DAIVA KARDELYTĖ-GRINEVIČIENĖ

Lietuvių kalbos institutas

Research areas: dialectology, dialect morphology and semantics, cognitive semantics

SEMANTIC EXPRESSION OF LOCATIVE INESSIVE AND ILLATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS IN THE NORTHEASTERN AUKŠTAITIAN VILNIUS SUBDIALECT

Semantic Expression of Locative Inessive and Illative Constructions in the Northeastern Aukštaitian Subdialect of Vilnius

ABSTRACT

The article analyzes the semantic expression of locative inessive and illative constructions in the Northeastern Aukštaitian Vilnius subdialect using methods of cognitive semantics. From a semantic perspective, the constructions under study are discussed by distinguishing the physical, event, social, and state cognitive spaces they denote. Their expression is examined through prototypical, non-prototypical, and transitional instances of use. In conclusion, the relationship between the semantic expression of locative inessive and illative constructions is assessed.

KEYWORDS: Northeastern Aukštaitian Vilnius dialect, locative inessive construction, locative illative construction, cognitive space, prototypical use, non-prototypical use.

ANNOTATION

Based on the methods of cognitive semantics, the article analyses the semantic expression of locative inessive and illative constructions in the Northeastern Aukštaitian Subdialect of Vilnius. The constructions in question are discussed in terms of semantics by distinguishing the cognitive physical, event, social and state spaces denoted by them. Their expression is actualized through prototypical, non-prototypical and transitional cases of

Straipsniai / Articles

153

DAIVA KARDELYTĖ-GRINEVIČIENĖ

usage. The article ends with the evaluation of the ratio of semantic expression of locative inessive and illative constructions.

KEYWORDS: Eastern Aukštaitian subdialect of Vilnius, locative inessive construction, locative illative construction, cognitive space, prototypical usage, non-prototypical usage.

1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

In recent decades, research on Lithuanian dialects has advanced rapidly: descriptions of the phonetics, phonology, and morphology of local dialects, as well as dialect texts and dictionaries, are continually increasing in number. The abundant and readily accessible dialect data allow researchers to examine more closely linguistic phenomena that have hitherto remained at the periphery of research.

The locative cases used in Lithuanian dialects—the inessive and illative—also belong among the less thoroughly studied phenomena. To date, research has examined the historical motivations for the formation of postpositional locatives and their functioning (Zinkevičius 1966: 200–203; 1980: 253–263; 1982: 21–38; 2006: 96; 145–146). Dialectological literature notes the neutralization of inessive and illative forms (Zinkevičius 1966: 200–202; LKA III: 50–55; 76; LKTCH: 82). Drawing on structural and natural morphology methods, Albertas Rosinas has examined the motivations for such neutralization and the conditions under which it arose (1995: 74–75; 2005: 251–252). Building on his hypotheses, a few observations have appeared concerning the relationship between the inessive and illative in the Southern Aukštaitian dialects (Leskauskaitė 2012: 81–90) and the Eastern Aukštaitian Vilnius subdialects (Kardelytė-Grinevičienė 2009: 557–566; 2014). A small number of studies address the phonetics (Bacevičiūtė, Rinkauskienė 2007: 4–11; 2008: 229–237; 2009: 71–88) and semantics (Petkelytė 2010; Ragaišienė 2012; Kardelytė-Grinevičienė 2014) of dialect locatives.

1.1. Research Material, Aim, and Objectives

There is little published material on the Eastern Aukštaitian Vilnius subdialect. Small transcribed texts recorded at individual survey points are presented in Texts of the Aukštaitian Dialects (Markevičienė 1999: 110–162), LKTCH (111–122), the book for schools Eastern Aukštaitians of the Vilnius Region (Kardelis, Kardelytė-Grinevičienė 2010), and Jolita Urbanavičienė’s monograph (2010: 324–352).

154

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXII

Lokatyvinių inesyvo ir iliatyvo konstrukcijų semantinė raiška šiaurės rytų aukštaičių vilniškių patarmėje

The texts from the Mielagėnai area (Kardelis 2006) stand out, as the dialect texts come from a specific area.

The material for this article was drawn from the largest source of the Vilnius subdialect published to date—the book Northeastern Aukštaitians of the Vilnius Region (Kardelis, Kardelytė-Grinevičienė, Navickaitė, Strungytė 2006; hereafter ŠRAV)¹. It contains transcribed texts from 17 inhabited localities in the northern Vilnius area: Bečiūnai, Bėčionys, Didžiasalis, Garbūnai, Dindos, Vaišniūnai, Žydeliai (Palūšė parish), Senasis Daugėliškis, Kiniūnai, Kūjiškė, Prisieginė, Smilginiškė, Šiulėnai, Vingiriai (Daugėliškis parish), Rimšėnai, and Navikai (Vidiškės parish). The book publishes 21 narratives told by traditional speakers of the subdialect, born before 1940.

Analysis of the inessive and illative forms recorded in the dialect texts revealed that they are closely related to the verbs used in the utterance. Often, it is the verb, rather than the locative case, that determines the spatial semantics of the scene (especially in cases of locative neutralization and competing usage). Therefore, the analysis of the expression of location through case examines not only inessive and illative forms, but at least a minimal construction marking localization, termed a locative inessive or locative illative construction. This is a linguistic unit consisting of a case form marking a location and the components that supplement and specify it and shape the projection of the spatial scene in language (for more detail, see Kardelytė-Grinevičienė 2014: 22–24).

Examination of the ŠRAV texts yielded 309 locative inessive constructions and 271 locative illative constructions (see Fig. 1).

FIG. 1. Quantitative ratio of locative inessive and illative constructions in the texts of the Northeastern Aukštaitians of the Vilnius Region

This article describes the semantic expression of the locative inessive and illative constructions found in the ŠRAV texts using methods of cognitive semantics—categorization and prototype theories. The aim of the analysis is to develop a model,

¹ The book was published with a CD.

Straipsniai / Articles

155

DAIVA KARDELYTĖ-GRINEVIČIENĖ

showing the means by which the semantic expression of the constructions under investigation is realized.

Research objectives:

• to examine a finite sample of texts from the Northeastern Aukštaitian Vilnius Subdialect and, using the methods of cognitive semantics, classify the locative constructions identified into semantically motivated cognitive domains;

• to develop a model of the cognitive domains of locative inessive and illative constructions;

• to calculate and assess the ratio between the semantic expressions of locative inessive and illative constructions.

1.2. Theoretical assumptions

In analyzing the spatial scenes designated by locative inessive and illative constructions, this article adopts the view that language contains an idealized representation of real physical space—a mental model of space (an. mental model of space). This is a model of real or hypothetical situations in the human imagination, an intermediate medium between conceptualization and thought. Meaning is transferred from the physical world to the abstract one (Frawley 1992: 205ff.).

Each mental model of space has its own internal structure. The semantic space of cases denoting location consists of different cognitive domains (an. cognitive domain). A cognitive domain is a context that characterizes semantic units (Lakoff 2004: 19ff.; Langacker 1991: 3). Context is particularly important for semantic analysis based on cognitive methods. Linguistic units cannot be interpreted without taking encyclopedic semantics (an. encyclopedic semantics) into account; in contexts, this is represented by encyclopedic information (an. encyclopedic information)—a part of extralinguistic knowledge realized through linguistic units (Evans 2007: 72). Context and encyclopedic knowledge are very important in describing and investigating spatial scenes. These factors define the use of the same lexeme in different constructions or utterances and determine the semantic expression of the unit under investigation.

The relations linking cognitive domains may vary in complexity. Cognitive semantics enables language researchers to make the semantic description as detailed as their current knowledge of the linguistic phenomenon being described permits or as much as they can obtain. Each cognitive domain of the inessive and illative comprises sets of specific situations in which these cases are used and which share similar semantic features.

The constructions under investigation are classified into cognitive domains using the criteria of prototypical, non-prototypical, and transitional usage. Cognitive semantics

156

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXII

Lokatyvinių inesyvo ir iliatyvo konstrukcijų semantinė raiška šiaurės rytų aukštaičių vilniškių patarmėje

proponents adhere to the view that a linguistic category consists of the totality of its meanings, but these meanings are not equivalent. Their analysis follows the principles of prototype theory (Eng. prototipe theory), according to which all categories have internal structures consisting of a center and a periphery².

A prototype is the best, clearest example, the benchmark for category members, by which the entire category can be recognized (Lakoff 2004: 62–71; 375; Langacker 1987: 159). Less consistently and clearly realized modulations of meaning, which sometimes appear only in special contexts, are considered non-prototypical. In prototypical and non-prototypical usage examples naming cognitive spaces, several cognitive spaces often overlap, thereby forming transitions between cognitive spaces.

In the material examined, spatial scenes are named by locative inessive and illative constructions. They are characterized by an asymmetric relationship between two participants in these scenes—the trajector and the landmark. These are the main, more salient, or most prominent participants in a spatial scene. The trajector indicates movement or action of any kind (physical or abstract) and is suitable for naming both static and dynamic relationships. The landmark indicates that toward which the trajector moves or where it is located (Langacker 1987: 217–220)³.

As already mentioned, language projects an idealized representation of space. Spatial relationships between the trajector and landmark, like human thought processes, are often metaphorical or metonymic. Therefore, proponents of the cognitive approach consider conceptual metaphor (Eng. conceptual metaphor) and conceptual metonymy (Eng. conceptual metonimy) to be objects of semantic analysis. They reveal structures of human thought and the linguistic reflections of thought phenomena arising from shared human experience, and they realize and explain how thought processes are given meaning through language (Lakoff, Johnson 2007: 27ff.; 63ff.).

2. ANALYSIS OF COGNITIVE SPACES

The semantic expression of locative inessive and illative constructions found in NEA texts is realized through four cognitive spaces common to both constructions under study: the extensively represented physical space (277 locative

² Prototipų teorijos pradžia siejama su Eleonoros Rosch (1978: 27–48) ir kitų kognityvinės psichologijos atstovų darbais. E. Rosch prototipo sąvoką įtvirtino tyrinėdama estetines žmogaus suvokimo kategorijas – spalvų suvokimą.

³ The characteristics of the landmark are supplemented by the dimensional properties of containers. Taking these into account, locative inessive and illative constructions can name landmarks, or containers, with three, two, one, or zero dimensions (Langacker 1987: 150–151; 248; Kardelytė-Grinevičienė 2014: 27–29).

Straipsniai / Articles

157

DAIVA KARDELYTĖ-GRINEVIČIENĖ

inessive and 234 illative constructions) and the less productive event (17 locative inessive and 25 illative constructions), social (8 locative inessive and 12 illative constructions), and state (7 locative inessive and 4 illative constructions) spaces (see Fig. 2).

FIG. 2. Quantitative relationship between cognitive spaces named by locative inessive and illative constructions in Northeastern Aukštaitian Ulišniskiai texts

The cognitive spaces named by locative inessive and illative constructions are discussed in greater detail below.

2.1. Cognitive physical space

In prototypical locative inessive and illative constructions, the presence or movement of a trajector in space is understood as a relationship between it and a physical container, or landmark. The physical-space container has a physical region characterized by various topological features, where the trajector is located or toward which it moves (cf. Frawley 1992: 254–255).

Prototypical examples of physical space, realized by locative inessive constructions, can be considered spatial scenes in which the landmark is inside a particular three-dimensional physical container (see Fig. 3).

Prototypical use of locative illative constructions can be considered to be the spatial scenes they denote, in which the trajector moves of its own accord or is placed by someone into a particular three-dimensional volumetric container. The illative marks one of the parts of the dynamic schema SOURCE–PATH–GOAL: the GOAL (cf. Langacker 2008: 32; see Fig. 4).

158

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXII

Lokatyvinių inesyvo ir iliatyvo konstrukcijų semantinė raiška šiaurės rytų aukštaičių vilniškių patarmėje

FIG. 3. Prototypical schema of locative inessive constructions in physical space⁴

FIG. 4. Prototypical schema of locative illative constructions in physical space⁵

Since the examined material from the Northeastern Aukštaitian Vilnius subdialect contains numerous locative inessive and illative constructions denoting cognitive physical space, they are divided into finer semantic types. The basis for distinguishing them is the purpose or nature of the containers. Three dominant semantic types can be identified: localization in rooms, containers, and geographical and landscape regions. A few cases not assignable to these semantic types were also found⁶.

2.1.1. A considerable number of examples with locative inessive and illative constructions in the analyzed Northeastern Aukštaitian Vilnius subdialect texts denote localization in rooms. In total, 46 locative inessive and 55 locative illative constructions were found.

Localization in rooms is one of the prototypical realizations of physical space in language, indicating that the trajector is in or moves into a particular enclosed three-dimensional room. In the analyzed Northeastern Aukštaitian Vilnius subdialect material, localization in rooms is prototypically denoted by locative constructions with the lexeme pirkia,

⁴ TR – trajector, OR – landmark.

⁵ SP – observer’s position.

⁶ For a more detailed classification of cognitive physical space by semantic types, see Kardelytė-Grinevičienė 2014: 35–94.

Straipsniai / Articles

159

DAIVA KARDELYTĖ-GRINEVIČIENĖ

bathhouse, barn, shop, hospital by locative forms⁷, for example: (1) well, in one little shop⁸ on Saturday, Sunday, then in another little shop there are lots of young people⁹ [gather] (ŠRAV 53); (2) I go to the little shop and say, Mom, my sheep are gone, I’m afraid to go look for them (ŠRAV 56); (3) they comb the flax and also break it in the bathhouse; (4) and they thresh the grain¹⁰, then, well, you gather it and take it to the barn (ŠRAV 193); (5) now you can go and buy everything at the shop (ŠRAV 52); (6) the priest took her by the hand, and then, well, like this, led her to the hospital (ŠRAV 161).

Non-prototypical instances of referring to localization in premises in the analyzed material are realized through metonymic expression: (7) one woman accompanied her as far as the slaughterhouse gates in Vilnius, in Santariškės, and she wept (ŠRAV 180).

The non-prototypical use of the constructions under investigation is also brought into focus by competing use of locatives. This term describes a linguistic phenomenon in which two different means of expression denoting the same linguistic phenomenon are used in parallel, with neither clearly predominating (cf. Fónagy 1957: 100–123; 1967: 100–123; for a fuller discussion, see Kardelytė-Grinevičienė 2014: 104–119). The analyzed Northeastern Aukštaitian Vilnius subdialect material shows that non-prototypical use is realized through competition between inessive and illative forms in the following combinations:

• pronoun (IL)¹¹ + noun (IN), for example: (8) but there all kinds of people have been brought in among the Russians, into that house, many have already been brought in, you know, all kinds of residents (ŠRAV 147); (9) well, in one house there, then we all gather in that one house, the young people, like this, and dance there (ŠRAV 152);

• pronoun (IL) + noun (IL) + stative verb, for example, (10) and the houses are beautiful, and everything was there, so they settled in those houses with their family (ŠRAV 59);

⁷ Here and below, the number of occurrences in the analyzed material of the inessive and illative cases of specific lexemes, recorded in locative constructions, is indicated. In the texts examined, lexemes referring to localization in premises were used with the following frequencies: pirkioj – 5, pirty – 5, tvartan – 4, pirkion – 3, pirtin – 3, kluone – 3, kluonan – 3, malūnan – 3, bažnyčion – 3, name – 3, bažnyčioj – 2, gamyklon – 2, kalėjime – 2, kalėjiman – 2, priemenėj – 2, virtuvėj – 2, reanimacijoj – 2; found once each: bankan, ceche, forte, fortan, gamykloj, getan, kalvėj, klebonijoj, kluban, kontoroj, krautuvėj, krautuvėsu, ligoninėj, ligoninėn, namuose, naman, namuosan, nuovadoj, nuovadan, operacinėn, policijon, raštinėi, redakcijon, salein, Santariškėse, sklepan, tvartė, tvartuosan.

⁸ In the examples presented, the locative inessive and illative constructions are underlined.

⁹ For convenience, dialect examples are presented transcribed using standard-language orthography rather than in phonetic transcription.

¹⁰ Grain.

¹¹ The abbreviation IN denotes the inessive, and IL the illative.

160

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXII

Lokatyvinių inesyvo ir iliatyvo konstrukcijų semantinė raiška šiaurės rytų aukštaičių vilniškių patarmėje

• pronoun (IL) + noun (IN) + metonymy, for example: (11) they took me to this Ninth Fort; I did not sit long in this Ninth Fort, just a couple of months (ŠRAV 57).

Locative inessive and illative constructions denoting the container subtype of semantic space also mark a transition between cognitive spaces. This is especially evident in contexts recounting school¹². In Northeastern Aukštaitian Vilnius subdialect texts, the spatial expressions mokykloj and mokyklon refer both to a building or premises where educational and teaching activities take place and to a learning process extending over a certain period of time. Thus, locative inessive and illative constructions with the lexeme mokykla realize a cognitive transition among physical, event, and temporal spaces, for example: (12) well, and she has already gone to school, but how long she’ll study there, I really don’t know, you know (ŠRAV 79); (13) there was a school there, and on that very spot, in that school, we used to live there, cook, and spend the nights¹³ (ŠRAV 65).

Locative constructions with the lexemes dvare, duvaran also indicate a transition between cognitive spaces. Spatial scenes expressed by these lexemes denote both location in the buildings they name and being within a certain social order; consequently, physical and social cognitive spaces are intertwined, for example: (14) well, now Dorokovas saw this—the tree had dried up there in the manor [there is] (ŠRAV 202); (15) then, toward the end, they would close the gates so that these parishioners would not walk around the manor (ŠRAV 203).

2.1.2. Physical-space containers include three-dimensional objects of various sizes and volumes, which can be broadly called containers. Prototypically, such containers in the material analyzed are completely enclosed but have one movable boundary-wall (box, stove, small bottle, cauldron, wagon, etc.¹⁴). Trajectors are also located in containers that lack one (or more) physical boundary-wall (into a basin, into a pit, into a bread oven, into ditches, into a basket, in a cart¹⁵, in a mortar, into a cup, into a pastaunyk¹⁶, into a confessional, into a pot¹⁷, into a wagon). Such

¹² In the analyzed texts, as many as 16 locative illative and 4 inessive constructions were found with the lexeme mokykla. The frequency of the locative forms of this lexeme is due to the fact that nearly every informant talks about their school days and learning conditions. As the narrative unfolds, the locative forms of the lexeme mokykla are often repeated, sometimes even in every sentence, which accounts for the abundance of locative constructions with this lexeme.

¹³ We used to spend the night.

¹⁴ The number of locative forms of these lexemes in the material studied: pečiun – 8, buteliuke – 3, katilan – 3, šuliny – 2, vagone – 2, rašalinėj – 1, vagonuosan – 1, aviliukan – 1, dėžėn – 1, laivan – 1.

¹⁵ In a light, beautiful carriage.

¹⁶ Into an enclosed area intended for grazing livestock.

¹⁷ Into a frying pan.

Straipsniai / Articles

161

DAIVA KARDELYTĖ-GRINEVIČIENĖ

Containers are characteristically assigned imagined boundaries, and are therefore perceived as closed. Containers may also have only a certain opening through which trajectories can be placed inside them (in grinders, in the corn husks¹⁸, in a sieve, in the mill). In all, the container semantic type is expressed in the analyzed material by 26 locative inessive constructions and 37 locative illative constructions. Thus, locative illative constructions predominate. A few examples: (16) and baked [bread], and shoot¹⁹into the oven (ŠRAV 192); (17) the dog gets out and then climbs back into the kettle, brings firewood, and lights a fire and keeps it going; they have self-service (ŠRAV 169).

Non-prototypical usage cases are realized through competing use of locatives in constructions pronoun (IL) + noun (IN), for example: (18) they ask—so what is in that kettle? (ŠRAV 168); (19) well, then he sat down on that stone, and there in that stone there was a little stone like this, and in that stone there was a little hollow, pierced through (ŠRAV 159).

A distinct localization realized through locative constructions is localization in containers made of flexible materials. Prototypically, the capacity of such containers depends on the amount of the trajector, for example, (20) and I too, girl, am taking these rye grains in a sack; I’ll take them to my parents (ŠRAV 149). Lexemes denoting clothing are included among containers made of flexible materials. Clothing is metaphorically perceived as a container for the human body, for example: (21) now the fellow comes out in his nightclothes, a man in a suit; well, perhaps that one works in some little office there (ŠRAV 201–202); (22) you know, I raised my son, this Giedrūnas, in a bad, bad swaddling cloth²⁰ [wrapped] (ŠRAV 120).

Flexible material can also be perceived as a plane. When trajectories are placed on such an idealized plane and it is subjected to external dynamic forces, the flexible material is transformed into a closed container, for example: (23) well, then they put it in, and in the little purse too²¹gets tied up [the money], and the young man takes it (ŠRAV 142). In such contexts, non-prototypical usage is activated.

Speakers also perceive surfaces in the physical world as containers, for example: (24) they gave me a bed²², and I lie there in one of these beds, while these boys drink (ŠRAV 116); (25) look, now the hedgehogs are walking around; pour some milk into something low, into a little saucer perhaps; then they come right up to you, lap it up, and aren’t afraid

¹⁸ Into the grinder.

¹⁹ You shoot.

²⁰ In a quilted jacket.

²¹ Into the handkerchief.

²² The bed.

²³ Of the People’s Defenders.

162

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXII

Lokatyvinių inesyvo ir iliatyvo konstrukcijų semantinė raiška šiaurės rytų aukštaičių vilniškių patarmėje

not at all (ŠRAV 81)²⁴. Thus, when trajectories are localized on planes, the relations between them and the landmark are characterized not by the semantic marker of containment, but by a marker of interaction.

Like the semantic type of containers designated by locative inessive and illative constructions, containers, too, are characterized by a transition between cognitive domains. In the analyzed material, this is realized by designating a location with the polysemous lexeme mašina²⁵. Depending on the context, the container mašina may denote not only a vehicle but also a mechanism that performs a particular task and contains the corresponding raw material, for example: (26) now he sat down, got into the machine, it just beeped, beeped again, and that was it²⁶, and nothing else (ŠRAV 140); (27) well, two horses, and they go, while we keep feeding the machines, then from the machine; they give us a bit of work²⁷up to our necks (ŠRAV 50).

In contexts where the container mašina denotes a particular mechanism (see example 27), a transition between cognitive domains is realized: physical space (the machine as a container for raw material) is connected with event space (the process of processing the raw material).

2.1.3. In the analyzed texts, the trajector may also prototypically be located beneath a physical object ((28) he lies under the bed, this Russian has been lying there, sleeping, snoring²⁸ (ŠRAV 174–175); (29) having waited for the right moment, he got under the bed, lay down with the whip, and is lying there (ŠRAV 174)) or in vegetation ((30) we graze them in the forest; there are many cows; we used to lose them²⁹ in the forests, you know, in all kinds of bushes (ŠRAV 106); (31) he has climbed up the spruce already, perhaps thinking³⁰that he won’t be caught (ŠRAV 108). When the trajector is located in various substances ((32) where there is gold, they say, it shines even in the mud; there, that one of mine, it turns out, answered (ŠRAV 151); (33) it was hot there, the water was deep, and [the horse] plunged into the lake [horse], and drowned (ŠRAV 69)) and in body parts or organs ((34) and when they took me away and escorted me, I only remember that they gave me an injection into a vein, and that was it for me³¹ (ŠRAV 180–181)), the DEPTH concept is realized³².

²⁴ The number of lexemes designating location on planes in the analyzed texts: lovoj – 5, lovon – 3, sienoj – 2, lėkštutėn – 2.

²⁵ Three locative constructions with the lexeme mašina were found in the texts examined.

²⁶ Finished; that’s everything.

²⁷ Until.

²⁸ He snores.

²⁹ We used to lose them.

³⁰ He/she thought.

³¹ The drawing up of medicine, an injection.

³² In the analyzed material, the frequency of lexemes designating the DEPTH concept is: ežeran – 2, kakton – 2, panosėn – 2, vandeny – 2; the following forms were found once each: bandelėn, batviniuosąn, baloj, balose, balon, bromoj, gipse, gipsan, purvyne, košen, paaūsy, pakluoniuosan, palovėj, palovėn, pašalėj, rankon, rugienoj, sniege, šežiaųkon, upely, vandenin, žemėn.

Straipsniai / Articles

163

DAIVA KARDELYTĖ-GRINEVIČIENĖ

In isolated cases, non-prototypical usage is realized through metaphor, for example: (35) this revolution began, and Lenin came from the world, well, and that one crept into this barn (ŠRAV 60); (36) this sack of his, and he put it into my head (ŠRAV 87); (37) and I, you know, I have death³³ already before my eyes (ŠRAV 180); (38) so you see what sort of things³⁴, well, what comes out, in my head it was the Tenth³⁵ all the same (ŠRAV 182).

Localization in printed matter ((39) in some newspapers [...] it used to be written (ŠRAV 75)) is understood metaphorically in cognitive semantics: WRITTEN SOURCES are CONTAINERS FOR INFORMATION (Kövecses 2002).

Locative constructions with the lexeme hand stand out. Prototypically, the hand is a container for organs or tissues (cf.: muscles in the hand; joints in the hand³⁶). However, other physical objects can also be placed in the hands or be in them, for example: (40) not for cows, but horses already had passports, a booklet, and if you give him the booklet, he buys the horse from you, don't give him the booklet in his hand; you can just show it in your hand (ŠRAV 174). In such contexts, the container denoted by the lexeme hand becomes a three-dimensional volumetric container when a trajector is put into it or taken from it. Thus, for the locatives of the lexeme hand to denote a three-dimensional volumetric container holding physical objects, the force-dynamic aspect must be operative. Under the influence of this aspect, the spatial reference lap is also understood as a container, for example, (41) mother took me into her lap and cried (ŠRAV 103).

2.1.4. In the Northeastern Aukštaitian Vilnius Subdialect texts under discussion, trajectors are located in topographic and landscape regions. These regions usually have administrative or geographic boundaries, but these are clearly visible only on relevant maps (cf.: village, district, country). From an observer’s position, it is difficult to determine visually the dimensions and boundaries of such regions. It is also difficult to identify the precise location of a trajector within them; therefore, in cognitive semantics, localization in topographic and geographic regions is interpreted metaphorically: the model of a landmark’s presence in three-dimensional physical containers is extended to denote relations between more abstract containers and landmarks. Topographic and geographic regions are understood as CONTAINERS for trajectors (Lakoff 2004: 29ff.; Kövecses 2002).

In the largest body of material examined, locative inessive and illative constructions with lexemes denoting toponyms were found. The constructions under investigation designate spatial scenes denoting location in Lithuanian cities,

³³ Death.

³⁴ Miracles.

³⁵ On the tenth Sunday after Easter, the Feast of the Sacred Heart of Christ is celebrated.

³⁶ No such examples were found in Northeastern Aukštaitian Vilnius Subdialect texts.

164

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXII

Lokatyvinių inesyvo ir iliatyvo konstrukcijų semantinė raiška šiaurės rytų aukštaičių vilniškių patarmėje

in villages and localities—83 locative inessive constructions and 34 locative illative constructions. Twenty-two examples indicating localization in various foreign countries were found—9 with locative inessive and 13 with illative constructions. Localization in foreign cities is expressed by locative constructions—10 locative inessive and 11 locative illative constructions.

Non-prototypical usage is realized through competing use of locatives in constructions with the verbs išlipti, būti ir nuvažiuoti, for example: (42) you know, when I’d never been there before, I went, drove, got off at Utena, I didn’t like anything in Utena, so I’ll continue farther by narrow-gauge train (ŠRAV 146); (43) I had been to Leningrad five times (ŠRAV 100); (44) he had gone to Rome, and so he got, that is, he had, had a soldier’s clothes (ŠRAV 203).

In the examined texts, the trajectory is located in various topographic or geographic regions³⁷. The landmark is prototypically named by the locatives of the lexemes village, field³⁸, place, region, village, etc.³⁹, for example: (45) when the Poles came in after us into this region, we felt very aggrieved⁴⁰ happened (ŠRAV 60); (46) so God is one in the world, but there are many languages and nationalities (ŠRAV 150).

Examples of localization in landscape regions include those with the lexemes kelias and linija: (47) when it was getting light, then, well, they got onto the road and then drove home (ŠRAV 179); (48) and even in Latvia, apparently, a German group stayed there for a long time, and we were on the front line with the Germans (ŠRAV 125). In such spatial scenes, objects in the physical world are idealized in language as lines, while the relationship between trajectory and landmark is perceived as a point of contact (Vainik 1995: 58–66).

One example of competing use of locatives was recorded with the lexeme daikte, denoting a generalized reference to a place: (49) so I carried some of it, got soaked with that rye, and left it there with the things [the rye], so that Father would know where it was; then Father went and brought the rye home and sowed it (ŠRAV 149).

As with the other semantic types discussed above, localization in topographic or geographic regions is also characterized by a transition between cognitive spaces.

³⁷ For a more detailed classification of topographic and geographic regions, see Kardelytė-Grinevičienė 2014: 74–89.

³⁸ For more on the semantics of the forms laukan and laukuosan in the Eastern Aukštaitian Vilnius subdialect, see Kardelytė-Grinevičienė 2013: 92–104.

³⁹ The locative forms of lexemes used in locative constructions and their frequencies: kaime – 17, lauke – 4, laukan – 4, vietoj – 4, krašte – 2, apylinkėn – 2, laukuos(e) – 2, laukuosan – 2, galan – 2, galulaukėn – 3, pamiškėj – 2. Forms of the following lexemes occur once each: apylinkėj, beržynuos, daržan, daržely, gale, galulaukėj, kaiman, kalne, kapinėsan, kraštan, lobe, mieste, pabalin, pamiškėn, pasauly, paupy, pievoj, pievosan, pusėj, prieky, raiste, raistuos, rajonan, sodely, šiukšlynuosan, šniūravoj, šonuosan, tėviškėj, ūlyčioj, ūlyčion, vienkiemy.

⁴⁰ Painful.

Straipsniai / Articles

165

DAIVA KARDELYTĖ-GRINEVIČIENĖ

It is activated in spatial scenes with the lexeme kolūkis⁴¹. The locatives of this lexeme express a close interconnection between physical, social, and event spaces, since a collective farm is understood as a social system based on the principle of collective work carried out in various places in physical space, for example: (50) then already in the evening they went around distributing all these people (ŠRAV 70); (51) well, there in Siberia, at the collective farm, when they took us away as the last ones, the last transports, we worked at the collective farm (ŠRAV 69).

Transitions between cognitive spaces and modulation of meaning are also characteristic of locative constructions with the lexeme miškas. Prototypically, they refer to a tree-covered place, i.e. a region of the landscape filled with vegetation⁴², for example: (52) Mother says, well, that’s good, she says, she’s all alone in the forest, and there used to be wolves (ŠRAV 95); (53) and firewood; when you need it, you go into the forest (ŠRAV 144).

In historical and social contexts, locative constructions with the lexeme miškas acquire a different meaning, for example: (54) some go into the army, they say, the radio has already said that America will liberate us, don’t go into the army, go into the forest; others went into the army; and others went into the forest, well, and these people stayed at home, they didn’t go anywhere, they didn’t go into the forest, well, one was there in the bathhouse, in Žvirbliškė, perhaps hiding⁴³, so who killed him, the forest partisans or the security police (ŠRAV 76).

Given the location of resistance fighters who, in the postwar years, refused to join the occupying government’s army and hid in the forests, their activity is designated by the construction išėjo miškan, i.e. they joined the resistance. In example 54, the locative illative constructions designate not only physical space (miškas), but also a state space (a change in social status—a free person becomes a persecuted enemy of the state) and an event space (resistance activities).

A few isolated examples of the use of locative constructions were also found that cannot be assigned to any of the semantic types discussed. These are contexts involving the lexemes užustalė, kūgis, langas: (55) he sat down over there in the corner, behind the table, took out a knife and said, woe⁴⁴, if my brother Jurgis isn’t here, only the dry ones would be left; none of you would be here (ŠRAV 89); (56) that girl is getting ready now, and then sits down at the table (ŠRAV 172); (57) now that little lamp, but still it shines from afar in the window (ŠRAV 179); (58) then we used to bring this straw from the collective farm and stack it in haystacks (ŠRAV 101); (59) well, the hay is stacked in haystacks, out there in the field; there’s nowhere else nearby, not even a person’s distance away (ŠRAV 72).

Having reviewed the semantic expression of locative inessive and illative constructions used in texts from the northern Vilnius subdialect to designate location in physical space, it can be argued that the constructions under study are used most frequently to express location

⁴¹ Three locative inessive constructions and four illative constructions were found with this lexeme.

⁴² Cf. the explanation of the lexeme miškas in LKŽ: ‘a tree-covered place; forest’.

⁴³ They were hiding.

⁴⁴ It’s a pity.

166

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXII

Lokatyvinių inesyvo ir iliatyvo konstrukcijų semantinė raiška šiaurės rytų aukštaičių vilniškių patarmėje

to identify topographic and geographic regions—185 locative inessive and 104 illative constructions were found.

2.2. The Cognitive Space of Events

In discussing cases of transitional uses of physical space, it was already noted that transition in the material under investigation often foregrounds the close connection between physical space and event space. Thus, locative inessive and illative constructions refer not only to being in or moving into physical space, but also describe participation in certain events or processes. The cognitive space referred to by such locative inessive and illative constructions is understood as a space of events (Vainik 1995: 113; Kuznetsov 2012: 98–99). It is not characterized by dimensional features. Localization in cognitive event space is based on a conceptual metaphor: the spatial relations between concrete physical containers and a trajector are transferred to a more abstract sphere—that of events.

In the Northeastern Aukštaitian Vilnius subdialect material examined, locative constructions with the lexemes kariuomenė, karas, šokiai, kuokinė, komandiruotė, padabonės, pamaina, naktigonė, šliūbas, targuolia, turgus⁴⁵ are assigned to event space. In total, cognitive event space is referred to by 17 locative inessive and 25 locative illative constructions, for example: (60) then I went off to the army, to the war; I was in the war; (ŠRAV 125); (61) I, you see, had gone to a kuokinė by bicycle, in summer; (ŠRAV 204); (62) you won’t give any money, so I’m not going to get married (ŠRAV 171).

As already noted, the event space referred to by the constructions under investigation is not entirely isolated from other cognitive spaces. The characterization of event space encompasses not only the event or process itself, but also its time and place of occurrence⁴⁶; therefore, it is closely connected with physical and temporal spaces (Vainik 1995: 113; Kuznetsov 2012: 99). The transition between event space and other cognitive spaces is realized in examples 61 and 62: the event—the kuokinė—takes place in a particular physical space (indoors or outdoors) at a particular time (most often on Saturday); the sacrament of marriage is received at the appointed time in a physical space (a church).

Cognitive event space is characterized by metonymic as well as metaphorical expression, for example: (63) people are going in horse-drawn carts now, that is, as in the early morning

⁴⁵ The frequency of locative forms of these lexemes in the analyzed texts is as follows: kariuomenėn – 10, kariuo­me­nėj – 7, kare – 5, šokiuosan – 3, padabonėsan – 3, kuokinėn – 2, turgun – 2. The following were each found once: karan, kuokinėj, komandiruotėj, komandiruotėn, pamainoj, naktigonėn, šliūban, targuolioj, turguos.

⁴⁶ Different semantic aspects are foregrounded in the utterances, so some features are dominant while others are secondary.

Straipsniai / Articles

167

DAIVA KARDELYTĖ-GRINEVIČIENĖ

(ŠRAV 170); (64) he says, how did you wake up, in the morning⁴⁷to cry, when I now will go to the Tenth [day];I cried; but I don't remember; and I cried with all my heart, as I to the Tenth, and whether the Tenth was the next day, our indulgence feast at the Tenth in Paringys (ŠRAV 182).

In example 63, the adjective early refers to the first church service held on the early morning of Christmas or Easter; in 64, the numeral form tenth is used metonymically to mean “the feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, celebrated on the tenth Sunday after Easter.”

2.3. The criterion for distinguishing cognitive social space is the property of animacy attributed to the landmark. The landmark is named by a lexeme denoting a human community, collective, or association (Kuznetsov 2012: 99–102). Dimensional properties are not characteristic of this cognitive space. In the analyzed texts, locative constructions were found with the lexemes: family, communal work party, parish feast, celebration, wedding, wedding guests, marriage ceremony, funeral, partisansⁱ⁴⁸. In total, 8 locative inessive and 12 locative illative constructions were recorded, for example: (65) I lived in a big family (ŠRAV 57); (66) they used to sell things at some kind of markets (ŠRAV 75); (67) some such thing would happen: they would hold a work party, and go to one; I went to your place, and you will come to mine (ŠRAV 69); (68) is it already possible⁴⁹ for you to go here to the wedding gueststo visit (ŠRAV 171).

In the analyzed texts, the social aspect is often associated with other cognitive spaces. This transition between cognitive spaces is brought into focus in different contexts through the use of the lexeme home. Locative constructions with it may denote either location in a physical container (see pp. 6–7) or membership in a social unit—the family—for example: (69) that at least tells you which pretty girl is already at home [there]; this one is pretty, so she’ll get out through the crack, while this one will still straighten up⁵⁰ and the dowry (ŠRAV 171). This example brings into focus the transition between the cognitive social and physical spaces.

Contexts in which social space intertwines with event and time spaces are common, for example: (70) there used to be parish feasts, and the young men would be at the feasts; well, now when the feast is already coming up here in Palušė, Saint Lawrence⁵¹, it’ll be here soon; all the village lads used to come, and they’d all ride their bicycles to the feast (ŠRAV 82).

⁴⁷Immediately.

⁴⁸ The frequency of locative forms of these lexemes in the analyzed text: at the parish feasts – 4, among the partisans – 3, at the weddings – 3, in the family – 2, to a work party – 2. One occurrence each was recorded of: at funerals, among wedding guests, at the marriage ceremony, at work parties, at celebrations, to celebrations.

⁴⁹ It is possible.

⁵⁰ They’ll rejoice; they’ll get full.

⁵¹ The feast of Saint Lawrence.

168

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXII

Lokatyvinių ines(y)vo ir iliatyvo konstrukcijų semantinė raiška šiaurės rytų aukštaičių vilniškių patarmėje

2.4. The domain of states is very closely related to cognitive social space. Social space is characterized by the feature of animacy, i.e., the landmark must be expressed by lexemes denoting a human collective, whereas the most important aspect of the domain of states is a change of state (Kuznetsov 2012: 103). The dimensions of containers do not actually exist in this cognitive domain; however, similar structural models are used to express the relations between trajector and landmark as in describing physical space—one enters a certain state or condition and remains in it (cf. physical space: enter a room; be in a room). Thus, the projection of the cognitive domain of states in language is based on a conceptual metaphor.

In the analyzed data from the Northeastern Aukštaitian Vilnius Subdialect, the domain of states is prototypically denoted by locative inessive and illative constructions with the lexemes: burliokystėje⁵², pliene⁵³, išpažintin, belaisvėn, smertin⁵⁴. In total, 7 locative inessive and 4 illative constructions were found, for example: (71) well, so he brings a pile of money⁵⁵ in burliokystėj, so then day and night through him [she grinds] (ŠRAV 162); (72) this Jurgis stood behind the door and struck with a knife, and killed him mirtin (ŠRAV 90).

A transition between cognitive domains is also characteristic of the domain of states: (72) and when the brother had already been in plienas for three years (ŠRAV 55); (73) he was taken captive by the Poles (ŠRAV 79)—being in captivity is associated not only with a change of state (from a free person to a captive), but also with physical space (the physical location of being held captive) and temporal space (a certain period of time is spent in captivity). The connection between the cognitive domains of state and time is most clearly illustrated by a locative construction with a numeral, for example, (75) Čičėlis’s mother-in-law is still alive even now; she is already a hundred years old (ŠRAV 196)⁵⁶.

The transition among all the cognitive domains discussed—physical, event, social, and state—can be represented in generalized form by a model of cognitive domains (see Fig. 5).

The dotted lines mark the transition zones between cognitive domains denoted by locative inessive and illative constructions. This model shows that the cognitive domains denoted by the constructions under investigation are closely interconnected in the analyzed Northeastern Aukštaitian Vilnius Subdialect data. The semantic expression of locative constructions is characterized not only by spatial features but also by temporal ones.

⁵² Works in Russia.

⁵³ In captivity.

⁵⁴ To death.

⁵⁵ Having earned.

⁵⁶ Locative constructions with metaphorically used lexemes atminime (and there were wolves in my memory (ŠRAV 98) and atminty (I would keep in my memory what I had read, whatever was interesting, I would not forget it (ŠRAV 177)) can be assigned to the cognitive domain of states. They denote localization not in spaces existing now, but in spatial scenes that existed in the past.

Straipsniai / Articles

169

DAIVA KARDELYTĖ-GRINEVIČIENĖ

FIG. 5. Northeastern Highland Lithuanian Vilnius subdialect cognitive-space model of locative inessive and illative constructions documented in texts

3. CONCLUSIONS

1. In the analyzed Northeastern Highland Lithuanian Vilnius subdialect texts, the semantic-expression model of locative inessive and illative constructions is realized through four cognitive spaces: physical, event, social, and state.

2. The semantic expression of locative inessive and illative constructions is most productively actualized when naming localization in cognitive physical space. Event, social, and state spaces are named less frequently by the constructions under study. Locative inessive constructions slightly predominate in naming cognitive physical space with a purely locative meaning, while locative illative constructions predominate for the more abstract event and social spaces.

3. Analysis of texts from the Northeastern Aukštaitian Vilnius subdialect shows that the cognitive spaces named by locative inessive and illative constructions are not isolated from one another; that is, the semantic expression model reveals transitions between cognitive spaces. Localization in physical space named by the constructions under study is characterized not only by semantic markers of place. The physical location of a trajectory is associated with certain features of its manner and very often with the temporal aspect. The transition is particularly pronounced when polysemous lexemes are used in locative constructions.

170

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXII

Lokatyvinių inesyvo ir iliatyvo konstrukcijų semantinė raiška šiaurės rytų aukštaičių vilniškių patarmėje

4. It may be assumed that the semantic expression (and frequency) of locative inessive or illative constructions (as well as of the specific lexemes used in them) is determined by the cognitive potential of the speaker. The choice of means of expression for naming spatial scenes depends on the topic developed by the speaker and on whether the verbs used in the narration denote dynamic or stative properties. Therefore, it is not accurate to conclude from a certain amount of text that the locatives of one lexeme or another are used rarely or not at all. If the narrative does not require, for example, the illative (because it concerns static actions or processes), this case will not occur in that context; however, this does not mean that it is not used at all.

REFERENCES AND SOURCES

Bacevičiūtė Rima, Rinkauskienė Regina 2007: Dėl rytų aukštaičių uteniškių inesyvo ir iliatyvo galūnių priegaidžių (Eksperimentinis tyrimas). – Žmogus ir žodis: Didaktinė lingvistika 9(1), 4–11.

Bacevičiūtė Rima, Rinkauskienė Regina 2008: Rytų aukštaičių uteniškių inesyvo ir iliatyvo priegaidės: audicinis tyrimas. – Baltistica 43(2), 229–237.

Bacevičiūtė Rima, Rinkauskienė Regina 2009: Audicinis eksperimentas dialektologijoje: privalumai ir trūkumai (rytų aukštaičių uteniškių vietininkų priegaidžių tyrimas). – Garsas ir jo tyrimo aspektai: metodologija ir praktika / The sound and aspects of its research: methodology and practice, 71–88. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Evans Vyvyan 2007: A Glossary of Cognitive Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd.

Fónagy Ivan 1957: Über den Verlauf des Lautwandels. – Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 6, 173–278.

Fónagy Ivan 1967: Variation und Lautwandel. Ansätze zu einer dynamischen Phonetik. – Phonologie der Gegenwart. Wiener slavistisches Jahrbuch, Ergänzungsband 6, 100–123.

Frawley William 1992: Linguistic Semantics. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associatesm Inc.

Kardelis Vytautas 2006: Mielagenų apylinkių tekstai. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Kardelis Vytautas, Kardelytė-Grinevičienė Daiva 2010: Rytų aukštaičiai vilniškiai. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Kardelytė-Grinevičienė Daiva 2009: Dėl inesyvo ir iliatyvo santykių rytų aukštaičių vilniškių šnektos. – Kalbos istorijos ir dialektologijos problemos 2, 557–566.

Straipsniai / Articles

171

DAIVA KARDELYTĖ-GRINEVIČIENĖ

Kardelytė–Grinevičienė Daiva 2014: Lokatyvinių inesvyvo ir iliatyvo konstrukcijų semantika ir santykiai rytų aukštaičių vilniškių patarmėje. Daktaro disertacija. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Kövecses Zoltan 2002: Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. New York: Oksford University Press.

Kuznetsov N. – Кузнецов Николай 2012: Пространственная семантика местных падежей коми языка (когнитивный анализ). Tartu: Unoversity of Tartu Press.

Lakoff G. – Лакофф Дж. 2004: Женщины, огонь и опасные предметы. Москва: Языки славянкой культуры.

Lakoff G., Johnson M. – Лакофф Дж., Джонсон М. 2007: Метафоры, которыми мы живем. Москва: URSS.

Langacker Ronald W. 1987: Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Langacker Ronald W. 1991: Cognitive linguistics research: Concept, Image, and Symbol. The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. New York–Berlin: Ratzlow–Druck.

Langacker Ronald W. 2008: Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Leskauskaitė Asta 2012: Daiktavardžių gramatinių kategorijų vartojimo dažnumas pietinėse pietų aukštaičių šnektose. – Naujausi kalbų ir kultūrų tyrimai. Vilnius: Europos kalbų ir kultūrų dialogo tyrėjų asociacija, 81–90.

LKA III – Morkūnas Kazys 1991: Lietuvių kalbos atlasas 3. Morfologija. Vilnius: Mokslas.

LKTCH – Leskauskaitė Asta, Bacevičiūtė Rima, Ivanauskienė Audra, Trumpa Edmundas 2004: Lietuvių kalbos tarmių chrestomatija. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

LKŽe – Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, electronic version, editorial board: Gertrūda Naktinienė (editor-in-chief), Jonas Paulauskas, Ritutė Petrokienė, Vytautas Vitkauskas, Jolanta Zabarskaitė. Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language. Available online: www.lkz.lt.

Markevičienė Žaneta 1999: Aukštaičių tarmių tekstai 1. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.

Petkelytė Justina 2010: Vietos raiška šiaurės rytų aukštaičių vilniškių patarmėje (iliatyvo, prielinksnių in, un semantika ir santykiai). Magistro darbas. Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas.

172

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXII

Lokatyvinių inesyvo ir iliatyvo konstrukcijų semantinė raiška šiaurės rytų aukštaičių vilniškių patarmėje

R a g a i š i e n ė V i l i j a 2012: Vietininkų ir prielinksninių konstrukcijų semantika ir santykiai rašytiniame 1977 m. Tverečiaus šnektos šaltinyje. Pranešimas moksliniame seminare „Tarmių leksikos ir fonetikos pokyčiai“. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

R o s c h E l e o n o r a 1978: Principles of Categorization. – Cognition and Categorization, 27–48.

R o s i n a s A l b e r t a s 1995: Baltų kalbų įvardžiai: morfologijos raida. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.

R o s i n a s A l b e r t a s 2005: Further on the interpretation of the origin of the adesive. – Baltistica 40(2), 177–181.

ŠRAV – Kardelis Vytautas, Kardelytė-Grinevičienė Daiva, Navickaitė Agnė, Strungytė Inga 2006: Northeastern Aukštaitians of Vilnius. Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing.

U r b a n a v i č i e n ė J o l i t a 2010: Suirkų šnektos fonologinė sistema: vokalizmas ir prozodija. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

V a i n i k E n e 1995: Eesti keele välishokakäänete semantika. Talinas.

Z i n k e v i č i u s Z i g m a s 1966: Lithuanian Dialectology. Vilnius: Mokslas.

Z i n k e v i č i u s Z i g m a s 1980: Historical Grammar of the Lithuanian Language 1. Vilnius: Mokslas.

Z i n k e v i č i u s Z i g m a s 1982: Postpositional Locatives in Lithuanian. – Baltistica 18(1), 21–38.

Z i n k e v i č i u s Z i g m a s 2006: The Origin of Lithuanian Pronunciations. Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language.

Semantic Expression of Locative Inessive and Illative Constructions in the Northeastern Aukštaitian Subdialect of Vilnius

S U M M A R Y

Based on the methods of cognitive semantics categorization and prototype theory, the article describes the locative inessive and illative constructions in the Northeastern Aukštaitian Subdialect of Vilnius. The aim of the analysis is to create a model showing the means used to realize the semantic expression of the constructions in question. The examples are divided into semantically-grounded cognitive spaces. The description of the latter is based on the actualization of prototypical, non-prototypical and transitional cases of usage realized by locative constructions.

Straipsniai / Articles

173

DAIVA KARDELYTĖ-GRINEVIČIENĖ

The study shows that in the material under analysis both locative inessive and illative constructions are used to denote four cognitive spaces: especially commonly represented physical space, less active event, social and state spaces. Realized in certain contexts, they are not isolated from one another; they interact and create transitional zones.

The analysis of the texts also entails an assumption that the semantic expression of locative inessive or illative constructions (as well as specific lexemes used in them) is determined by the cognitive potential of the speaker.

Received on October 26, 2014.

DAIVA KARDELYTĖ-GRINEVIČIENĖ

Lietuvių kalbos institutas

Petro Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius

[email protected]

174

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXII