from one location to another and back within one day. ⁹ The simple adjectives Lith. klõninis and kalnìnis are respectively derived from the nomenclature terms Lith. klõnis / klõnis ‘valley, dip, lowland, ravine’ and kálnas ‘high natural ground elevation; hill, mountain’ (LKŽe). ¹⁰ In the modern Lithuanian language, pronominal forms of adjectives express the category of definiteness, and, therefore, sometimes, may be considered an equivalent to the English definite article. These adjectives have a variety of purposes, one of which is the distinguishing of known objects in terms of the spatial, temporal, physical, and other qualities by: a) the comparison of the higher degree of the known quality, b) any property of one object opposite to another (typically, albeit not always, when no more than two objects are opposed), and c) some peculiar, individual feature not inherent in other objects of that kind. The same purposes of the pronominal adjectives are used to distinguish objects within the class of proper names (DLKG 174–177). It has to be noted that in almost all cases, there is a possibility to use a simple adjective to modify the object, however, the meaning will be completely different. Straipsniai / Articles 261 PAVEL SKORUPA pl aukštieji – žemieji, f pl aukštosios – žemosios. Such oppositions are typical to the mountainous areas neighbouring with lowlands and convey certain information about the relief of a given area. In the sections below, toponyms are presented in the alphabetical order, listing both linguistic and extralinguistic data (toponym class, localization, historical forms of the name), available at the time of writing, followed by the analysis (etymology and motivation) and discussion of the opposition. The current forms of analyzed toponyms are italicized and, where possible, stressed. 2.1. Bezdónystn × Bezdōnysv × Aukštieji Bezdónysv Bezdónys – Bezdōnys eld, V D; located 138 MSL, at the hillfoot on the right bank valley of the Bezdone (the Neris trib.), 6 km southeast of Nemenčinė; GSD1974 728 Bezdonystn, GI1905 58 Rus. ст.[анция] Безданы, д.[еревня] Безданы, REM1872 Rus. Безданы. Bezdónys – Bezdōnys eld, V D; 137 MSL, at the hillfoot on the left bank valley of the Bezdonė, 1 km from the town; GSD1974 728 Bezdonysv, GI1905 58 Rus. с.[еление] Безданы, им.[ение] Безданы, REM1872 Rus. Госп. [одский] д.[вор] Безданы. Aukštieji Bezdónys – Bezdōnys eld, V D; 143 MSL, in the hills in Rõkantiškės forest, 6 km east of Bezdónys; GSD1974 728 Aukštieji Bezdonysv, GI1905 58 Rus. з.[астенок] Безданолтьсве, Безданольтьс, REM1872 Rus. з.[астенок] Безданайцы. The oikonym Bezdónys is Lith. suff. -onys derivative from the Bezdonė¹¹ stream. This derivation model of the above oikonyms from the hydronym ¹¹ The potamonym Bezdonė (LKIVK Bezdonė, Bezdanka; the Vilnia trib.) is most probably of Slav. origin and may be related to Rus. бездонный, - ая ‘bottomless; (figurative) extremely deep (← Rus. бездна)’ (Slovar.cc, SRYAe), or Pol. bezdenny ‘deep, bottomless’, bezdeń ‘whirlpool: a rapidly rotating mass of water in a river into which objects may be drawn’ (PSPR 34), Bel. безадань, бяздонне ‘abyss, deep place’ (Skarnik.by). According to Jurkštas (1985: 19), the rivername Bezdonė is not authentic. The scholar believes that the authentic form of Bezdónys might have been *Bedugniai, derived from the similar hydronym: in the source of 1516 the potamonym is written as Besdenayta, Besdanayta, Besdonayta, the suff. of which corresponds to Lith. –ait(i)e, thus, the name might have been *Bedugnaitė, derived from hydronym (either lake, or swamp) *Bedugnis, -ė and related to Lith. bedugnė ‘great depth’ (LKŽe) (also, cf. LVŽ I 466). According to Vykintas Vaitkevičius, the stream was earlier called the Juodupis: “z Bezdan – Jodupis, 1784 m., TVD 382” (Vaitkevičius 2012: 111). Taking its beginning in the wet lawns between Paskynai and Rõkantiškės forests, the stream flows into the swampy Bezdónys fishing pond and through Bezdónys forests, retaining the primeval valley, which full of sloughs, ditches, debris,fallen trees, natural dams. Whether authentic 262 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIV Motivation and semantics of the present-day Vilnius county toponym oppositions: the concept of the object’s position in space is plausible, as, according to Marija Razmukaitė (1998: 28), the association of a settlement name with a hydronym when the settlement is located near a river or lake of that name is possible. All the oikonyms presented in this section, as well as those non-existant today (GI1905 58 д.[деревня] Безданейцы, з.[астенок] Безданцы, з. Безданцы, з. Безданы Новые, з. Безданы) were motivated by their position in the vicinity of the mentioned stream, therefore, express the concept of belonging (location): Bezdó̄nys ← the settlement on/upon the Bezdonė. According to Jonas Jurkštas (1985: 19), the form Bezdó̄nys is not authentic and in the past must have been *Bedugniai, derived from the similar hydronym (cf. LVŽ I 466). The DM Aukštieji (← Lith. aukštieji ‘upper’) in Aukštieji Bezdó̄nys¹² is motivated by the village’s location in the hills in the vicinity of Bezdó̄nys and the Bezdonė, hence, it may be considered a metonymic transposition of the concept of place: Aukštieji + Bezdó̄nys ← the settlement in the hills near Bezdó̄nys/the Bezdonė. 2.2. Jagelōnysᵥ × Klōniniai Jagelōnysᵥ Jagelōnys – Kietāviškės eld, El D; by the lake Švenčius, 135 MSL, in the hills above the Spengłà valley, 5 km southwest of Kietāviškės; GSD1974 202 Kalniniai Jagelōnysᵥ, GI1905 339 Rus. з.[астенок] Ягеляны-Горные, REM1872 Rus. Ягеляны Гурные. or translated, it is possible to claim that the potamonym is rather metaphorical and the stream might have been associated with and motivated by the concept of abyss: Lith. bedugnė, Rus. бездна, Pol. bezdeń, Bel. бездань, бяздонне → abyss, great depth → the Bezdonė. 12 As it can be observed from the historical forms, the current official name Aukštieji Bezdó̄nys is rather recent (is known since around the middle of the 20ᵗʰ c.) and is the result of the renaming of the settlement. The oldest form REM1872 Rus. з.[астенок] Безданайцы most probably has been the transliteration of Lith. *Bezdonaiciai (Lith. deminutive suff. –aitis pl derivative (cf. DLKG 91)) that referred to a settlement of a smaller size than Bezdó̄nys from the name of which it was derived, most likely by people, who separated from the main settlement (Bezdó̄nys). The diminutive form was also motivated by the type of the settlement – Rus. застенок ‘a steading’ (Lith. vienšėdis (užusienis) ← Pol. zaścianek, Rus. застенок, Old Rus. застѣнокъ – a small rural settlement. In historical maps and sources (see Toponym Sources), marked as Pol. zaścianek, Rus. застенок. It is noteworthy that in the Grand Dutchy of Lithuania, the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (later, in some parts of Poland), and later in the Russian Empire Rus. застенок (← from Pol. ← sciana, Rus. стена ‘a wall, barrier, border’ → Pol. zaścianek, Bel. засценак, Lith. užusienis) referred to a small rural settlement that typically consisted of one household (homestead, steading) lying separately with farm buildings and the land belonging to it (cf. SSP2 243; LKŽe). Later, the name Безданайцы was changed and most probably reflected the settlement’s most striking feature, i.e., its location in the forest GI1905 58 Rus. з. Безданольце, Безданолѣсь (Rus. лѣсъ : лес ‘forest’). Straipsniai / Articles 263 PAVEL SKORUPA Klōniniai Jagelōnys – Kietäviškės eld, E1 D; 121 MSL, at the hillfoot in the Spenglā valley, 0,6 km northwest of Jagelōnys; GSD1974 202 Klonininiai Jagelōnysᵥ, GI1905 339 Rus. д.[еревня] Ягеляны–Дальние, REM1872 Rus. Ягеляны. The homogeneous, pluralia tantum name lexemes of both oikonyms are most probably of anthroponymic origin, derived by means of the Lith. suff. -onys from Lith. Jagela (→ Lith. Jōgelas (Jāgelas, Jagēlas), Jagelōnis) (cf. Zinkevičius 2008: 208, 347; PDB). Thus, the oikonym may be motivated by the concept of possessivity: (Klōniniai) Jagelōnys ← the settlement belonging to/established by Jagelōnis/the Jagelōnys ← Lith. Jagela/the Jagelōnys. Hence, the pl inflection -ys may refer to the members of the family collectively. The DM Klōniniai ← Lith. klōninis ‘of the valley’ ← Lith. klōnis ‘a valley, dip, lowland, ravine’ (LKŽe) in Klōniniai Jagelōnys is motivated by the village’s location in the valley. The zero DM in Jagelōnys may have convey the meaning that this was the major settlement. 2.3. Aukštieji Karklėnaiᵥ × Žemieji Karklėnaiᵥ Aukštieji Karklėnai – Šatrininkai eld, V D; 163 MSL, in the hills on the right bank upstream of the Šeterninkų upėlis, approx. 0,8 km from the place the stream drains its waters into the Vilnia (the Nėris trib.); GSD1974 737 Aukštieji Karklėnaiᵥ, GI1905 53 Rus. д.[еревня] Лознишки, REM1872 Rus. Гаравыя Лозники. Žemieji Karklėnai – Šatrininkai eld, V D; 148 MSL, 0,7 km to the east on the opposite bank valley downstream the Šeterninkų upėlis; GSD1974 737 Žemieji Karklėnaiᵥ, GI1905 53 Rus. з.[астенок] Лознишки, REM1872 Rus. Лозовня. The HNL Karklėnai in both oikonyms is the Lith. suff. -ėnai pluralia tantum derivative, often used to derive oikonyms from appellatives, hidronyms (cf. Razmukaitė 1998: 12ff., 27ff.). Most likely the oikonym was related to the phyt lexeme Lith. kar̃klas ‘willow family tree or shrub (Salix cinerea, S. aurita, S. nigricans, or S. pantandra)’ (LKŽe), and was motivated by the settlement’s location in the place overgrown by the trees or shrubs of the mentioned species, and, thus, may be derived from Lith. karklynė ‘place overgrown with willows, willow bushes’ (LKŽe)¹³. The suff. -ėnai (← -ėnas, -ė) is rather frequent and conveys the meaning of a common name of the place of residence or might ¹³ The meaning of such place is also reflected in the older, translated (?) forms of the oikonyms GI1905, REM1872 Rus. Лознишки, Лозники, Лозовня (← Rus. лозняк ‘a willow bush; thickets of this bush’ (SRY 291; SRYAe)) all related to Rus. лоз– (← лоза) ‘name of the different types of willows’ (SRY 291; SRYAe). 264 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIV Motivation and semantics of the present-day Vilnius county toponym oppositions: the concept of the object’s position in space refer to people living in such place (cf. DLKG 140). The oikonym can be a metonymic transposition of the concept of place (nomenclature term) into the settlement name: 1) Lith. karklynė + –ėnai → the place overgrown with willow trees, shrubs → Karklėnai; or the metaphoric transposition of the concept referring to people living in such place (kind of a nickname) to the oikonym: karklynė + –ėnai → karklėnai (people living in karklynė) → Karklėnai. The DMs Aukštieji (← Lith. aukštieji ‘upper’) and Žemieji (← Lith. žemieji ‘lower’) of both oikonyms are motivated not only by the settlements’ vertical position in space, but also by their position in relation to the river flow. 2.4. Kalniniai Mijáugonysᵥ × Klóniniai Mijáugonysᵥ Kalniniai Mijáugonys – Gilùčiai eld, E1 D; 92 MSL, in the valley downstream the Prakusa, not far away from lake Ilgis, 4 km northwest of Elektrėnai; GSD1974 210 Kalniniai Mijaugonysᵥ, GI1905 324 Рус. д.[еревня] Милейганы–Горные, REM1872 Рус. Милейганы гурные. Klóniniai Mijáugonys – Kietàviškės eld, E1 D; 121 MSL, up the Prakusa stream, 2 km northeast on the elevation of Klóniniai Mijáugonys; GSD1974 202 Kloniniai Mijaugonysᵥ, GI1905 324 Рус. д.[еревня] Милейганы–Дольние, REM1872 Рус. Дальн.[ие] Милейганы. The homogeneous, pluralia tantum base lexemes of both oikonyms are most probably of anthroponymic origin, derived by means of the Lith. suff. –onys from the blending of two anthroponyms Lith. Migónis (which relates to the spiritual qualities and was derived from Lith. miẽgas (sleep) ‘physiological state of rest, when many physiological processes are weakened and consciousness is not fully or partially affected’ (LKŽe; also cf. Zinkevičius 2008: 584)), or Lith. Mìgis, Migỹs (probably from Lith. nickname, derived from and related to Lith. mìgis, mìgius ‘sleepyhead’ (PDB)), and Lith. Jáuga (Jaugà), Jaugas (cf. Zinkevičius 2008: 310) → *Mijáugonis, *Mijáugas. Thus, the oikonyms may be motivated by the concept of possessivity: (Kalniniai, Klóniniai) Mijáugonys ← the settlement belonging to/established by *Mijáugonis/the *Mijáugonys, *Mijáugas/the *Mijáugai. The pl. inflection –ys may refer to the family members collectively. The historical form Rus. Милейганы may relate the oikonym to old Lith. double-stemmed anthroponym Milagáinis/Mìl-a-gainas (cf. Zinkevičius 2008: 88, 115, 221). The position of villages in space (terrain) serves the motivation of and explains the semantics of the DMs (Klóniniai and Kalniniai)¹⁴. ¹⁴ The respective position of the settlements in the hills or in the valley is also reflected in the historical name forms by the DMs Rus. – Горные, гурные (← Rus. горный, Pol. górny ‘located Straipsniai / Articles 265 PAVEL SKORUPA 2.5. Nevardas Aukštasₗ × Nevardas Žemasₗ Nevardas Aukštas – Paberžė eld, V D; 164 MSL, on the natural elevation (plato), 10,5 km northeast of Paberžė; high, dry banks mostly covered with trees and meadows; REM1872–. Nevardas Žemas – Paberžė eld, V D; 157 MSL, in the Vilkiškių Swamp, at the hill foot 0,08 km to the south from Nevardas Aukštas; low and swampy shores; REM1872–. The name Nevardas is a negative Lith. pref. nederivative most probably from the base vard-, which according to Vanagas (1981: 362), has to be related with the hydronyms with bases verdand vird-. Vanagas (ibid.) believes that all of them comprise three variants of etymologically single root – vard-, verdand vird-. Such hydronyms can be derived from Lith. verdėnė, verdėnis ‘a spring, source’ (LKŽe), virduklis ‘a spring, whirlpool’ (LKŽe) ← Lith. virti (vėrda, vire) or veřstis ‘to popple or bounce from dungeons (about a source)’ (LKŽe). Thus, linguistic-cognitive motivation of the names Nevardas Aukštas and Nevardas Žemas may be interpreted as a metaphoric transposition of the concept of a spring/source: Lith. ne + vardas (verdėnis, verduklis) → the body of water that is not a spring, source → Nevardas (Aukštas and Žemas). These are the only hydronyms in Vilnius County the DMs (Lith. aukštas ‘high’ – žemas ‘low’) of which indicate to their actual vertical position in space. Nevardas Aukštas being positioned somewhat higher in space. 2.6. Pamerkysᵥ × Aukštasis Pamerkysᵥ Pamerkys – Turgėliai eld, Šlčn D; GSD1974 527 Pamerkysᵥ, GI1905 43 Rus. 3.[астенок] Подмеречье, им.[ение] Меречь-Юльяново или Бѣлый-Дворъ, REM1872 Rus. Подмереч (186 MSL, on the left bank downstream the Merkỹs) Aukštasis Pamerkys – Turgėliai eld, Šlčn D; GSD1974 525 Aukštasis Pamerkysᵥ, GI1905 43 Rus. ф.[ольварк] Подмеречье, им.[ение] Меречь-Михновский, REM1872– (194 MSL, on the right bank upstream the Merkỹs) Pamerkys and Aukštasis Pamerkys are located 2 km away from each other and are motivated by their location close to the Merkỹs (the Němunas trib.), which is indicated by Lith. pref. pa-. Therefore, the homogeneous lexemes Pamerkỹs convey the meaning of a settlement near the Merkỹs that expresses the the in the mountains; upper’ (SRYAe; PSPR 145)) and –Дольние (← Rus. дольный, Pol. dolny, Bel. дольны ‘lower’ (SRYAe; PSPR 95; Skarnik.by)). 266 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIV Motivation and semantics of the present-day Vilnius county toponym oppositions: the concept of the object’s position in space concept of belonging (location): (Aukštąsis) Pamerkÿs ← pa- + Merkÿs ← the settlement on/upon, or near the Merkÿs ← the Merkÿs. The pronominal adjective Lith. aukštasis in Aukštasis Pamerkÿs may also indicate the settlement’s location in correlation with Pamerkÿs. Aukštāsis Pamerkÿs is up the river from Pamerkÿs. Hence, the correlation aukštāsis ‘high’ – žemāsis ‘low’ may also refer to the position of both settlements in relation to the river flow they are based upon (up and down the stream). 2.7. Aukštieji Rusŏkaistead × Žemieji Rusŏkaistead Aukštieji Rusŏkai – Avižieniai eld, V D; at 163 MSL, on the right bank upstream the Riešė (the Neris trib.), 8 km from Avižieniai; GSD1974 725 Aukštieji Rusŏkaistead, GI1905 72 Rus. д.[еревня] Русаки Горные, REM1872 Rus. Гурне-русаки (163 MSL, on the right bank upstream the Riešė). Žemieji Rusŏkai – Avižieniai eld, V D; 152 MSL, on the left bank downstream the Riešė, 2 km to the east of Aukštieji Rusŏkai; GSD1974 726 Žemieji Rusŏkai, GI1905 72 Rus. д.[еревня] Русаки Дольные, REM1872 Rus. Дольна-русаки. The name lexeme Rusŏkai is of a not very clear origin and is most probably related to and derived from the anthroponym *Rusokas with the stem Rus-(Rusas, Rusakas, etc.), which is rather frequent in surnames of Vilnius region and adjacent territories, both in Lithuania and neighbouring countries (cf. Zinkevičius 2012: 165), but most likely is related to and is a pl inflexion Lith. -ai derivative from Rus./Bel. dial. (coll.) pycaк ‘a Russian man; a person with traits of a Russian folk, a good simple Russian person.’ (Skarnik.by; Slovar.cc; SRYAe)15. Thus, the oikonyms may be a metonymic transposition of the surname to the oikonym and motivated by the concept of possessivity: (Aukštieji / Žemieji) Rusokai ← the settlement belonging to/established by *Rusokas/the *Rusokai (← Rusakas/the Rusokai with the vowel change: a → o). On the other hand, the oikonym Rusokai might have been used to refer to the settlement, where people of Russian descent lived (from Rus. pycaky ← pycaк). Thus, the oikonym may be a metaphoric transposition of the concept referring to people living in the settlement (kind of a nickname) to the oikonym: Rus. pycaky → people of Russian descent/Russians → (Aukštieji / Žemieji) Rusokai. The DMs Aukštieji (← Lith. aukštieji ‘upper’) and Žemieji (← Lith. žemieji ‘lower’) of both oikonyms are motivated not only by the settlements’ vertical position in space, but also by their position in relation to the Riešė flow. 15 This etymology is highly likely with reference to the inscription of the old forms of the settlement names, in which the HNLs are spelled with lower case letters (Rus. pycакu ← pycaк). Straipsniai / Articles 267 PAVEL SKORUPA 2.8. Aukštieji Semeniūkaiᵥ × Žemieji Semeniūkaiᵥ Aukštieji Semeniūkai – Leṅtvaris eld, Trak D; 130 MSL in the hills above the Vilsa and the Neṙis valleys; GSD1974 648 Aukštieji Semeniūkaiᵥ, GI1905 341 Rus. д.[еревня] Семенюки-Горные, REM1872 Rus. Сойзе Мал.[ыые]. Žemieji Semeniūkai – Leṅtvaris eld, Trak D; 110 MSL, at the hillfoot, on the left bank of the Neṙis, in the valley of the Vilsa stream, 0,5 km away from Aukštieji Semeniūkai; GSD1974 649 Žemieji Semeniūkaiᵥ, GI1905 341 Rus. д.[еревня] Семенюки-Дольние, REM1872 Rus. Сойзе Бол.[ьшие]. The homogeneous, pluralia tantum base lexemes of both oikonyms are most probably of anthroponymic origin, derived by means of Lith. suff. –iuk– from either Lith. Sẽ-menas, Sẽ-me-nas, Semẽnis (cf. Zinkevičius 2008: 114, 132, 239), or Slav. Sem-en-iuk/Sem-en-iukas (cf. Zinkevičius 2012: 269), Semẽnas, Semė́nas, Semẽnas, Sẽmenis (← Brus. Сямён : Симеон, Rus. Семён : Симеон) (cf. PDB) ← Heb. Simeon. Thus, the oikonym, may be metonymical, motivated by the concept of possessivity: (Aukštieji, Žemieji) Semeniūkai ← the settlement belonging to/established by Sẽ-menas, Sẽ-me-nas, Semẽnis, Sem-en-iuk/Sem-en-iukas. The DMs of both oikonyms are motivated by the settlements’ vertical position in space, i.e., in the hills and at the hillfoot. 2.9. Aukštieji Suirnaistead × Žemieji Suirnaistead Aukštieji Suirnai̇ – Vidiškiai eld, Ukm D; 93 MSL, on the left bank upstream the Sykė (the Šventoji trib.), 7 km from Vidiškiai; GSD1974 675 Aukštieji Suirnaistead, KGS1903 152 Rus. ф.[ольварк] Свирны, REM1872 Rus. Госп. [одский] д.[вор] Свирны Верх.[ние]. Žemieji Suirnai̇ – Vidiškiai eld, Ukm D; 87 MSL, on the left bank downstream the Sykė, 0,5 km east of Aukštieji Suirnai̇; GSD1974 677 Žemieji Suirnaistead, KGS1903 151 Rus. им.[ение] Свирны, REM1872 Rus. Госп.[одский] д.[вор] Свирны Нижние. Suirnai̇ is the oikonym related to and derived by Lith. pl inflexion –ai from Lith. svi̇rnas ‘hut where grain is poured; larger barn’ (LKŽe). Thus, the name is motivated by outhouse buildings and, most probably, marks the settlement (in both cases of the oikonyms analyzed here) which has developed from the place where the (major) barns were located. Judging from historical types of the settlements, this might have been barns belonging to the landlord, and, thus, have served the most prominent feature of the location from which the settlements have developed. Therefore, the oikonym(s) Suirnai̇ may be considered a metaphoric transposition of the concept of the place (location) 268 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIV Motivation and semantics of the present-day Vilnius county toponym oppositions: the concept of the object’s position in space near the barn(s) into the oikonym: svi̇r̃nas, –ai → the place near the barn(s) or where the barn(s) are/were located → (Aukštėji̇ / Žemėji̇) Svirnaĩ. The DMs of both oikonyms are motivated not only by the settlements’ vertical position in space, but also by their position in relation to the river flow16. 2.10. Áukštosios Viẽsosᵥ × Žẽmosios Viẽsosᵥ Áukštosios Viẽsos – Širvintos eld, Šr D; 111 MSL, on the left bank upstream the Širvintà (the Šventóji trib.) at its confluence with the Viesà, 6,5 km from Širvintos; GSD1974 587 Aukštosios Viesosᵥ, GI1905 78 Rus. д.[еревня] Въсы–Горные, REM1872 Rus. з.[астенок] Весы. Žẽmosios Viẽsos – Širvintos eld, Šr D; 108 MSL, downstream the Širvintà, in the right bank valley 0,8 km away from Áukštosios Viẽsos; GSD1974 589 Žẽmosios Viesosᵥ, GI1905 78 Rus. з.[астенок] Въсы–Дольные, REM1872 Rus. з.[астенок] Новые Весы. The homogeneous names Viẽsos of the two villages owe their names to the Viesà – the stream, on the banks of which both settlements are located, and are the pl inflexion Lith. -os derivative from the potamonym17. Therefore, the oikonym may be considered a metonymic transposition of the potamonym (transonymization) (the concept of place): Viẽsos ← Vies- + -os ← the settlement on/upon the Viesà. The DMs Áukštosios and Žẽmosios of both oikonyms are motivated not only by the settlements’ vertical position in space, but also by their position in relation to the river flow. 16 Quite interesting is the change of the DMs from post-position to HNLs (REM1872 Rus. Свирны Верх.[ние], Свирны Нижние: Верхние and Нижние ← Rus. верхний ‘upper’, нижний ‘lower’) to pre-position in both oikonyms (Aukštieji Suirnai, Žemieji Suirnai). However, the reasons for such change are not clear. 17 The potamonym Viesà is of an obscure origin. Its source lies in the vicinity of the swampy shores of lake Viesỹs. However, it is not clear now whether it is the lake or the motivated each other’s names. Vanagas (1981: 378) relates these two hydronyms to Lith. viẽsulas ‘strong whirlwind’ (LKŽe), which allegedly is derived from InE. *u̯ei̯- ‘to bend, twist’ and attributes it to the hydronyms of physiographic meaning (Vanagas 1981a: 63). This could be partly true, taking into consideration the winding rivercourse, esp. from the midway and to the point it drains its waters into Širvintà; or considering the winding shoreline of the swamps around lake Viesỹs. Hence, both hydronyms may be metaphoric in nature and are the transpositions of the concept of whirls, bends and twists winding riverbed and winding shoreline, respectively: 1) viẽsulas → a winding riverbed → the Viesà, 2) viẽsulas → a winding shoreline → Viesỹs. Straipsniai / Articles 269 PAVEL SKORUPA *** The complete antonymic correlation of the DMs either in preor post-position to the HNLs are observed in 7 cases (1 limnonym and 6 oikonym oppositions). The incomplete correlation of DMs in pre-position to the modified HNLs is observed in 3 oppositions from the class of oikonyms. The analyzed oppositions based on the correlation of simple and pronominal adjectives and their forms Lith. áukštas, -à (aukštàsis, aukštíeji, aukštósios) ‘high’ (‘upper’) – žẽmas, -à (žemàsis, žemíeji, žẽmosios) ‘low’ (‘lower’) and Lith. kalnìnis (kalnìniai) ‘of the hills’ – Lith. klõninis (klõniniai) ‘of the valley’ make only a small part – 10 cases (formed by 21 toponyms), i.e., 0,251% of the 251 oppositions currently functioning within the borders of Vilnius County. Both the linguistic and extralinguistic analysis of the DMs has shown that the choice of both pronominal and simple qualifying adjectives in the process of nomination was based on the named object’s relative position (either horizontal, or vertical) in space (the terrain): 1) The correlation of Lith. áukštas ‘high’ – žẽmas ‘low’ is based on the object’s horizontal position in space (in relation to the neighbouring river): Aukštíeji Karklėnaiv × Žemíeji Karklėnaiv, Pamerkỹsv × Aukštàsis Pamerkỹsv, Aukštíeji Rùšokaistead × Žemíeji Rùšokaistead, Aukštósios Viẽšosv × Žẽmosios Viẽšosv, Aukštíeji Svirnaĩstead × Žemíeji Svirnaĩstead; 2) The correlation of Lith. áukštas ‘high’ – žẽmas ‘low’ is based on the object’s vertical position in space (on the hill/mountain as opposed to the other object’s position at the foot of the hill/mountain): Aukštíeji Bezdõnysv × Bezdõnysv × Bezdõnystн, Nẽvardas ÁukštasL × Nẽvardas ŽẽmasL, Aukštíeji Semeníūkaiv × Žemíeji Semeníūkaiv; 3) The correlation of Lith. kalnìnis ‘of the mountain/hill’ – klõninis ‘of the valley’ is based on the object’s vertical position in space (on the hills as opposed to the other object’s position in the valley of the neighbouring river): Jagėlõnysv × Klõniniai Jagėlõnysv, Kalnìniai Mijáugonysv × Klõniniai Mijáugonysv. Considering the above, it may be concluded that the correlation of simple and pronominal adjectives in Vilnius County toponymy is rather clear, as these DMs carry the following semantic load: 1) Lith. áukštas, -à (aukštàsis, aukštíeji, aukštósios) – ‘located on the hill/mountain’ (vertical upper position), Lith. žẽmas, -à (žemàsis, žemíeji, žẽmosios) – ‘located at the foot of the hill/mountain’ (vertical lower position); 2) Lith. áukštas, -à (aukštàsis, aukštíeji, aukštósios) – ‘located in the upper part of the river (upstream)’ (horizontal position up/back), Lith. žẽmas, -à (žemàsis, žemíeji, žẽmosios) – ‘located in the lower part of the river (downstream)’ (horizontal position down); 3) Lith. kalnìnis (kalnìniai) – ‘located 270 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIV Motivation and semantics of the present-day Vilnius county toponym oppositions: the concept of the object’s position in space on the hill/mountain’ (vertical upper position), Lith. klōninis (klōniniai) – ‘located in the valley’ (vertical lower position). The analysis of the HNLs has shown that these may fall into two categories, based on the variety of motivating concepts: 1) name lexemes of clear motivation and semantics: a) motivated by the toponym (the concept of place/location) – Bezdōnysₜₙ, Bezdōnysᵥ, Aukštieji Bezdōnysᵥ, Pamerkÿsᵥ, Aukštasis Pamerkÿsᵥ, Aukštosios Viēsosᵥ, Žemosios Viēsosᵥ; b) motivated by anthroponym (the concept of possessivity, belonging) – Jagėlōnysᵥ, Klōniniai Jagėlōnysᵥ, Kalniniai Miјаūgonysᵥ, Klōniniai Miјаūgonysᵥ, Aukštieji Semeniūkaiᵥ, Žemieji Semeniūkaiᵥ; c) motivated by appellative – (the concept of source/spring) Nẽvardas Áukštasₗ, Nẽvardas Žẽmasₗ, (concept of place) Aukštieji Suirnaiₛₜₑₐd, Žemieji Suirnaiₛₜₑₐd; 2) name lexemes of obscure motivation and semantics: a) motivated by appellative or nickname (the concept of place or people) – Aukštieji Karklėnaiᵥ, Žemieji Karklėnaiᵥ; b) motivated by the anthroponym (the concept of possessivity or people) – Aukštieji Rusōkaiₛₜₑₐd, Žemieji Rusōkaiₛₜₑₐd. 3. CONCLUSIONS 1. Oppositions based on the correlation of simple and pronominal adjectives and their forms Lith. áukštas, –à (aukštàsis, aukštieji, aukštosios) ‘high’ (‘upper’) – žẽmas, –à (žemàsis, žemieji, žemosios) ‘low’ (‘lower’) and Lith. kalninis (kalniniai) ‘of the hills’ – Lith. klōninis (klōniniai) ‘of the valley’ make only a small part – 10 cases (formed by 21 toponyms), i.e., 0,251% of the 251 oppositions currently functioning within the borders of Vilnius County. All the selected toponym oppositions exist in oppositions are within 0,08 to 6 km from each other. 2. The complete antonymic correlation of the DMs either in preor post-position to the HNLs are observed in 7 cases (1 limnonym and 6 oikonyms oppositions, formed by 2 and 12 names respectively). The incomplete correlation of DMs in pre-position to the modified HNLs is observed in 3 oppositions from the class of oikonyms, formed by 7 names. 3. To understand the semantics of the DMs, both the linguistic and extralinguistic data was analyzed. The analysis of the DMs (simple and pronominal adjectives and their forms) has shown that the choice of DMs in the process of nomination was determined by the named object’s relative position (either horizontal, or vertical) in space (the terrain). The motivation of the DMs is rather clear and they carry the following semantic load: 1) Lith. áukštas, –à (aukštàsis, aukštieji, aukštosios) – ‘located on the hill/mountain’ (vertical PAVEL SKORUPA upper position), Lith. žemas, -à (žemàsis, žemíeji, žemõsios) – ‘located at the foot of the hill/mountain’ (vertical lower position); 2) Lith. áukštas, -à (aukštàsis, aukštíeji, aukštõsios) – ‘located in the upper part of the river (upstream)’ (horizontal position up/back), Lith. žemas, -à (žemàsis, žemíeji, žemõsios) – ‘located in the lower part of the river (downstream)’ (horizontal position down); 3) Lith. kalnìnis (kalnìnìai) – ‘located on the hill/mountain’ (vertical upper position), Lith. klõnìnis (klõnìnìai) – ‘located in the valley’ (vertical lower position). 4. The analysis of the HNLs has shown that these may fall into two categories, based on the variety of motivating concepts: 1) name lexemes of clear motivation and semantics: a) motivated by the toponym (the concept of place/location) – 7 homogeneous oikonym lexemes; b) motivated by anthroponym (the concept of possessivity, belonging) – 6 homogeneous oikonym lexemes; c) motivated by appellative – (the concept of source/spring) 2 homogeneous limnonym lexemes, (concept of place) 2 oikonym lexemes; 2) name lexemes of obscure motivation and semantics: a) motivated by appellative or nickname (the concept of place or people) – 2 homogeneous oikonym lexemes; b) motivated by the anthroponym (the concept of possessivity or people) – 2 homogeneous oikonym lexemes. ABBREVIATIONS Bel. – Belarusian; cf. – compare; coll. – colloquial; D – district; DM – differentiating marker; dial. – dialectal; El – Elektrėnai; eld – eldership; et al. – and others; f – feminine; Heb. – Hebrew; HNL – homogeneous name lexeme; InE. – Indo-European; km – kilometer; ʟ – lake; Lith. – Lithuanian; m – masculine; MSL – meters above sea level; Pol. – Polish; pl – plural; Rus. – Russian; s – singular; stead – steading/homestead; Ščn – Šalčininkai; Šr – Širvintos; tn – town; Trak – Trakai; trib. – tributary; Ūkm – Ukmergė; V – Vilnius; v – village. TOPONYM SOURCES GI1905 – Goshkevich Iosif I. 1905: Гошкевич Iосиф I. Виленская губерния. Полный список населенных мѣсть со статистическими данными о каждомъ поселеніи, Вильна: Губернская Типографія. Available at: https://rusneb.ru/catalog/000199_000009_003727513/. GK – Gamtos katalogas. Lietuvos vandens telkiniai. Available at: http://ezerai.vilnius21.lt/. 272 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIV Motivation and semantics of the present-day Vilnius county toponym oppositions: the concept of the object’s position in space GP – Geoportal.lt – Lietuvos erdvinės informacijos portalas. Available at: https://www.geoportal.lt/geoportal/. GSD1974 – Centrinė statistikos valdyba prie Lietuvos TSR ministrų tarybos 1974: Lietuvos TSR kaimo gyvenamosios vietovės 1959 ir 1970 metais (Visasąjunginių gyventojų surašymo duomenys), Vilnius. Available at: https://knyga.lietuvai.lt/w/images/7/79/Lietuvos_gyventojų_surašymas_1959_ir_1970.pdf. IVDB – Lietuvių kalbos instituto lietuvių kalbos išteklių informacinė sistema: Istorinių vietovardžių duomenų bazė (The Institute of the Lithuanian Language Informational System of the Lithuanian Language Resources: The Historical Place Names Database). Available at: https://ekalba.lt/istoriniu-vietovardziu-duomenu-baze. KA1861 – Korevo Anton K. 1861: Корево Антон К. Материалы для географии и статистики России, собранные офицерами генерального штаба. Виленская губернія, Санктпетербургъ: типографія Иосафата Оргизко. Available at: https://www.prlib.ru/item/426806. KGS1903 – Ковенскій Губернскій Статистическій комитетъ 1903: Алфавитный списокъ населённыхъ мѣстъ Ковенской губерніи на 1902 годъ, Ковна: Типографія Губернскаго Правленія. Available at: http://book-olds.ru/BookLibrary/17000-Kovenskaya-gub/1902.-Spisok-naselennyih-mest-Kovenskoy-gubernii-na-1902-god.html. LKIVA – Lietuvių kalbos instituto Vardyno skyriaus prieškarinės Vilniaus krašto žemės vardyno anketų archyvas (The Archive of Vilnius Region Land Names Forms of the Research Center of Baltic Languages and Onomastics at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language). LKIVK – Lietuvių kalbos instituto Vardyno skyriaus vietovardžių, surinktų iš gyvosios kalbos, kartoteka (The Catalogue of Lithuanian Place Names Written from the Living Language of the Research Center of Baltic Languages and Onomastics at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language). REM1872 – Russian Empire 1872 Map. MAPIRE – Historical Maps Online. Available at: https://mapire.eu/en/map/russia-1872/. UETK – Lietuvos upių, ežerų ir tvenkinių kadastras (The Rivers, Lakes and Ponds Cadaster of the Republic of Lithuania). Available at: https://uetk.am.lt. Vilnius County Maps – Map of the Republic of Lithuania. Available at: https://www.geoportal.lt. Vilnius County Municipalities’ web sites: Elektrėnai Municipality web site at: https://www.elektrenai.lt/ Straipsniai / Articles 273 PAVEL SKORUPA Šalčininkai District Municipality web site at: http://www.salcininkai.lt/ Širvintos District Municipality web site at: https://www.sirvintos.lt/lt Švenčionys District Municipality web site at: http://www.svencionys.lt/lit/I_pradzia Trakai District Municipality web site at: https://www.trakai.lt/; http://old.trakai.lt/ Ukmergė District Municipality web site at: https://www.ukmerge.lt/ Vilnius City Municipality web site at: https://vilnius.lt/lt/ Vilnius District Municipality web site at: https://www.vrsa.lt/ REFERENCES Ahundova Gjulshen 2011: Ахундова Гюльшен. Психолингвистические основы функционирования тюркской топонимии (на материале географических названий Азербайджана, Дагестана и других сопредельных регионов). – Türkologiya 3, 45–51. Bartkutė Nerija 2008: Joniškio rajono teritorijos toponimija: daryba ir raidos polinkiai: daktaro disertacija, Šiauliai: Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, Šiaulių universitetas. Brendler Silvio (ed.) 2016: Cognitive Onomastics. A Reader, Hamburg: Baar. Bukharova Gulnur Kh., Samitova Luiza Kh., Tagirova Salima A., Davletkulova Akhmet Kh., Davletbajeva Raisa G., Usmanova Minsilu G. 2016: Color Symbolism in the Bashkir Toponymy. – International Journal of Environmental and Science Education 11(18), 12281–12288. Būga Kazimieras 1958: Rinktiniai raštai 1, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. Būga Kazimieras 1959: Rinktiniai raštai 2, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. Būga Kazimieras 1961: Rinktiniai raštai 3, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. Coates Richard 2006: Properhood. – Language 82(2), 356–382. Available at: http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/196/. Coates Richard 2012: Eight Issues in the Pragmatic Theory of Properhood. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 66, 119–140. Coates Richard 2015: A concise theory of meaningfulness in literary naming within the framework of The Pragmatic Theory of Properhood. – Journal of Literary Onomastics 4(1), 31–34. Available at: http://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/jlo/vol4/iss1/3. 274 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIV Motivation and semantics of the present-day Vilnius county toponym oppositions: the concept of the object’s position in space Coates Richard 2016: On the theoretical possibility of proper verbs. – Linguistics 54(2), 411–431. Available at: http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/27187. DLKG – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika, red. V. Ambrazas, Vilnius: Mintis, 1994. Dobrić Nikola 2010: Theory of Names and Cognitive Linguistics – the Case of the Metaphor. – Filozofija i društvo 21, 135–147. Endzelytė Renata 2005: Šiaurės vidurio Lietuvos vietovardžiai: daktaro disertacija, Kaunas: Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas. Gataullin Ravil G., Fatykhova Lija A. 2018: Гатауллин Равиль Г., Фатыхова Лия А. „Цветные“ топонимы и их особенности. – Вестник Башкирского университета 23(1), 211–219. Hontsa Irina S. 2014: Гонца Ирина С. Структурно-граматичні особливості двочленних ойконімів Черкащини. – Вісник Черкаського університету: Філологічні науки 7, 86–90. Available at: https://dspace.udpu.edu.ua/xmlui/handle/6789/3361?show=full. Ilchenko Irina I., Isachuk Nastasiya V. 2016: Ільченко Ірина І., Ісачук Настасія В. Бінарні опозиції в топонімії Надвеликолужжя. – Перспективи розвитку філологічних наук (м. Київ, 13–14 травня 2016 р.), Херсон: Видавничий дім „Гельветика“, 99–102. Available at: http://visnyk-filologia.mddu.in.ua/publ/2019/ilchenko_irina_ivanivna_isachuk_nastasija_viktorivna/1-1-0-23. Jurkštas Jonas 1985: Vilniaus vietovardžiai, Vilnius: Mokslas. Kačinaitė Dalia 2008: Lietuvių sudurtinių oronimų darybos bruožai. – Baltistica 2, 275–288. Kondrashina Vera V. 1980: Кондрашина Вера В. Соотносительный ряд «верхний» – «нижний» в русской топонимии. – Вопросы ономастики 14, 29–35. Kohеranova Anna P. 1973: Корепанова Анна П. Противоставлення як засіб утворення слов’янських ойконімів. – Мовознавство 4, 30–33. Kövecses Zoltan 2002: Metaphor: a practical introduction, New York: Oxford University Press. Lakoff George, Johnson Mark 2003: Metaphors we live by, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. LKŽ – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas I–XX (1941–2002), e. variantas, red. kolegija G. Naktinienė, J. Paulauskas, R. Petrokienė, V. Vitkauskas, J. Zabarskaitė, vyr. red. G. Naktinienė, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2005 (atnaujinta versija, 2008 ir 2018). Available at: http://www.lkz.lt/. Straipsniai / Articles 275 PAVEL SKORUPA LVŽ I – Lietuvos vietovardžių žodynas I (A–B), red. kolegija L. Balode, V. Blažek, G. Blažienė, V. Kardelis, A. Ragauskaitė, S. Temčinas, J. Udolph, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2008. PDB – Lietuvių kalbos instituto lietuvių kalbos išteklių informacinė sistema: Pavardžių duomenų bazė (The Institute of the Lithuanian Language Informational System of the Lithuanian Language Resources: The Surnames Database). Available at: https://ekalba.lt/pavardziu-duomenu-baze. Podolskaja Nataliya V. 1978: Подольская Наталия В. Словарь русской ономастической терминологии, Москва: Наука. PSPR – Rozwadowska Maryja F. 1974: Podręczny słownik polsko-rosyjski, Warszawa: Wiedza powszechna. Razmukaitė Marija 1998: Lietuvos priesaginiai oikonimai: daktaro disertacija, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas. Razmukaitė Marija 2002: Lietuvos sudėtinių oikonimų darybos bruožai. – Acta Linguistica Lituanica 46, 123–130. Razmukaitė Marija 2003: Sudėtiniai Lietuvos oikonimai. – Baltu Filoloģija XII (2), 63–80. Razmukaitė Marija 2003a: Būdvardžio aukštas, aukšta įvardžiuotines formos vietovardžiuose. – Kalbos kultūra 76, 63–66. Razmukaitė Marija 2009: Apie kai kuriuos Vakarų Lietuvos priesaginius oikonimus. – Kalbos kultūra 82, 34–40. Saussure Ferdinand de 1959: Course in General Linguistics, Ch. Bally, A. Sechehaye (eds.), W. Baskin (trans.), New York: The Philosophical Society. Sjöblom Paula 2011: A Cognitive Approach to the Semantics of Proper Names. – Onoma: Journal of the International Council of Onomastic Sciences 41, 63–82. Skarnik.by – Мазок Алер, Літ Серж (comp.) 2015: Белорусско-русский словарь (на основе академического словаря под редакцией Я. Коласа, К. Крапивы и П. Глебки 1953: Русско-белорусский Слоўнік, I–III, Мінск: Інстытут Мовазнаўства АН БССР), e-version. Available at: https://www.skarnik.by/. Skorupa Pavel 2019: Semantic oppositions in Vilnius county toponyms. – Acta Linguistica Lituanica 81, 139–159. Slíz Mariann 2017: Personal Names in Medieval Hungary, Hamburg: Baar. Slovar.cc – Большой современный толковый словарь русского языка, e-version, 2010–2020. Available at: https://slovar.cc/rus/tolk.html. 276 Acta Linguistica Lituanica LXXXIV Motivation and semantics of the present-day Vilnius county toponym oppositions: the concept of the object’s position in space SSP2 – Krasiński Adam S. 1885: Słownik synonimów polskich 2, Kraków: Wyd. Akademii Umiejętności; w druk. “Czasu” F. Kluczyckiego. SRY – Ožegov Sergej I. 1984: Ожегов Сергей И. Словарь русского языка, Москва: „Русский Язык“. SRYAe – Yevgenyeva Anastasiiya (ed.) 1999: Евгенъева Анастасия П. Словарь русского языка: В 4-х т., Москва: Полиграфресурсы. Available at: http://feb-web.ru/feb/mas/mas-abc/default.asp. Stachowski Kamil 2018: O opozycjach kolorystycznych w ojkonimii Polski. – Acta onomastica LIX, 197–214. Superanskaja Aleksandra V. 1970: Суперанская Александра В. Терминологичные цветовые названия рек? – Местные географические термины, 120–127, Москва: Мысль. Sviderskienė Dalia 2006: Marijampolės apskrities sudurtiniai oronimai. – Lituanistica 4(68), 47–59. Sviderskienė Dalia 2006a: Marijampolės apskrities drimonimų darybos ir kilmės polinkiai. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica / Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 54, 49–62. Sviderskienė Dalia 2007: Marijampolės apskrities gyvenamųjų vietų vardai. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica / Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 57, 99–122. Tkachenko Yevgeniy N. 2003: Ткаченко, Евгений Н. Взаимодействие гидронимов и ойконимов (в бассейне реки Казенный Торец). – Филологічні студії, 58–62. Tkachenko Yevgeniy N. 2013: Ткаченко, Євген М. Бурлук – Бурлучок: формально незмінні та граматично переоформлені імена (у басейні річки Великий Бурлук). – Філологічні студії. Науковий вісник Криворізького державного педагогічного університету 9, 399–406. Available at: http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/PhSt_2013_9_59. Tkachenko Yevgeniy N. 2014: Ткаченко, Евгений Н. Явление бинарной оппозиции в региональной топонимии (на примере географических названий Слобожанщины). – Вестник Воронежского государственного университета 3, 67–70. Štěpán Pavel 2009: Oppositions in Toponymy. – Names in Multi-Lingual, Multi-Cultural and Multi-Ethnic Contact, Proceedings of the 23rd International Congress of Onomastic Sciences. August 17–22, 2008, York University, Toronto, Canada, 915–920. Available at: https://workspace.library.yorku.ca/xmlui/handle/10315/4034. Vaitkevičius Vykintas 2012: Neris. 2007 metų ekspedicija, antra knyga, Vilnius: Mintis. Straipsniai / Articles 277 PAVEL SKORUPA Vanagas Aleksandras 1970: Lietuvos TSR hidronimų daryba, Vilnius: Mintis. Vanagas Aleksandras 1981: Lietuvių hidronimų etimologinis žodynas, Vilnius: Mintis. Vanagas Aleksandras 1981a: Lietuvių hidronimų semantika. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 21, 4–153. Vanagas Aleksandras 1996: Lietuvos miestų vardai, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Van Langendonck Willy 2007: Theory and Typology of Proper Names, Berlin: de Gruyter. Van Langendonck Willy 2013: A Semantic-Pragmatic Theory of Proper Names. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 69, 99–129. Van Langendonck Willy, Van de Velde Mark 2016: Names and grammar. – The Oxford Handbook of Names and Naming, C. Hough (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199656431.013.21. Van Langendonck Willy 2017: A Dichotomy in the Diachronic Structure of Family Names. – Proceedings of iconn 4, O. Felecan (ed.), Cluj-Napoca: Editura Mega, Editura Argonaut, 45–50. DOI 10.30816/ICONN4/2017. Zinkevičius Zigmas 2008: Lietuvių asmenvardžiai, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Zinkevičius Zigmas 2012: Vilnijos lenkakalbių pavardės. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos centras. 278 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIV Motivation and semantics of the present-day Vilnius county toponym oppositions: the concept of the object’s position in space APPENDIX. Analyzed Oppositions. Presented in the Order of Corresponding Sections in the Paper. Source: UETK, GP web sites. 2.1. Bezdōnysₜₙ × Bezdōnysᵥ × Aukštieji Bezdōnysᵥ 2.2. Jagelōnysᵥ × Klōniniai Jagelōnysᵥ 2.3. Aukštieji Karklėnaiᵥ × Žemėji Karklėnaiᵥ 2.4. Kalniniai Mijáugonysᵥ × Klōniniai Mijáugonysᵥ Straipsniai / Articles 279 PAVEL SKORUPA 2.5. Nėvardas AukštasL × Nėvardas ŽemasL 2.6. PamerkysSV × Aukštasis PamerkysSV 2.7. Aukštieji Rusoškaistead × Žemieji Rusoškaistead 2.8. Aukštieji SemeniukaiV × Žemieji SemeniukaiV 2.9. Aukštieji Svirnaistead × Žemieji Svirnaistead 2.10. Aukštosios ViešosV × Žemosios ViešosV 280 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIV Motivation and semantics of the present-day Vilnius county toponym oppositions: the concept of the object’s position in space Dabartinės Vilniaus apskrities toponimų opozicijų motyvacija ir semantika: objekto padėties erdvėje samprata S A N T R A U K A Remiantis kognityvinės lingvistikos ir kognityvinės onomastikos teorijomis, straipsnyje tradiciniais onomastikos tyrimų modeliais analizuojami dabartinėje Vilniaus apskrityje funkcionuojantys toponimai (21 vnt.), sudarantys 10 opozicijų (t. y. 0,251 % iš visų 251 kitų nustatytų opozicijų), motyvuotų įvardijamo objekto santykine padėtimi erdvėje, išreiškiama paprastu ir įvardžiuotiniu būdvardžių formomis: aukštas – žemas ir kalninis – klōninis. Analizė apima tiek toponimus diferencijuojančių žymiklių (DŽ), tiek homogeninių toponimų leksemų (HTL) kilmę, motyvaciją ir semantiką. Toponimai analizuojami pagal jų kilmę motyvuojančias sąvokas, remiantis konceptualiu metaforos modeliu, t. y. ryškiausių ypatybių (sąvokų) perkėlimu iš vienos srities į kitą (iš apeliatyvų / į onimų (toponimų) sritį): šaltinis (apeliatyvas / vardas) → konceptuali struktūra (ypatybė) → tikslas (toponimas) (žr. Kövecses 2002; Lakoff, Johnson 2003; Dobrić 2010). Manoma, kad toks semantinių ir konceptualių struktūrų perkėlimas iš vienos konceptualios srities į kitą yra labai svarbus kuriant oniminius prototipus (dar žr. Dobrić 2010: 139–141). Pažymėtina, kad onimų analizė pagal konceptualiąją metaforą yra ne etimologinė analizė, bet bandymas nustatyti, kaip žodžių konceptuali struktūra motyvavo ir vis dar motyvuoja jų kūrimą. Antoniminiai santykiai toponimijoje egzistuoja kiekvienoje toponimų klasėje (oikonimuose, hidronimuose, mikrotoponimuose ir kt.) ir yra išreiškiami binarinėmis opozicijomis (Podolskaja 1978: 40). Opozicija toponimijoje – dviejų susijusių objektų priešprieša, siekiant juos atskirti vardais, turinčiais homogenines leksemas ir antoniminius žymiklius. Tokie antoniminiai toponimų santykiai kontekstiniai ir yra įmanomi tik hidroniminėje, oikoniminėje ir kitose (mikro)sistemose, kuriose jie radosi ir neįmanomi už tokios sistemos ribų (žr. Kondrashina 1980; Štěpán 2009; Tkachenko 2003, 2013, 2014; Ilchenko, Isachuk 2016). Todėl toponimai šiam tyrimui buvo atrenkami remiantis šiais principais: 1) jų DŽ turi išreikšti antoniminį santykį aukštas – žemas ir kalninis – klōninis; 2) atstumas tarp antoniminiais santykiais susijusių vietovardžių neturi būti didesnis nei 20 ± 5 km (toks atstumas pasirinktas neatsitiktinai – tiek žmogus gali pėsčiomis nukeliauti iš vienos vietos į kitą per vieną dieną). Atstumui tarp atrinktų vietovardžių matuoti buvo naudojami GP ir UETK tinklapių įrankiai. Siekiant suprasti leksinių toponimų opozicijų semantiką ir motyvaciją, be kalbinės analizės, buvo analizuojami ir ekstralingvistiniai duomenys. Pilna antoniminė koreliacija tarp DŽ pastebėta 7 atvejais (1 limnonimų ir 6 oikonimų opozicijose). Nepilna antoniminė DŽ koreliacija pastebėta 3 opozicijose oikonimų klasėje. Kalbinė ir ekstralingvistinė analizė parodė, kad DŽ pasirinkimą nominacijos procese lėmė įvardijamo objekto santykinė (horizontali arba vertikali) padėtis erdvėje. DŽ motyvacija Straipsniai / Articles 281 PAVEL SKORUPA yra gana aiški ir perteikia tokią jų semantinę apkrovą: 1) aukštas, –ą (aukštasis / aukštieji / aukštosios) – „įsikūręs ant kalno“ (vertikali padėtis į viršų), žemas, –ą (žemasis, žemieji, žemosios) – „esantis kalvos / kalno papėdėje“ (vertikali padėtis į apačią); 2) aukštas, –ą (aukštasis / aukštieji / aukštosios) – „esantis viršutinėje upės dalyje (prieš srovę)“ (horizontali padėtis kylanti aukštyn / atgal), žemas, –ą (žemasis, žemieji, žemosios) – „esantis žemutinėje upės dalyje (pasroviui)“ (horizontali padėtis besileidžianti žemyn); 3) kalninis (kalniniai) – „įsikūręs ant kalno“ (vertikali padėtis viršuje (vertikali padėtis, viršus), klõninis (klõniniai) – „įsikūręs slėnyje“ (vertikali padėtis apačioje) (vertikali padėtis, apačia). HTL analizė parodė, kad, remiantis motyvuojančių sąvokų įvairove, jos gali būti suskirstytos į dvi kategorijas: 1) aiškios motyvacijos ir semantikos HTL: a) motyvuotos vietovardžių (vietos samprata) – 7 oikonimų leksemos; b) motyvuotos antroponimų (posesyvumo sąvoka) – 6 oikonimų leksemos; c) motyvuotos apeliatyvais – (šaltinio samprata) 2 limnonimų leksemos, (vietos samprata) 2 oikonimų leksemos; 2) neaiškios motyvacijos ir semantikos HTL: a) motyvuotos apelatyvu ar pravardiniu asmenvardžiu (vietos ar žmonių samprata) – 2 oikonimų leksemos; b) motyvuotos antroponimu (posesyvumo ar žmonių samprata) – 2 oikonimų leksemos. Įteikta 2021 m. gegužės 7 d. PAVEL SKORUPA Lietuvių kalbos institutas Petro Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius, Lietuva [email protected] 282 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIV