„Kablio“ figūros nominacinės sistemos raiška lietuvių kalbos tarmėse

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA XLVI (2002), 81–119 The Expression of the Nominative System of the “Hook” Figure in Lithuanian Dialects Rolandas Mikulskas Lietuvių kalbos institutas, Vilnius The concept of the ‘hook’ is an instance of a linguistically relevant prototypical figure. Each Lithuanian dialect has its own system of names for implements of curved shape, correlated with this figure or with the most general term capable of expressing it. Such onomasiological systems are hierarchically ordered: there is a relationship of hyponymy between the individual members and the general term dominating the system. The geographical borders of the onomasiological systems of the dialects are defined by the areas of expansion of the general terms denoting the figure of the ‘hook’. A principled approach is needed to establish these general terms for the particular dialects on the basis of the vast body of data contained in the cardfiles of the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language. The aim of the present article is to formulate these principles. It is hoped that, mutatis mutandis, they will also be helpful in establishing the general terms for other linguistically relevant figures. 1. FIGURATIVE NOMINATIVE SYSTEMS 1.1. Language, as a phenomenon, is grounded in the innate human intellectual capacity to treat reality symbolically (Karaliūnas 1997: 200). The symbolic treatment of reality is to be understood as a particular form of its perception. The perception, or apprehension, of continuous reality takes place in consciousness through certain discrete elements—mental images. These should be understood as internal schemas or models, which manifest themselves as genetically or culturally delineated expectations and determine the selective nature of our perception of reality. By pointing in general terms to fragments of reality, mental images become symbols of their primary representation in consciousness. This primary symbolization of reality thus creates the preconditions for the emergence of language as a system of conventional signs. 1.2. More than one researcher of the language phenomenon agrees with the view that, among other representations of reality in our minds, visual images are perhaps the most important (see Karaliūnas 1997: 228–229, Greimas 1989: 118–122). Visual images are distinguished precisely by figurative synthesis, whereby concrete images give rise to certain general mental images that acquire abstract symbolic value. Spatial objects, which appear before our eyes as objective reality, can become a source of linguistic symbolism only upon acquiring the invariance of a natural sign. This is achieved by reducing concrete objects of reality to the most possi- 1 Here and below, we understand reality as everything toward which the perceiving individual’s apprehension is directed, i.e., as a certain pre-linguistic? 82 | ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS inferior geometric figures, disregarding their purpose. The random level of the world of objects associated with events is thus replaced by the level of the world of figures, comprising a finite inventory. Thus, the aforementioned figurative synthesis is essentially an operation of reduction, in the course of which general figures are obtained. These figures can then serve as certain schemes for ordering and organizing substance. In further analysis of general figures, oppositions composed of elementary spatial categories and having their equivalents in language are predicated, for example: straight vs. curved, convex vs. concave, closed vs. open, full vs. empty, and so on. 1.3. Individual figures of the world understood in this way (usually important to a linguistic community from one perspective or another) can become the structural core of various nominative systems. For example, the figure of a “circle” is one such figure. In categorical terms, a “circle” is perceived as a closed curve, that is, the concept requires the categorical oppositions already present a priori in the mind: curved vs. straight and closed vs. open. “Circle” as an essential figure is recognizable in the semantic structure of many words—the names of real-world objects. For example, consider the names wheel, spinning wheel, ring, circular frame, rim, spinning wheel (a tool of this kind), ball, sphere, and so on. The meanings of the last two words are likely founded on the concepts of more complex spatial figures—“disk” and “sphere”—which are supplemented, respectively, by other oppositions in addition to those spatial categories mentioned earlier: full vs. empty, concave vs. convex. Some of the words listed here denote very specific real-world objects, for example rim, spinning wheel, circular frame, while others can name several or more such objects, for example wheel (of a cart, watermill, machine, and so on), ring (wedding, sickle, chain, and so on), ball (of yarn, smoke, a game, and so on). The latter are said to have broader reference and more general meanings. As a result, they readily acquire derived meanings and are also often used figuratively. In the case under discussion, the transfer of meaning usually occurs on the basis of the figurative similarity of the objects named. Thus, we can speak of the wheel of the year, the wheel of time (a closed cycle), of a ring of encirclement, and so on. The more general a word’s meaning, the more opportunities it has to become the name of one figure or another, its representative at the linguistic level. This representative can in turn become the structural core uniting other names, if the objects they designate share essential figurative similarities. 1.4. From what has been said, it is clear that language has equivalents not only for the elementary spatial categories that constitute the expressive form of the natural world. The system of linguistic nominative units also has equivalents for the figures that construct the semiotic code of this world’s visual expression, figures composed of combinations of those spatial categories. In a sufficiently homogeneous ethnolinguistic space, ideally consisting of dialects of a single language, it is possible to speak with considerable confidence of the universality of the repertoire of these figures. This, in turn, determines the emergence in dialects of nominative systems correlated with the names designating those figures. The concepts corresponding to the figures within the purview of the figurative mode become the factor uniting the members of nominative systems, while the names best able to represent these figures become the dominant members of those systems. Compared with other members of a nominative system, the name most closely associated with the concept of a visual figure is characterized by the most general meaning and the broadest reference. The latter not only encompasses the reference of the remaining members of the system but can also be extended by naming new real-world objects on the basis of figurative similarity, whose „KABLIO“ FIGŪROS NOMINACINĖS SISTEMOS RAIŠKA | 83 many already have more established names in the language, formed on the basis of another nominative feature. In view of this, we can speak of names with the most general meanings as having the greatest nominative potential. 1.5. The nominative systems in question take shape as the names of other objects corresponding to a given figure are brought within the sphere of nomination of a general name. INCLUSION, or hyperonymic-hyponymic, relations are established between the name that heads such a system and the other names. This means that in certain communicative situations, when utterances are produced, names with general meanings can be selected in place of names with specific meanings. For example, a speaker (addresser) addressing a listener (addressee) whom they consider less knowledgeable may choose a name with broader reference to describe a denotatum. This is, as it were, an appeal to a “common fund of knowledge.” In this respect, we can speak of SUBSTITUTION relations between names. An inventory of names encompassed by the concept of a single figure and organized hierarchically is convenient for language users because of its economy. From the perspective of selecting names when producing utterances, this systemic model seems more efficient than other analogous models based on rules of work or logical deduction. 1.6. One figure of significance to a linguistic community, generally well represented in the vocabularies of various languages, is the prototypical “hook” figure. The system of names formed by the concept of the “hook” figure was chosen for study for good reason. First, because of its simplicity, the figure itself is easily recognized in corresponding real-world forms. Second, the objects encompassed by its concept constitute a list of work tools that is easy to enumerate. Third, owing to similar patterns of economic activity, representatives of all Lithuanian dialects have long used roughly the same work tools. It is no coincidence that the names of these tools are well represented in the card index of the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language (hereafter LKŽK). The usage examples collected there reveal not only the specific features of particular curved tools but also the tasks for which they were used until quite recently and, in some cases, are still used today. This makes it convenient to examine the semantic structure of these words-names. In addition, the LKŽK abounds in contextual examples (of predictable communicative situations) in which one of the terms in question replaces another. These examples allow us to identify the systemic (substitution) relations among the names. The members of the nominative system of the “hook” figure are united by the image of a curved object (tool). The opposition between the elementary spatial categories curved vs. straight is important to forming its concept. However, the “hook” figure relevant to linguistic nominations is not a geometrical figure postulated deductively, but rather the invariant of all curved tools, induced through abstraction. For this invariant, not only the concept of curvature is essential, but also that of the shared hooking function. In different regions where Lithuanian is spoken, the nominative system of the “hook” figure has a distinctive expression. We can therefore speak of areal, or dialectal, systems of names for hook-shaped tools. The geographical boundaries of the expression of individual nominative systems are delineated by the distribution of general names. These names (which we will later define as GENERAL NOMINATORS) are not so readily apparent to researchers of the Lithuanian lexicon. Among the wealth of data provided by the LKŽK on the names of various curved tools, they must be identified by following a certain methodology. This article is devoted essentially to formulating the principles of such a methodology. At the same time 84 | ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS It is expected that these principles mutatis mutandis will also be suitable for identifying the general names of other figures significant to a linguistic community. Moreover, the functionality of the hierarchical model of naming systems as a whole is verified using dialect data when this methodology is applied. 2. METHODOLOGY FOR IDENTIFYING THE GENERAL NAMES OF THE “HOOK” FIGURE IN DIALECTS 2.1. Even a cursory review of the data in LKŽ and LKŽK makes it clear that the nominative system of the “hook” figure has a distinct expression in different regions where Lithuanian is spoken. By distinct expression, we mean first and foremost that each region has its own word of the most general meaning, best able to name the “hook” figure. Other regional names for hook-shaped tools are arranged (and acquire their status) in relation to this most general name, thereby creating a distinctive nominative system for this figure, characteristic only of the language users of that region. The boundaries of the areas in which one or another nominative system for the figure under discussion has become established do not entirely coincide with dialect boundaries. The latter, as is well known, are determined by language researchers on the basis of certain phonetic correspondences. However, dialects differ, of course, in more than their phonetics. Rather, they should be regarded as regional varieties of the same language, characterized by distinctive systemic features at all levels—not only phonological or morphological, but also syntactic and lexical. The formation of dialects is determined, and their stability maintained, by the distinctive ethnos of individual regions. This, in turn, is shaped by social, political, administrative, and other factors. A dialect is not the only manifestation of an ethnos as a historically formed human genotype. It is also expressed through distinctive customs and material culture. The dialect’s lexicon is most closely connected with the latter. It is the most mobile layer of the language (dialect) system. As dialects come into contact, structural elements of one dialect may spread into another. The greatest degree of dialect mixing is, of course, found in border areas. A dialect, as a language system, is a closed system. One dialect borrows a phoneme or morpheme from another only if “the preconditions arise for introducing a new element, namely, to adjust the structural balance that has formed, to fill empty cells in the system, and so forth” (Karaliūnas 1997: 343). The lexicon of dialects is much more open to borrowing. Words that name material objects (e.g., various tools) can easily travel from one dialect to another along with the transfer of those objects. Over time, borrowings may enter semantically related lexical groups and acquire a certain status within them, often relegating native names for the corresponding objects to the periphery.2. 2.1.1. We determine the boundaries of the areas in which nominative systems for the “hook” figure have become established in dialects according to the distribution of the central name in these systems. Anticipating the discussion, we can say that the areas where these systems are used mostly fall within the boundaries of the major dialects, although in places they extend beyond them in border zones. An example might be the Western Aukštaitian 2 We understand the status of a name as its position in relation to the central name in the system. The nominative potential (nominative value, nominative weight) of a word in the system depends directly on this position. „KABLIO“ FIGŪROS NOMINACINĖS SISTEMOS RAIŠKA | 85 the general name vašžo used on the western side of the Kaunas subdialect, which extends a considerable distance into the area of the Raseiniai subdialect of Southern Samogitian. Within the boundaries of some dialects, even two of the nominative systems under discussion are used. For example, as we shall see, the Samogitian dialect has nominative systems dominated by two general names—kōbinio and kebėklio3. Clearly, they are distributed across different areas of the dialect. Other names with narrower reference may belong to different nominative systems. For example, gėmbė ‘a wall-mounted hanger for clothes’ is used throughout the Samogitian area, and thus in both the kōbinio and the kebėklio nominative systems. As it crosses dialect boundaries, the same word may acquire a different status within a nominative system. For instance, vašžas, which is the central name in the nominative system of the “hook” figure in the western part of the Western Aukštaitian Kaunas subdialect, means in the Samogitian dialect only a permanently fixed hook for suspending a cauldron above a hearth (Western Aukštaitian vaškaras). The general name of the Eastern Aukštaitian dialect, kab­lys, was used by the Lithuanian speakers of East Prussia only to name a tool for turning manure, and so on. 2.2. It is worth pausing somewhat longer over the question of how the central name of these nominative systems is expressed, and examining in greater detail the related concept of a word’s NOMINATIVE POTENTIAL. Thus, the one or more “hook” analogues found in each dialect divide the Lithuanian-speaking territory into zones dominated by their respective nominative systems. It appears that these words of the most general meaning differ in origin, internal form, and the semantic properties that follow from these. For example, the Eastern Aukštaitian kab­lys, the Samogitian kobi­nys, and kebėklis4 are derivationally related to the verb kabinti: they are derivatives with the suffixes -ys, -inys, and -eklis, respectively, and still retain the derivational meaning associated with names of tools (nomina instrumenti). As names, they remain motivated by the nominative feature of the hanging function. Similarly, kūkis, widespread in the eastern corner of the Western Aukštaitian Kaunas subdialect, is based on the verb kūkti, used locally to mean ‘to bend, to curve’. This general name is therefore directly motivated by the nominative feature of a curved shape. The semantic feature of the hanging function is implied here by the feature of shape. By contrast, the derivational meaning of vašžo, widespread in the western part of this dialect, is scarcely discernible today. For speakers of the language today, this name has become completely de-etymologized. Nor is there any point in discussing the derivational motivation of the borrowing kriūkas5, which has become established in the Southern Aukštaitian and Eastern Aukštaitian Vilnius subdialects. We will later examine the extent to which the semantic properties of these words contributed to their rise to a dominant position in their respective nominative systems. For now, however, we can hypothesize that the aforementioned differences in internal form and nominative motivation may have shaped their internal semantic development in different ways. After all, the semantic derivation of words that retain their derivational meaning may (at least for a time) also be guided by their INITIAL nominative meaning. Words that have lost their structural motivation, or never had it (borrowings), acquire new meanings more freely; their number depends more on nominative needs and ease of use. 3 The kibėklį, which occurs more frequently in the northwestern corner, is considered a phonetic variant of the same name. 4 kebėklis <kabėklis through regressive vowel assimilation; the latter form is recorded in Skirsnemunė and Merkinė with the meanings ‘door fastening’ and ‘wall-mounted hanger’, respectively. 5 Dėl kriūkas, kriūkas, krūkas, krūgas fonetinių skirtumų žr. Mikulskas (1995: 64); patogumo dėlei toliau vartosime vieną, kriūko formą. 86 | ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS 2.2.1. Despite the different internal semantic structures of the words under discussion and the somewhat different paradigmatic relations with other lexical units that apparently follow from this, their position in their respective nominative systems is the same: they are the most general designations, encompassing the reference of all members. It appears that they acquired this status not because of particular features of their internal semantic development. After all, given the existing reciprocal relationship between the figurative perception of the world and language, the figures of this perception (mental images) have their counterparts in language—linguistic signs (words). If we agree that the representational function is the essential function of language, then the emergence of words that can best name the aforementioned figures is programmed into the very genesis of language. Thus, in naming the figure of the “hook” in the most general way, the language user inevitably finds one or another “most suitable” word. The latter is the dominant element of a hierarchical nominative system, relating to the other members of the system as a hyperonym. This system of designations, based on the principle of inclusion, as well as the role of the most general designation, is determined a priori by the nature of our thinking. As is well known, in cognition the mind classifies perceptions of the external world into logical classes of things on the basis of relations of similarity. The hierarchical nominative systems under consideration would be a fragmentary reflection of these logical classes at the level of language. 2.2.2. To speak about the nominative potential of a word is equivalent to speaking about its reference6. It is easy to understand that the reference of the most general name in the nominative structures under discussion encompasses the reference of all members of the system. When speaking about the nominative potential of this name, we should determine how much it depends on its central position in the system and how much on its semantic structure. The latter concept presupposes the word's semantic derivation and its polysemy. Defining the essence of nomination as the marking of objects in reality during the generation of utterances, we consider words to be the primary units of nomination. We understand these as two-sided linguistic signs—with their own expression and conceptual meaning. During the act of nomination, these linguistic signs point to objects in reality (denote them) or, in the case of abstract concepts, to themselves. In this way, words in an utterance acquire a specific meaning. On the other hand, when referring to specific realities during an act of communication, only one meaning of a “polysemous” word is realized. Thus, during the act of nomination, the so-called ACTUAL FUNCTIONAL WORD is involved (cf. Jakaitienė 1988: 28). 2.2.3. There is no point in speaking about the nominative potential of a word realized in a text. However, some linguists, for example Nikitin (1983: 9–11), discuss its nominative capacity, understanding this as the ability of a word (nominator) to express independently, without other elements of an utterance, the meaning associated with it (or, in terms of perception, to actualize it). Thus, the nominative capacity of a word in a realized text is considered a function of its syntactic autonomy. There is even discussion of the varying nominative capacity of individual parts of speech, which determine future syntactic roles. In this respect, the nominative capacity of nouns and nominal phrases is supposedly greatest. In Nikitin's view, a nominator realized in a text is supposedly grammatically marked. However, according to him, the language syste- 6Linguists who understand reference as a concept belonging to the domain of speech speak here of the REFERENTIAL POTENTIAL OF A WORD (Telija 1977: 136), the REFERENTIAL DOMAIN OF A HYPERONYM (Nikitin 1983: 29), and the DENOTATIVE POTENTIAL OF A DESIGNATION (ibid., 31). „KABLIO“ FIGŪROS NOMINACINĖS SISTEMOS RAIŠKA | 87 tem there exists an unmarked nominator. Further, Nikitin (ibid., 22) states that this nominator can supposedly be described as a lexeme whose meaning is invariant across many speech nominators. The meaning of the unmarked nominator is not merely an abstraction from words used in specific utterances. Rather, this meaning is designated by the unmarked nominator as one of its meanings. 2.2.4. The concept of the VIRTUAL WORD is close to that of the unmarked nominator. According to Jakaitienė (1988: 28), it too is not merely an abstraction from words occurring in particular acts of speech, but “an objectively existing unit of the language system, associated with a certain content in the consciousness of members of the speech community.” The term virtual word would be very useful in investigating the nominative units of the language system and their systemic relations. In language, this virtual word performs the function of a nominator not as a polysemous word, but as a unified word-sign characterized by a certain PRIMARY MEANING7. This primary meaning is an inseparable part of the word as a two-sided linguistic sign. It is simply known to language users and recognized by them as its meaning. It is precisely this meaning that plays the most important role in specific linguistic situations when suitable nominators are selected for real-world objects. Thus, virtual words make up the inventory of nominative units available to a language user. If the virtual word is taken as the starting point of the nominative act, other meanings should be understood as specific realizations of the primary meaning in speech. Some of these meanings become established in language use and regular, and therefore should also be considered part of knowledge and linguistic competence (and hence of the language system). A semantic derivation relation is often still perceptible between these meanings and the primary meaning. Linguistic competence manifests itself through derived meanings in that, by memorizing them and perceiving the relation between them and the primary meaning, the language user learns rules by which other meanings can be generated; that is, on the basis of relations of similarity or contiguity, the same word can be used to name corresponding objects in reality (cf. Nikitin 1988: 72). 2.3. To investigate how nominative systems for the “hook” figure are expressed in Lithuanian dialects, it is important to learn to identify virtual words with the most general meaning—the systems’ principal nominators. This must be done by examining specific utterances in which actual functional words figure as nominators. The meanings of the latter can be determined not only from the syntax of utterances but also from the circumstances of conversation inferred from them (the communication situation). For this study, we use utterances recorded in the LKŽ card index. Incidentally, it makes sense to speak of nominative systems, just as of the language system, only from a synchronic perspective. Since the material collected in the LKŽK covers almost the entire twentieth century8, it undoubtedly documents lexical changes that took place in the dialects. However, in attempting to construct a model of the nominative systems in question, we will inevitably have to abandon a diachronic approach to the collected material; that is, we will treat it as reflecting a certain static state of the lexicon of Lithuanian dialects9. This does not mean that 7We use the term primary meaning without a diachronic connotation, which would be inappropriate here when discussing matters concerning language as a system. Here it simply means (as we shall see later) precedence over other, derived meanings. 8K. Būga began collecting material in 1902. 9 Karaliūnas (1997: 45), komentuodamas F. de Saussure’o teiginį, jog statinėje lingvistikoje be sąlyginio duomenų supaprastinimo joks įrodymas nesąs galimas, kalba, kad, nors absoliuti būsena apibūdinama pakitimų nebuvimu, praktiškai kalbos būsena nesanti taškas, bet ilgesnis ar trumpesnis laiko tarpas, kai pakitimų suma esanti minimali. Tas tarpas gali būti dešimt metų, žmonių karta, šimtmetis ar netgi daugiau. 88 | ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS Some aspects of the historical development of the names under study should not be disregarded. For, from a synchronic perspective, language reveals not only the systemic relations between names. In the semantic structure of many a name, the relations of word-formation motivation or semantic derivation are still keenly felt. They are the result of the historical development of a word and are generally studied by the specialized science of etymology; however, if they are keenly felt by language users and used to form new designations, they are also a reality of language synchrony. 2.3.1. The inventory of the nominative systems for the “hook” figure under study consists mainly of various names for agricultural implements and household utensils, as well as tools used in crafts closely associated with farming. These curved tools or devices often have several names, formed on the basis of different nominative features. Let us take, for example, the names of the implement used to pull hay from the side (a long pole with one, and sometimes even three, prongs at the end). The LKŽ gives the following examples: pešėklis, peštukas, šienpešys (šienpešis, šienpeša, šienpešė) – referring to its function, and kobinyš, kablys, kūkis – based on a nominative feature (from the perspective of today’s language user), its curved shape. Several names for the same tool may be used even in the same dialect. For instance, in the Northern Samogitian Telšiai subdialect, alongside kōbinio (Žarėnai, Telšiai, Alsėdžiai, Žemaičių Kalvarija), šienpešis (Plateliai, Šatės, Skuodas) and šienpešys (Alsėdžiai) are also used; in the Western Aukštaitian Kaunas subdialect, alongside peštuko (Veliuona, Serėdžius, Aukštoji Panemunė), kūkis is also used (Zapyškis, Darsūniškis). The name a speaker chooses in conversation to refer to one or another curved tool apparently depends both on how widespread the name is in the dialect and on the circumstances of the interaction. 2.3.2. If we wish to identify the most general names among this variety of tool names, we must take two things into account when examining individual utterances. First of all, we must establish the broadest reference of such names. Because of their aforementioned position in the nominative system (determined a priori), in certain communicative situations these names may stand in for more familiar, more specific names for tools. The communicative circumstances in which one, more general term substitutes for another, more specific one, may vary. For example, a respondent may try to describe to the questioner-transcriber a term “unknown” to the latter by using a more familiar hyperonym with a broader meaning. Such a speech situation becomes apparent, for instance, when reading a sentence recorded in Varniai: They cut off the flax heads, comb them with combs, that is, with 6–7 hooks. Or another example: In the manor, they turn the manure with such hooks (Šakyna). Here, a term with a broader scope is used in place of one with a narrower scope to “even out” the difference in the speaker’s and listener’s knowledge. In other cases, the speaker uses the general name because they cannot recall the name of some tool (rarely used), as, for example, in a sentence from Kantaučiai: That hook had a name, didn’t it? There may be other conversational circumstances that prompt such shifts in terminology. 2.3.3. On the other hand, in establishing that a particular name has the broadest reference, we must also pay attention to its semantic structure, that is, reconstruct it as a polysemous word. Since this general word manifests itself through many specific meanings in speech acts, we must determine which of them are regular (established in usage) and which are occasional, derived from „KABLIO“ FIGŪROS NOMINACINĖS SISTEMOS RAIŠKA | 89 the primary meaning for a particular speech event by applying rules of semantic transfer. Some of the regular meanings become so firmly established in usage that language users normally associate them directly with the word, as signified with signifier. The number of regular meanings not only attests to a word’s nominative potential but also anchors it in the language system. Here it should be remembered that the general meaning of the words under examination (or, from the perspective of nomination, their primary meaning) is not an abstraction from conventional meanings, but one of the word’s meanings that actually functions in the language. The word is used in this sense not only in the substitution cases mentioned above, but also in comparative constructions as the standard of comparison, e.g.: Motka toj susisukus kap kriūkūtis (Jieżnas); Sudžiūvo kaip kobinis (Klyk̇oliai), and so on. In other cases, words with a general meaning are used descriptively, e.g.: Iš kobinio medžio (that is, from a two-pronged implement in the shape of a “hook”) they make tools for scraping hides (Žiḋikai). This general meaning is also usually exploited in metaphors (cf. the sentence from Ėriškiai: The herons’ hook cackled its way south). In addition, the so-called determinative compounds should be mentioned here: kabli anosis (Papilys, Palėvenė, Ėriškiai, Miežiškiai, Pagiriai), kriūkanosis (Rūdninkai, Peleṡa), kakianosis (Prienai), kabliadantis (Krekenava), kriūkagalvis (Rudamina), and so on. In these compounds, the first element likewise represents the general meaning of a curved object. Thus, in attempting to construct a model of the system of meanings of the names in question, this general meaning of a curved object should be given priority. From a synchronic perspective, the other regular meanings should be regarded as derivatives of this general meaning, although from a diachronic perspective some of them may have appeared earlier in usageⁱ⁰. And although regular meanings often seem to participate directly in acts of naming, even in such cases the researcher should discern the primary meaning lying in the background. 2.4. An in-depth examination of the semantics of such a unified designator will inevitably require us to answer the following questions: what gives rise to the derivational power of the primary meaning, how this power relates to the name’s nominative potential (the latter presupposes systemic relations extending beyond the word), and what the semantic structure of this primary meaning is. 2.4.1. We should acknowledge that the highest status of the names under discussion in nominative systems, or their greatest paradigmatic value (for the term, see Ufimtceva 1977: 24.), depends to a large extent on the derivational power of their primary meaning or, at the onomasiological level, on the strength of their nominative feature. Such words most often have the greatest number of derived meanings or, on the basis of the same nominative feature, can name the greatest number of objects in reality. It is precisely such words that are best suited, at the level of language, to represent the images of figurative perception. This suitability stems from the fact that the concept of the primary meaning of these words is MOST CLOSELY associated with the corresponding figure. In our case, one should assume that the notion of curvature expressed by the primary meaning is most closely associated with the “hook” figure. It is therefore clear that the derivational power of the primary meaning of the names in question stems from the curved- element that dominates its structure. 10 This seems to be the case with kōbinio: the abundance of attestations would seem to indicate that this word formerly referred primarily to a long pole with a curved end, used for pulling hay or for other purposes. Even today, this name competes in the dialect with the names šienpešio and vertėklio. Similarly, the use of this word in Samogitian or Southern Aukštaitian dialects—that is, away from the area where it functions as the principal name for the “hook” figure—seems to indicate that it was formerly used in Lithuanian to name a device for HANGING things. 90 | ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS … of the feature. This feature enters into the semantic composition of all derived meanings and functions as a hyperseme11 in relation to them. In this way, hyperonymic (inclusion) relations are established between the primary meaning and the derived meanings. Words used in separate (derived) meanings function in the language as names for specific curved-form tools, which we could call ACTUAL NOMINATORS. Since, as we have already mentioned, these tools usually also have other names (formed by predicating other features of these real-world objects), the aforementioned actual nominators, by competing with the latter in the language, also bring them into hyponymic relations with the word of the most general meaning. Such is the path by which the nominative systems under discussion come into being. 2.4.2. Applying the criterion of number of meanings, we can already provisionally identify the main dialectal names for the “hook” figure. The more precise method for determining them will be discussed later. Now we shall try to examine the semantic composition of these words’ primary meaning, paying attention to the derivational meaning where it is still alive. As already mentioned, kablys in the eastern Aukštaitian dialect, kobinys in the northeastern Samogitian dialect, and kebėklis (kibėklis) in the northwestern, western, and southwestern Samogitian dialects are suffix derivatives of the verb kabinti ‘to hang’, in which the instrumental derivational meaning is still retained. In this respect, they are no different from other tool names discussed in this study, for example: pešėklis, peštukas, vertėklis, vertyklė, and so on. In such names, the nominative feature is expressed by the first constituent of the derivative. It is generally indicated by the action denoted by the verb serving as the derivational base. This action, in turn, describes the general purpose or function of the tool named by the derivative. Thus, kablys is derivationally a tool for (what?) kabinti ‘hanging’, while pešėklis is, correspondingly, a tool for (what?) pešti ‘plucking’, and so forth. One can imagine that this was the path taken when naming specific tools used to carry out particular tasks. Thus, alongside their general derivational meaning, such names immediately acquired a specific lexical meaning corresponding to the nature of the task. 2.4.3. Such nomina instrumenti names can also have derived meanings. Their number apparently depends on the breadth of the action idea expressed by their primary meaning. We could reasonably argue that the reference of names expressing the idea of hanging is broader than that of names expressing the ideas of turning or plucking. Thus, the primary meanings of such words have greater derivational potential and may have several derived meanings. It should be noted, however, that names whose primary meaning is dominated by the nominative feature of function are not well suited to establishing relations among names. Stability of semantic features is important for the systemic relations that become established between concepts and the words representing them. Yet the nominative feature of function characterizing one tool name or another is not stable. After all, the purpose of such tools often changes: they may be used for purposes other than those for which they were intended, or, in other words, the same tools may be used to perform several functions. For example, pešėklis is used not only to pull hay from the hayloft but also to draw flax from the retting pool; būsokas12 is used 11 Šį terminą vartoja Nikitinas (1988: 61) kalbėdamas apie intensionalo semantinę struktūrą. Intensionalu jis vadina semantinių požymių visumą, apibrėžiančią denotatų klasę. Semantine apimtimi intensionalas atitiktų mūsų pirminę reikšmę. 12 And if we turn to the origin of the name, we will see that at first the word referred to a ship’s hook (German Bootshaken), that is, a hook for pushing or pulling a ship. „KABLIO“ FIGŪROS NOMINACINĖS SISTEMOS RAIŠKA | 91 not only for demolishing the walls of buildings in the event of a fire but also, when necessary, for drawing a bucket of water from a well, and so on. 2.4.4. It seems far more advantageous to group tools systematically according to their shape, applying to them one or another spatial figure from the repertoire of figurative vision. In any case, linguistic analysis shows that this approach is used to form nominative systems for hook-shaped tools and similar objects. Concepts of spatial configurations are convenient as a means of semantic grouping because they are perceived more or less uniformly by all language users. Moreover, the nominative features based on them are more stable than the corresponding functional features. Thus, the taxonomy of fundamental concepts takes shape within the scope of figurative vision. Nominative systems developing on this basis correspond to our mind’s natural inclination to perceive objects in the external world as images. 2.4.5. Returning to the previously mentioned names for the “hook” figure, which still have a derivational relationship with the verb kabinti ‘to hang’, it is easy to observe that the feature of hanging function in their primary meaning structure NECESSARILY implies the feature of curved shape. In other words, any tool intended for performing the action of hanging implies a “hook.” Over time, the feature of hanging function, which was most important during derivation, gives way to the more universal, and therefore taxonomically more effective, feature of curved shape. Thus, the seme of curved shape comes to dominate the primary meaning structure of the names kablio, kabinio bei kebeklio. It is now this feature that determines the nature of their derived meanings. It should also be noted that the feature of hanging function does not disappear from the primary meaning of the names in question. It merely changes places with the feature of curved shape: now the feature of shape implies function. 2.4.6. The most general word used in the eastern part of the Western Aukštaitian Kaunas subdialect is kūkis, a derivative formed with the ending -is from the verb kūkti ‘to bend, curve’. Since this verb is used in the same area, the relationship between kūkio and kūkti remains alive for the aforementioned Western Aukštaitians: the derivative and its base word share the semantic feature of curved shape, which means that the derivational meaning of kūkio as the result of an action (nomina acti) is still clearly felt alongside the meanings of more specific tool names that developed later. In this case, derivation determines that the word’s primary meaning has had its derivational potential based from the outset on the nominative feature of curved shape that dominates within it. The latter necessarily implies the general feature of hanging function. Together, these two features form the basis of the primary meaning. As in the cases discussed earlier, we could describe it as denoting any curved-form tool, or simply a “hook.” 2.4.7. For Western Aukštaitian Kaunas speakers in the western part of the area, the most general name for the “hook” figure is vąšas. Strictly speaking synchronically, it should be treated as a simple, non-derived word. This means that for speakers of the language today, this word has neither a derivational structure nor a derivational meaning. A comparison of dialect data suggests that vąšo may once have had a narrower meaning. Apparently, this name is associated with the function of HANGING. For example, among Samogitians, vąšas is a “hook” for hanging a pot over a hearth while cooking. In the southeastern part of the Southern Aukštaitian area, vąšų is the pole of a well sweep fitted with a “hook.” The word vąšas is scarcely recorded in the Western Aukštaitian Šiauliai subdialect; however, the form used there, vąškaras (vąškarys, vąškarys), meaning a pot or bucket handle, strap, indicates that for speakers of this subdialect, vąšas also once meant a hanging device. 92 ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS Returning to the discussion of the original meaning of this name and its derivational capacity, the latter, it seems, should be associated only with the feature of a curved shape that dominates the word’s semantic structure. Of course, this necessarily implies the general feature of hanging, and the latter, in turn, the instrumental function of the objects named. But vąšas, as a virtual word capable of naming any other curved tool, is not derivationally motivated. Therefore, compared with the names discussed earlier, this one should be more suitable for secondary nominations. The taxonomy it encompasses of other names should likewise be less complicated. From a synchronic perspective, it should simply be regarded as a matter of convention that speakers chose the sound form vašo to name one of the figures in their figurative perception. The broadest reference of this name (and hence the derivational capacity of its original meaning) rests simply on its highest status in the system, which in turn derives from the closest association between the word’s meaning and the image of the “hook” figure in the speaker’s mind. 2.4.8. The same could be said of the name kriūko. Being a borrowing, it is, of course, not derivationally motivated. This word’s nominative potential and the derivational capacity of its original meaning are simply related to the position it occupies in the system of names for curved tools. According to the Atlas of the Lithuanian Language (LKA, 56), kriūkas (and its phonetic variants), meaning a door-hanging device, is widespread throughout Lithuania. This word has the status of the most general name for the “hook” figure only in the southern part of the Southern Aukštaitian dialect and perhaps in the Eastern Aukštaitian Vilnius dialect. In Lithuanian dialects, kriūkas most likely spread together with some farming tool or household device that had arrived from elsewhere. This may have been the aforementioned door-hanging device. In the nominative systems under discussion, such a name did not initiate structural changes and occupied a peripheral position. Its spread in the nominative system of the aforementioned borderland dialects should be associated primarily with groups of bilingual people living in these areas13. It is reasonable to assume that, when comparing the respective nominative systems, a member of the local bilingual community may have found the Belarusian name for the “hook” figure, kpyk, more suitable (for example, because of its broader reference) than its Lithuanian equivalent. Once established in the Lithuanian dialect’s nominative system, kriūkas displaced its own general name to the periphery, thus structurally reorganizing the nominative system in question. 2.5. In attempting to identify the analogues of “hook” from the LKŽK material available to us and to delineate as precisely as possible their distribution across Lithuanian dialects, we can take one of two approaches. The first approach would rely on the claim that a name’s naming capacity is determined by the number of its regular meanings. Thus, in selecting the most general items from the various curved-shape names collected in the LKŽK, we would apply the CRITERION OF NUMBER OF MEANINGS. Following the second approach, the key would be to identify cases in which the words under study are used in their most general meaning, that is, simply to name the “hook” figure. We have already discussed the ACTUAL functioning of such meanings in the language (dialect) system. In this case, the greatest attention should be paid to the semantic syntax of the fragments of communicative acts—utterances—contained in the LKŽK. By this we mean not only the aforementioned 13 Žr. Karaliūnas (1997: 356), kur autorius teigia, jog „kalbos įtakos laidininkai ir interferencijos sukėlėjai yra bilingviai visuomenės nariai“. „KABLIO“ FIGŪROS NOMINACINĖS SISTEMOS RAIŠKA | 93 cases in which words with the most general meanings serve as the standard of comparison in comparative constructions, but also those in which they are used (usually in predicative position) in a descriptive (attributive or qualificative) function. The latter uses are usually related to the relationship between old and new information (topic and comment) in an utterance. The content of a word in subject position is not IDENTIFIED by the predicative description (the utterance would then be meaningless!), but QUALIFIED by being subsumed under a broader concept. A hyponymic-hyperonymic relationship is established between the concepts expressed by the two words (between the nominations in the two positions)14. When an object is newly introduced into a communicative act (in introductory position), its name is likewise chosen to have as general a meaning as possible, that is, one pointing to the features of the class of such objects. For example: He wrote such a kobinukas (Tauragė). The class of objects is also indicated in such cases by a demonstrative or indefinite pronoun with existential meaning used alongside the name (cf. also: On that fishing rod, they hooked some kind of kōbinį (Sedà)). We have hurriedly listed here by no means all cases in which a name is used in utterances in its most general meaning and thus directly emerges as a particular dialect’s virtual name for the “hook” figure. We will return to these matters. 2.5.1. Comparing the two methods presented here, it is easy to see that the results obtained by following the second approach can be used to check (or adjust) the data obtained by applying the criterion of number of meanings. Therefore, in our further research, we will attempt to combine the results obtained by both methods. One method is insufficient also because the LKŽK data are incomplete and uneven in nature. Following the first approach, we must reconstruct a polysemous word from individual instances of use (the lexicographer’s approach), and discern within it a virtual word with an original (nominative) meaning. Ideally, the examples collected in the LKŽK would adequately and sufficiently reflect (that is, more or less in proportion to frequency of use) the distribution of the individual meanings of the words under study across the dialects. Unfortunately, for some dialects there is insufficient data even to confirm one meaning or another, although the speakers of those dialects are undoubtedly familiar with the corresponding curved tools. Therefore, the virtual word must be reconstructed on the basis of certain assumptions. Such a lack of data may affect the precision with which the boundaries of the nominative systems in question can be determined. Following the second approach, the sought-after virtual word is not abstracted from individual instances of use, but rather inferred directly from the word’s signification. Here, a large volume of data is less important; it is enough simply to know that “this is what people say” in the dialect, that is, that one word rather than another is used in a particular syntactic position (performing a defined semantic function there). 2.6. We will now discuss the method based on the criterion of number of meanings in greater depth. In applying it, we will rely on two assumptions. The first is that, at the level of language synchrony, the number of meanings of a word becomes an indicator of its nominative potential. The second assumption is that the so-called position of things is the same across the areas covered by Lithuanian dialects. Let us consider each assumption separately. 2.6.1. In explaining the first assumption, we will note that it, in turn, rests on another assumption: that the general, conceptual meaning of a word developed over time from individual 14A definition is nothing other than a taxonomic formulation of the concept expressed by the subject. It is in this way that old information in the utterance (related to the subject) is transferred to a new level of knowledge (the rheme). 94 | ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS meanings of words denoting objects15. However, in the synchronic language system, this general meaning has become the basis of the latter, and it is this basis that determines new possibilities for naming the word. We now speak of the general meaning as primary, while the remaining meanings are derivative in relation to it. Their number not only attests to the derivational power of the primary meaning. In the language user’s mind, these meanings have developed into a certain semantic paradigm, a model by which one learns to expand them. New nominations emerge by following this path. 2.6.2. In the language system, a word becomes established not only when used in its general meaning, as a nominative word (for the term, see Jakaitienė 1988: 24), but also through its derivative meanings, especially its regular meanings. Moreover, it is established not only as linguistic memory (of word-signs), but also as competence (learned rules of semantic derivation). The number of a word’s derivative meanings is externally regulated by the nominational needs of the speech community. Here we come to the second premise concerning the uniform distribution of objects across dialects. The similarity in the economic activities of Lithuania’s dialect communities, mentioned above, would also entail the identity of the curved tools they use. In theory, the general names for the “hook” shape under consideration should encompass all these tools. It is therefore highly likely that in the semantic paradigm of these names at least some meanings denoting the tools mentioned above have become established as regular. We can now formulate the criterion of the number of meanings more precisely: THE NUMBER OF REGULAR MEANINGS BECOMES AN INDICATOR OF A WORD’S NOMINATIVE POTENTIAL. 2.6.3. In principle, it is not difficult to distinguish a word’s regular meanings from its occasional ones. Understanding words used in the latter meanings usually depends on context. Nominations based on them are therefore described as indirect. They are understood only through an intermediate contextual word (or words) (cf.: The cranes’ hook clattered off to the south (Eriškiai) – the SUPPORTING word needed to understand the nomination of the hook here is cranes). Indirect nomination is resorted to for expressive purposes; the object being named has another, conventional name. Clearly, a certain regularity can also be discerned here: for example, people (usually old) hunched over, or people’s noses, are commonly called “hooks,” and so on. Because such meanings (functional words) depend on a defined set of contextual (supporting) words, their nominative capacity, to use M. V. Nikitin’s term, is very low. These nominations belong more to speech acts than to the language system. 2.6.4. The use of words in their regular meanings is far less dependent on context. Researchers recognize these meanings by their frequency of use. We shall assume that this frequency is reflected, at least approximately, in the LKŽK data. However, in view of the above-mentioned unevenness in compiling the card index, one should not rely solely on the number of occurrences16. Here, knowledge of the lan- 15 By “objects” here we mean not particular objects in reality, but classes of objects. Names for various curved tools (even those with a narrow purpose) originated not as names for particular tools, but as designations for certain classes. Thus, from the outset, their nomination was based on identifying the (essential) common features of the relevant groups of tools. Only in speech acts do we use them to refer to a particular pešeklis, a particular kanabėkas, and so on. 16 The frequency of use of a meaning, and hence its regularity, should be assessed even more cautiously on the basis of LKŽ entries. It is understandable that, owing to the chosen lexicographic method and lack of data, one meaning or another may not be assigned regular status; yet this status is often assigned to an obviously occasional use. „KABLIO“ FIGŪROS NOMINACINĖS SISTEMOS RAIŠKA | 95 The method of INTERNAL INTROSPECTION is used quite widely by semanticists. We have already noted that some meanings have become so firmly established in usage that speakers’ minds often associate them directly with the sound form of the word, as signified with signifier. In speech acts, words are used in these meanings as independent nominators. In a certain sense, they too could be considered (monosemous) nominative words. Thus, having at hand a greater or smaller number of instances of monosemous use, a researcher could additionally assess the regularity of a meaning by drawing on linguistic intuition, which would tell them how strongly that meaning is associated with the sound form of the word. In semiotic terms, the researcher’s task in this case would be to determine, through introspection, the degree of “signness” of the nominations17. 2.6.5. These would be internal criteria for determining the regularity of meanings, based on language use and competence. However, external criteria related to the need for nominations should not be ruled out either. In our specific case, it is most likely that the meanings with the greatest regularity in the semantic paradigms of general names for the “hook” shape are those that refer to tools most commonly used in economic activity. These are the tools most familiar to members of the speech community and most frequently mentioned in speech. Therefore, having selected those tools, we can reasonably expect their nominations by a general word to be regular as well. In our view, two criteria would suffice for selecting these tools. First, the tool must be used throughout Lithuania under the words being studied (and its corresponding meaning must be known). Second, these tools must be associated with traditional occupations. The LKŽK material shows that, to reliably determine the establishment of “hook” equivalents in one dialect or another, it would suffice to record data on the nominations of six or seven of the most common tools by these words of the broadest meaning. 2.6.6. With all this in mind, we selected tools used for the following tasks: turning manure out of a cart, pulling hay from a haystack or from the end of a hayloft, fishing, crocheting, and twisting ropes. We then record the names of these tools using the names for curved tools with the broadest reference (the greatest number of meanings), as attested in specific locations. We have already established that the words with the greatest number of meanings are: kebėklis (kibėklis), kobinys, kablys, kriūkas, kūkis, vašas. Taking examples of expressions collected in the LKŽK in which these words refer to the tools mentioned above, we consider such reference to attest the corresponding regular meanings of the words under study, which could be defined by descriptions of the purposes of the tools listed above. In other words, th- 17 The problem of meaning regularity is partly related to the problem of the status of a polysemous word’s meaning within the system of nominative means. The latter can be understood as the problem of determining the strength of the connection between a word’s meanings (designata) and its general designator. In Nikitin’s view (1983: 59), the strength of this connection is determined primarily by the following factors: a) NOMINATION METHOD (i.e. whether the designatum’s connection with the designator is direct or mediated); b) FREQUENCY OF USE; c) REFERENTIAL SUFFICIENCY (a meaning acquired through direct nomination has greater referential sufficiency than one acquired through indirect nomination); d) DERIVATIONAL RELATIONS (a word meaning with a longer derivational chain aspires to a higher status); e) SYNTAGMATIC LEXICAL RELATIONS (lexical combinability); f) CONCRETENESS OR ABSTRACTNESS OF MEANING (concrete meanings are imprinted more distinctly in the speaker’s mind and are therefore more readily activated there). Of this list, the point most relevant to our study appears to be derivational relations. When data on the spread of a meaning (and hence its regularity) in a dialect are lacking, the use of derivatives formed from it could provide indirect evidence. For example, the verb vašúoti ‘to soften a hide’ is widespread in the southwestern part of the Western Aukštaitian Kaunas subdialect, and attests to the use there of the base word vašas in the sense of a hide-softening tool, although the LKŽK lacks data on this (for further discussion, see Mikulskas 1995: 59–60). 96 | ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS … geographically, we record the use of the aforementioned six words with these regular meanings: ‘a tool for unloading manure from a cart’, ‘a tool for pulling hay from a haystack or from the end of a hayloft’, ‘a fishing tool’, ‘a crocheting tool’, ‘a device for twisting ropes’. To these we also add a somewhat more general meaning: ‘a tool for pulling something down while it is hanging’. This would allow us to define the meaning of a word referring to a tool of more general purpose. We would describe it as a long pole with a bent end, used for pulling logs from a river, drawing water, retrieving a sunken bucket from a well, pulling down the walls of buildings during a fire, and so on. To clarify what is meant, we provide several examples from Eastern Aukštaitija: 1. People come running with buckets, with hooks, wherever it’s burning, that’s how it used to be (Leliūnai). 2. The bucket came loose; now we’re fishing for it with a hook (Krinčinas). 3. Kablỹs, where they pull flax out of the scutching device (Naujamiestis)18. However, this meaning was also selected because it determined the meanings of numerous verb derivatives whose base words are some of the nouns we selected. Consider such derived verbs as važúoti (: važàs) and kabliúoti (: kablỹs). First, the meanings of these derivatives further illustrate the prevalence in the dialect of the corresponding meanings of their base words. Second, we could even claim that the latter, through the former, seem to have “taken root” in one dialect or another. This idea is also supported by the figurative use of the aforementioned derived verbs, which, among other things, indirectly attests to the expansion of the meanings of the base words and, at the same time, to their broader naming potential in the respective dialect. For example, in two separate dialects (Western and Eastern Aukštaitian), derived verbs with the derivational meaning ‘to manipulate the object denoted by the base word (a curved tool)’ begin, by association, to mean another externally similar action, ‘to scoop (with a spoon), to eat greedily’; yet each of the aforementioned dialects has its “own” word for this: for Western Aukštaitians, it is (iš)važúoti, and for Eastern Aukštaitians, (iš-, pa-, už)kabliúoti. 2.6.7. The locations where general names for the “hook” shape have been recorded with the six meanings listed above are presented in a table and on a map at the end of the article. Ideally, using this methodology, the use of the corresponding general name would be recorded with all six meanings in every location included in the table. Unfortunately, because the card index was compiled unevenly and unsystematically, its data are incomplete in this respect¹⁹. Therefore, assuming that dialects—and hence their lexicons—are characterized by a certain coherence, we take the names in question to be regularly used with all six meanings at the locations entered in the table and marked on the map²⁰ (on the map, we can even use a uniform symbol to emphasize this fact)²¹. In this way, we obtain a preliminary picture of the compact distribution of “hook” analogues across the dialects 18 Also compare the idiom widespread here su kabliù traukti žõdį (iš burnõs) ‘to draw words out of someone with difficulty, e.g.: Just talk when you get there, so you won’t have to pull the word out of his mouth with a little hook (Surėdigis). 19 For example, kāblio use is recorded with reasonably adequate coverage only in Kupiškis District within its distribution area. For several years in a row, expeditions of LKŽ staff led by Dr. K. Vosyl y tė were organized to this district. 20 Provided that those places are not distant from the area of compact use of the name. 21 If this assumption is accepted, the degree of regularity of a meaning should be inferred cautiously from the number of its attestations in a dialect. Only exceptionally numerous attestations in L.KŽK would in this case indicate that the meaning is popular, and vice versa. „KABLIO“ FIGŪROS NOMINACINĖS SISTEMOS RAIŠKA | 97 picture. We will later refine the boundaries of the use of general names, and thus of the spread of the nominative systems they dominate, by recording those dialect utterances in which these names directly point to their significative meaning. 2.7. Earlier, when discussing the structure of nominative systems, we spoke about relations of substitution. Now, before taking another step that will allow us to refine the spread of GENERAL NOMINATORS22 in dialects, we would like to take a closer look at the possibilities and benefits of applying the term SUBSTITUTION to our study. Before doing so, however, we should discuss in greater depth the term REFERENCE, which is closely related to this term. As should already be clear, we use the latter to describe the naming possibilities (nominative potential) of a word-name. Words, as linguistic signs, represent or—in the course of communication—stand for non-linguistic objects of reality. As we have already mentioned, they do so by expressing these objects in a generalized way. Thus, a word symbolizes not a particular object of reality, but a certain ideal of it, consisting of the essential features of objects of that kind. These features or characteristics constitute the conceptual content of the word as a linguistic sign. From the perspective of language use, a word-sign is characterized by intensionality. In expressing one concept or another, it is always directed toward a certain class of objects of reality; that is, as a name, it is suitable for all the elements making up that class and is capable of naming them. Moreover, the breadth of certain concepts expressed by words (the commonality of the features that constitute them) means that, by similarity, they can also name elements of another class of objects. In this way, in the course of nominative activity, a narrower class of objects is included in a broader class. The elements of classes (broader or narrower), as possible objects of naming, constitute the reference of a word-name. It is a quantitative characteristic of the word, reflecting the range of possible nominations it can make as a name. We might say that the reference of a name exists in linguistic consciousness as the memory of its past communicative roles and an anticipation of its future communicative roles (partly dependent on those past roles). However, it is defined not only by all instances of past use, but also by the paradigmatic value or status of the name in its own nominative system. 2.7.1. From what has been said, it is clear that we understand the reference of a word as a concept at the level of language. It defines the scope of a name as a unit of the nominative system of language. When discussing the scope of concepts and meanings (which he essentially does not distinguish), Nikitin (1988: 50) uses the term extension (defining the content of meaning as intension). For this linguist, reference is a concept at the level of speech, that is, he uses it to refer to what a word realized in a particular utterance points to (names). Since these matters will also be relevant to us, we will use the term DENOTATION for them. A word, as a name with a broader or narrower reference, when realized in an utterance points to or denotes (designates) a particular object of reality or a class of objects. Thus, here it may have a particular denotation (designating a particular object) or a general denotation (designating any member of a class or the class as a whole in corpore). Below we give three utterances from the Samogitian dialect in which the same name vertėklės has a different denotation: 22We believe that this newly introduced term more precisely defines the central name of the nominative systems with a hierarchical structure under examination, as a means of secondary nominations. In what follows, however, we will not entirely abandon the old term—general name. 98 | ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS 1. Su vertekle liuob versti mėšlus [from the cart] into the field (Girdiškė). 2. That hook, so these nails had been bent (Endriejavas). 3. Ta ten su verteklem išėmė [something] (Seda). A vertekle, as we can see, is a tool for unloading manure from a cart into a field. Local residents describe it as a fork with bent tines (more often) or as a kobinys or kebėklis (less often). Essentially, this would be the intension of the word's meaning, or its semantic content. The reference of this name is the class of manure-unloading tools. It is unlikely to be used for a broader nomination (at least, no such use has been recorded). In the first two cases, verteklė stands for the entire class of these tools, so its denotation is the class of vertekles. This coincides with the name's sui generis reference23. The third example refers to particular vertekles used to carry out a particular task. In this case, the name's denotation is particular; it does not coincide with its reference as a unit of the nominative system. Incidentally, even here one may discern a reference to the aforementioned class of tools. In the case of a particular denotation, however, this reference seems to recede into the background. We would say that it does not surface at the level of communication, since referring to the class as well would be redundant for the information being conveyed and the communicative task. For the recipient of information, the listener, usually only the content of the message matters. For the researcher studying an utterance, however, what represents that content is always important as well. It is therefore difficult for them not to notice that, in speech, units with a broader semantic scope are always used to refer to particular things. This is because they also view a particular utterance from the perspective of the language system: its elements, its words, are always seen as realizations of units in the nominative system with broader or narrower references. In short, for an ordinary participant in a communicative act, words usually merely stand for the objects of reality being discussed, whereas for a language researcher, in addition to representation, they also perform a descriptive function. 2.7.2. Utterances in which names with broader reference denote classes of objects with narrower scope, or particular members of those classes—objects of reality—allow us to speak of relations of substitution in the course of a nominative act. More specifically, we are interested in cases where the substitution function is performed by general names with the broadest reference—the dominants of the nominative systems under examination. First, however, we should clarify to what extent the use of the term substitution is justified. In generating an utterance, the speaker chooses word-names (from the inventory of the nominative system) depending on their intentions, the listener's knowledge, and the communicative situation—in general, the circumstances in which the conversation takes place. For example, when speaking about the tools we are examining, the speaker will choose one name when communicating with someone from their own circle, when speech is merely one component of their collective work, a means of coordinating actions; they will choose another name for the same tool when speaking with someone from a different social environment (in the LKŽK utterances, the listener is often the person recording the words, a linguist, and thus someone from an urban environment). In speaking with the latter, the speaker tries not so much to point out the object in question as to describe it. In this way, by appealing to a “shared fund of knowledge,” the disparity in the participants' knowledge in the communicative act is “evened out.” In such cases, what is most often chosen is a gen- 23 In the second case, the general denotation is still marked by a demonstrative with existential meaning. „KABLIO“ FIGŪROS NOMINACINĖS SISTEMOS RAIŠKA | 99 a more general meaning, indicating that the tool in question belongs to a particular species. Such a name refers to the tool’s membership in a narrower or broader class of tools of that kind (formed on the basis of similarity in a feature or in a feature and function). Sometimes a general name serves only a descriptive function, denoting nothing24. This is usually the case in predicative descriptions, e.g.: A manure-turner – for turning manure out of a cart kobiny s (Židikai). Thus, if the speaker succeeds in solving the communicative task adequately, it can be said that in each speech act a “suitable” name is chosen. Therefore, it would be inaccurate to speak of replacing some names with others at the level of communication. Deliberately choosing a different name would also change the overall meaning of the utterance. However, a researcher with a hierarchically organized model of the nominative system before them can say that, under certain communicative circumstances, some units of the system (usually those with broader reference) can replace other units (those with narrower reference). From this perspective, the term substitution describes the speaker’s choice of names as a one-way movement of linguistic consciousness: names with a more general meaning (broader reference) substitute for specific terms with narrower reference, but not vice versa. Our immediate task would be to learn to recognize these cases of substitution in utterances and also to show, at least in general terms, the communicative circumstances in which this “replacement” of names usually occurs. 2.7.3. The examples of dialect utterances collected in LKŽK are minimal contexts that allow us to judge, at least approximately, the circumstances of the conversation: the speaker’s communicative attitudes, the type of listener, the speech situation, and so on. By comparing utterances from different areas of the same nominative system, in which names of different reference (hyponymically related) are chosen, we can often infer the motives for the different choices. For example, compare the sentences from Viekšniai: 1. Where did you put the verteklį, do we have to go and unload the manure from the cart? 2. Manure is turned with a kōbiniu. In the first case, in an ordinary speech situation, when the addressee is someone from one’s own community who participates in shared agricultural work, the specific tool is named using the word customary in that locality (farther north, vertūklė is also used; farther west, vertēklė). Here, a specific real-world object is denoted. In the second case, however, the speaker is apparently explaining to someone from another setting (the town) what kind of tool is generally used to unload manure (from a cart in the fields). Here the denotation is general—it indicates (describes) a class of tools of a particular kind. The denotation of the name in the latter utterance becomes clear from the inferred circumstances of the conversation; as in many similar cases, it is not fixed at the level of the text. Such specification is also possible, however. Indefinite or demonstrative pronouns with existential meaning usually indicate membership in a class of objects, e.g.: 24 We will discuss later the usefulness of such non-referential word usage for our study. 100 | ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS 3. In the barn, they used to spread manure with SUCH hooks (Šakyna). Denotation can also be marked by grammatical means, for example, by using the past frequentative tense, cf.: 4. With a fork THEY USED TO SPREAD (= used to spread) manure [from the cart] across the field (Girdiškė). In examples (2, 3), where the tool is named with the same word that also serves as a general nominator in this area, the relationship between the reference of the name and its denotation is not obvious. Theoretically, these two quantities may be of two kinds. Kobinys in this area primarily refers to the entire class of curved tools. In that case, its reference would be broader than the class of manure-spreading tools denoted in the sentences mentioned. However, only further investigation of usage can reveal whether this word can also have the regular meaning of the tool in question. Then its reference would be equal to that of another name for the same tool—verteklių (vertyklės, vertekles)—and in the utterances mentioned this would be equal to the extent of the denoted class of tools (cf. example 4 in this respect). 2.7.4. Investigation of the distribution of several names for the same tool in a given area shows that usually one name predominates in a locality, while another (or others) occurs much less frequently. This need not be a specific name for the tool, which most often points to its function. A general nominator widespread in that locality may also serve as the principal name for one tool (or implement) or another. We are referring to its regular meanings. The essential features of a particular class of tools that make up the content of these meanings in such cases “fit” within the primary meaning of the general name, which, as we have already established, is usually a reflection of figurative perception of objects. We will illustrate these claims with several examples. Telšiai Samogitians in the north, as well as the northeastern fringe of the Varniškiai Samogitians in the south (the area could be delimited by a line running Šatės–Alsėdžiai–Plungė–Rietavas–Laukuva–Karklėnai–Šaukenai–Kuršėnai–Šakyna–Žagārė; see the map at the end of the article), use the word kobinẏs as a general name for curved tools. The same word is also regularly used in this area to refer to a hay-pulling tool. When asked what a kobinẏs is, some respondents directly point to this tool (which attests to the status of the meaning), for example: 1. A kobinys is a device used to pull hay (Telšiai). Cf. also: 2. The kobinys was large. Three such little kobinukai (the latter word has a general meaning) (Akmenė). In the northwest of the area indicated, another name also occurs, directly pointing to the tool’s purpose. Several variants have been recorded: šienpeša (Mažeikiai), šienpešis (Šatės, Sedā), šienpešė (Šatės, Barstyčiai, Gegrėnai)25. In this meaning, the denotation of kōbinio as realized in an utterance may be either specific or general, referring to the entire class of tools under discussion. In the latter case, the denotation of kōbinio does not exceed the general denotation of a specific name used in the same way, for example, šienpešio. Suppose, for instance, that— 25 The variation in the stem of this derivative shows that the name is not established or very widespread. „KABLIO“ FIGŪROS NOMINACINĖS SISTEMOS RAIŠKA | 101 in the utterance: I need a hard, hard oak for hay-peeling (Šatės), the name šienpešio may be replaced by kōbinio. Nevertheless, since in the area where kobinȳs is also used as the general name for the “hook” shape, its use is often accompanied by clarification of the purpose of the tool being named26, e.g.: 3. Your nose is like a kobinys for peeling hay (Žemaičių Kalvarija). 4. Kobinys, a hay-peeler (Šatės). 5. Make a kōbinys for peeling hay (Luokė). In this connection, compare also a sentence from the distribution area of kebėklis (kibėklis): 6. Make a new kibėklis for peeling hay; the old one has broken (Mósėdis). Something similar could be said about kāblis, used in the sense of a tool for turning manure. The examples show that this use of the name is customary. The regularity of this meaning is also confirmed by the corresponding derivative used in this area: kabliuoti ‘to turn manure with a hook’ (Dusetos, Surviliškis). Compare also: 1. Take the kāblis, or you won’t have anything with which to turn the manure in the barn (Kamajai). You should see how Adolis turns the manure with a hook—well, his father can’t compare! (Surviliškis). In some places, another name for the tool under discussion is also recorded—mėšlakablis (Šimónys). The emergence of such a compound is easy to explain. Since in this area kablýs is also the general name for the “hook” shape, for the sake of specificity the tool is called mėšlakablis, i.e. one of the types of kāblis. 2.7.5. It should now be clear that it would be difficult to speak of substitution relations in the cases discussed. In this respect, it would probably be more fruitful to focus on names for curved tools that are not also the general area-wide designations. For example, in the area where kebėklis is used, the regular name for the aforementioned hay-peeling tool is pešėklis. This means that under ordinary speaking conditions, this particular name is most likely to be used; compare: Peel with the pešeklis—it’s much easier and faster (Kuliāi). In a different communicative situation, pešėklis in this area may be replaced by the more general-reference name kebėklis. 2.7.6. The examples discussed allow us to define the concept of substitution more precisely. Thus, it makes sense to speak of SUBSTITUTION when, first, a dialect’s usual name is replaced by a general-meaning name in certain communicative circumstances, and, second, the meaning of the usual name is not one of the regular meanings of the general name. 26 For our further inquiry, it is important to note that the need to specify the name indicates that it is used with a general meaning in this area. 102 | ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS 2.8. It is easy to understand that cases of substitution attest to the use of general nominators in one dialect or another. Clear examples of such replacement of names can help determine more precisely the boundaries of the distribution of words with general reference. In this respect, studying dialectal utterances that use names for a device for hanging clothes (a “hook” on the wall) can be very useful. After all, this simple clothes hanger was undoubtedly, or still is, found in every Lithuanian peasant’s home. In many dialects, the device in question has its own long-established names: according to LKŽK data, the word gėmbė was used for it by the western, northern, and southern Samogitian Varniškiai dialects, while the western Aukštaitian Kauniškiai, some southern Aukštaitians (in the southwestern corner), the eastern Aukštaitian Uteniškiai, and neighboring Vilniškiai call a clothes hanger vagiu. Below, we will record those dialectal utterances in which these customary names are replaced by general names, namely kabliu, vašų, kukiu, kebekliu or krūku. 2.8.1. We can add the cases of substitution for gėmbė and vagis to the table of regular meanings of general names, listing them in a separate column. As we have already noted, cases of substitution do not provide comprehensive information about the use of general nominators in Lithuanian dialects. They merely clarify the boundaries of the distribution of general names, which are established by other means. However, even in this respect, this method cannot help us everywhere. First of all, this is because in some regions of Lithuania the aforementioned names apparently are not used at all or occur only rarely. If we are to trust LKŽK data, neither vagis nor gėmbė is the main name for a wall-mounted hanger among the western Aukštaitian Šiauliškiai. Vagis (and even more so gėmbė) seems unfamiliar both in the southern corner of the eastern Aukštaitian Vilniškiai area and in the eastern part of the southern Aukštaitian area. With data from these regions lacking, we also cannot say which words are most commonly used here to name the device in question. 2.8.2. When seeking cases of substitution in dialects where the names vagio ar gėmbės are used, several qualifications must also be made. For example, in the area where kablio predominates (which we could define by the line Žeimėlis – Linkuva – Pakruojis – Šeduva – Baisogala – Surviliškis – Pagiriai – Siesikai – Širvintos – Kriaunos – Molėtai – Labanoras – Linkmenys – Salakas – Zarasai; see the map at the end of the article), a wall-mounted clothes hanger is undoubtedly one of the regular meanings of this word. This is attested not only by numerous examples, but also by the suffix derivative based on this meaning that is common here, hooked (bridesmaid), and by phraseological expressions associated with this situation²⁷, for example: to put someone on the hook (Salamiestis), to sit on the hook (Anykščiai), to leave on the hook (Surdegis), and so on. Only in the eastern part of the area, mainly in the Utena dialect, do the names kāblio, as well as vagio (Šimónys, Duókiškis, Sudeikiai) and kablėlio (Utena, Alanta, Antázavė) also occur. Therefore, in the area where kāblio predominates, as we have already established, it would be difficult to speak of substitution in the name of the device in question. Thus, when listing in the table the places where kab-lys is recorded as being used in the sense of a wall-mounted hanger, we mark not cases of substitution, but another regular meaning of this word, which, together with the others, attests to the spread of a general-purpose name in the region. 2.8.3. We can confidently look for cases of substitution in dialects where vagis is the main name for a wall-mounted hanger. These are the western Aukštaitian Kauniškiai and 27The youngest bridesmaid was usually seated at the end of the table, by the clothes hanger, that is, in a not particularly respectful place. „KABLIO“ FIGŪROS NOMINACINĖS SISTEMOS RAIŠKA | 103 the southwestern corner of the southern Aukštaitian area. In these dialects, vągi replaced vąžas, kūkis, or krūkas, respectively, under certain communicative circumstances. 2.8.4. In Samogitia, the most widespread name for a device for hanging clothes, as we have already mentioned, is gėmbė. Other names occur far less frequently²⁸. In the Samogitian dialect, the customary name gėmbės may be replaced by the general names kebėklio (kibėklio) or kōbinio. 2.8.5. Ultimately, cases of substitution involving both gėmbės and vągio attest to the spread of general nominators in their respective dialects. However, closer examination of the semantic structure of these words seems to suggest that substitution involving the two names is not equally motivated in every case. For example, vągis has retained in many dialectal contexts its old meaning of ‘wooden nail, peg, wedge, etc.’ Therefore, a clothes-hanging device called a vągis is primarily understood as a wooden peg driven into the wall (cf.: In-kalk vągi stienon, bus nor guncė an ko pakart (Seirijai)). Of course, such a hanging device is more convenient if it is curved. But in LKŽK records, contexts that manifest the curvature seme present in this name are very rare (apparently, it is not a primary feature of the word); cf.: 1. Vągis – KŪKIS for hanging clothes or other items (Daukšiai). 2. I saw—it’s a CURVED cherry branch; it’ll make a good little vągelis (Sudeikiai). Therefore, we must suppose that although the name vągio belongs to the nominative system for curved tools, it occupies a peripheral position in that system because the curvature seme is indistinct. It is named by general nominators not so much because of its similarity in shape as because of its general hanging function. As we established earlier, the latter is necessarily implied by the curvature seme in general names²⁹. It is no coincidence that more cases have been recorded in which vągi was replaced by vąžas or krūkas—names that are morphologically unmotivated (deetymologized)—than analogous cases with kūkiu. Because of its living derivational connection with the verb kūkti ‘to bend, droop’, the latter is too clearly associated with the feature of curvature. 2.8.6. The case of gėmbės is quite different. LKŽK contains many contexts showing that the feature of curvature occupies a dominant position in the semantic structure of this word. First of all, there are utterances in which gėmbė serves as the standard of comparison, for example: 1. He is bent over like a gėmbė (Priekulė). 2. The pigs are shriveled up (i.e., emaciated and bent over) like gėmbės (Telšiai). 28Among these, we should mention kėngė (Plungė, Eržvilkas), as well as the western forms kabinōkšlis (Palanga, Kretinga, Endriejavas), kabinōklis (Židikai, Mosėdis), and kabinėklis (Švėkšna). The latter names are clearly motivated by the functional nominative feature, that is, they are related to the verb (pa)kabinti. They can name a clothes hanger independently, without the mediation of the feature of curvature. The name knābio was also recorded in Mažeikiai. Through its living derivational connection with the verb knābti ‘to bend, droop downward’, this word can also have a more general meaning. Because the semantic structure of this name is dominated by the seme of bending/curvature, it can name more than one object of similar appearance, including a wall-mounted hanger. It is possible that here it replaces the more usual name gėmbės. 29Thus, for example, in a typical communicative situation that encourages substitution, one might say: We USED TO HANG dresses on the kukūtis; we didn’t have any wardrobes or clothes hangers (Gizai). 104 | ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS So too are the so-called determinative compounds, e.g.: 3. The nose is like a gėmbė; everyone calls it gembnosà DunŽ (Dirvėnonai). In the expressions mentioned, gėmbė acquires the general meaning of a curved-shaped object, apparently because kobinio or kebėklio occur much more often in similar contexts, and because established synonymic relations exist between these latter names and gėmbės30; cf.: 1. Dried up, twisted—an actual kobiny̆s (Kuršėnai). 2. That pig is as shriveled as a dried-up lump (Klykoli̇ai). 3. When a person grows old, all their fingers bend into knobs (Laukūva). 4. Would I have stooped into such a predicament if I had called for a doctor (Judrėnai). 5. Fingers are just like knobs (Kvėdarna). Perhaps because of the general meanings acquired through such processes, gėmbė can occasionally denote certain curved tools, for example a fishing-hook (Salantai, Kuliai) or a device for twisting ropes (Tirkšliai, Akmenė). The name gėmbės for the latter may also have been transferred because of the similarity between the referents—both are attached to a wall. Gėmbė appears to have long had the feature of curvature/bending in its semantic structure, as shown by the meaning ‘turn, bend’ of this word in the Eastern Aukštaitian Kupiškėnai, Anykščiai, and Northern Utena dialects, as well as by the verb used alongside it, (iš)gemb(i)uo-ti31. In this respect, compare also pėr(si)gėmbti, used in the Panevėžys dialect, ‘to twist/turn, to bend/tilt’32. Thus, it is evident that kobinys or kebėklis (kibėklis) gėmbės substitutes for the name on the basis of the shared feature of a curved shape. Finally, it does not matter whether the substitution is motivated by the function of the tool in question or by similarity of form—in either case, by following this path we obtain additional information about the distribution of general designators in Lithuanian dialects. 2.9. We will now discuss in greater detail those cases in which the names under discussion are used in utterances in their broadest sense, that is, simply to denote the shape of a “hook”. 30 Sinoniminiai ryšiai sustiprėja ir dėl gėmbės vartojimo minėtuose dūriniuose gembnosà (Dirvėnonai), gembnõsis, -ė (Gegrėnai). Nors dūrinių *kobinianosis, -ė ar *kebeklianososis, -ė nėra užfiksuota (plg. analogiškus kablanõsis, -ė; važanõsis, -ė, kukanõsis, -ė, riukanõsis, -ė kitose tarmėse), tačiau dėl tarp tokių dūrinių ir lyginamųjų pasakymų semantinių struktūrų esamo panašumo (šiuos dūrinius lengva transponuoti į lyginamąsias konstrukcijas. – Apie tai plačiau žr. Mikulskas 1995: 69–70) dūrinio kontekstas kalbamu požiūriu yra adekvatus atitinkamo palyginimo kontekstui. Beje, dūrinių, kurių pirmąjį sandą sudarytų minėtieji bendrieji pavadinimai, nebuvimą galima būtų paaiškinti restrikcinės darybos (dūrybos) taisyklės veikimu. Ši taisyklė ribotų dūrinių su ilgesniu nei dviejų skiemenų pirmuoju sandu atsiradimą. Priešingai, panašių dūrinių su dviskiemeniu pirmuoju sandu žemaičių tarmėje pasitaiko ir daugiau, pvz.: oknosà (Žemaičių Kalvarija, Šatės, Barstyčiai), kabnosà (Ylakiai). Tačiau šį taisyklę, matyt, neveikia kitose lietuvių kalbos tarmėse, plg.: važkamõsis, -ė (Vadvžgiris, Skirsnemunė, Gelgaudiškis, Plokščiai, Keturvalakiai), kabeliānos, -ė (Dusetos, Tauragnai). 31 An analogical derivative from gėmbė instead of the standard *gembėti, since the nouns *gembas ar *gembis are not attested. 32 Historically, gėmbė could be a suffixal derivative of this verb, gėmbti, still retaining even today the meaning of the result of an action (nomina acti). The geographical distribution of the verb and noun shows that this derivational relationship has now been severed. „KABLIO“ FIGŪROS NOMINACINĖS SISTEMOS RAIŠKA | 105 The meaning of a word used in this way, as a unit of the language’s nominative system, is equal to its primary meaning or, in semantic terms, constitutes its signification. We shall see that in most such utterances these names perform a DESCRIPTIVE function33 with respect to a denotatum already introduced into the communicative act by another name. Serving as a model for describing this denotatum, they have no specific denotation. In other cases, they describe the denotatum indirectly, assigning it to a broader class of objects of that kind or (in the case of substitution) pointing to that class. 2.9.1. The descriptive function is associated with the property of a nominal name not only to represent a denotatum but also to describe it (see Nikitin 1988: 25). For example, when a denotatum is introduced into a communicative act by such a name, usually in subject position, the name performs both functions. The same name, used in predicate position, performs only the descriptive function. It performs this function with respect to a denotatum already introduced into the utterance by another (or the same!) name, expressing a deductively defined concept. The latter consists of the essential features of the object being described (in the case at hand, these would be curvature and suitability for carrying out any hooking action). Thus even utterances such as a city is a city, a village is a village are not tautologies and have meaning—their subjects are defined through their own signifying meaning (see Nikitin 1983: 73–74). However, such apparent tautologies clearly belong to the periphery of communication. These expressions are used as a stylistic device that allows a thought to be expressed concisely. The overwhelming majority of such predicative34 descriptions in predicate position have a name of broader reference than the one in subject position. It is precisely the analysis of utterances of this kind that would be useful for our study. Having reviewed the dialectal utterances of similar structure that concern us, we can state that the descriptive function in predicate position is most often performed by the dialect’s general nominator—the name for the figure of a “hook.” In this way, we obtain direct data on the distribution of these names in one or another dialect area. However, beyond establishing these facts, it would be interesting to consider how far the choice of such names for description is determined by the internal logic of solving communicative tasks, and how far it is governed by the requirements imposed by syntactic positions. 2.9.2. In attempting to answer this question, let us first recall that the essence of such predicative descriptions is that the same denotatum, already introduced into the utterance by a name of narrower reference, is defined (or described) by means of a related name of broader reference. In other words, the act of predication establishes a genus–species relationship between these names. Remaining at the level of the utterance as realized (i.e., at the level of syntax), we can only state that the roles certain names perform in a sentence FIX their signifying meaning. The intensional of a polysemous word in these positions becomes the simplest, while its extensional becomes the broadest. For this reason, it is also able to 33 Rusų kalbininkė Arutjunova (1977: 304) ją vadina ATRIBUTYVINE arba KVALIFIKATYVINE funkcija. Lietuvių kalbininkų dažniau vartojamas APIBŪDINAMOSIOS funkcijos terminas. 34Focusing more on the indirect nature of description, we could also use the term PREDICATIVE description here. We have chosen the term PREDICATIVE (not predicative!) description to emphasize the descriptive purpose of a certain kind of syntactic construction. Expressing the act of predication itself, they essentially serve as logical definitions. The predicate is merely the conceptual partner of this act. 106 | ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS to imply a name of narrower scope while qualifying it according to the features it manifests. Conversely, an utterance would become meaningless (indeed, tautological) if we assumed that a polysemous name in predicate position (or in another descriptive position, as we shall see later) retained only one of its meanings, even if that were the most frequent one. It is therefore clear that the roles played in a sentence determine the fluctuation of a word’s semantics within certain bounds—from a specific meaning to a general one. The apparent tautologies mentioned recently make this clear as well. With the totality of realized utterances, the so-called usus, in mind, we can assert that the syntactic roles played by names establish certain semantic parameters within the language’s nominative system, manifested as the competence of language users. However, when generating utterances in which general names perform a descriptive function (as we shall see later, these need not be explicitly expressed as predicative descriptions), speakers often do not rely on this competence alone. On the one hand, such utterances are usually incorporated into a broader text, with its own pattern of alternation between new and given information. As a result of this alternation, the semantics of the names used in an utterance become dependent not only on syntactic position but also on the utterance’s information structure. Certain textual signals help the listener understand this structure—demonstrative or indefinite pronouns (e.g., that, such, (some)what, etc.), which function in the utterance as definite or indefinite artroids. “The indefinite artroid,” writes Rosinas (1996: 69), “makes the addressee pay attention to the fact that marked information follows the artroid and that the addressee encounters the current focus. Conversely, the definite artroid signals to the addressee that unmarked information follows it and that the addressee encounters a vanished focus.” On the other hand—and this is most important for our study—these pronouns, used alongside general names for the reasons mentioned above, can, while also expressing existence, fix their denotation within the bounds of a certain class (of objects being described). By aligning the denotations of the describing general names with those of the names being described, they thus become additional identifying markers for the listener. Moreover, not only artroids expressing existence help identify the denotation of the describing name, but also words that modify that name; cf.: Vasiūkai – WOODEN kukučiai (for twisting cords) (Šunskai). *Vasiūkai – SUCH kukučiai (for twisting cords). 2.9.3. Despite the aforementioned dependence of word semantics on syntax, it is easy to see that it is precisely the speaker, the generator of utterances, whose choice determines which names of the broadest reference occur in certain syntactic positions. Thus, the question of choice is resolved at the level of communicative tasks. Before generating an utterance, the speaker (consciously or not) assesses the circumstances of communication, formulates communicative tasks accordingly, and envisages the means for carrying them out. Of course, as a competent language user, the speaker knows of the aforementioned “positional” fluctuations in the meanings of the names being chosen. An analysis of the LKŽK utterances shows that the most typical communicative situation in which a speaker chooses words of the most general meaning to describe denotata is when the speaker considers another participant in the conversation, the listener, to be less informed about the matters being discussed „KABLIO“ FIGŪROS NOMINACINĖS SISTEMOS RAIŠKA | 107 hooks. Thus, eliminating the imbalance in the participants’ knowledge in a communicative act would be the primary motive for choosing generic names in descriptions. The logic of this choice would be that, in this way, one is seemingly appealing to a “common fund of knowledge.” This is done even if it is assumed that the so-called common fund of knowledge (represented here by generic names) does not extend beyond the speaker’s dialect, and that the word used in the description may be unfamiliar to the interlocutor, a speaker of another dialect or a city resident. Such an equalization of the interlocutors’ unequal knowledge is not the only motive for choosing generic nominators to describe denotata. As we shall see later, these names are used as models to describe the appearance of people or things as vividly and expressively as possible. In this case, both participants in the conversation—the speaker and the listener—may come from the same dialect and the same environment. The motive for the choice here is pragmatic. It is true that the names used in this way are generally no longer free, and usually have a fixed lexical environment. They cannot be freely selected when utterances are generated; instead, ready-made phrases are chosen from the language’s lexical inventory. 2.9.4. In the preceding discussion, we focused more closely on utterances in which generic names perform a descriptive function in the predicate position, that is, as the nominal part of the predicate or as a predicative attribute. However, when used purely for description, these names may also occur as appositions or non-agreeing modifiers, as well as adverbials of manner. As we shall see, generic names are also most often used as the standard of comparison in comparative expressions, which can perform various syntactic functions in a sentence. 2.10. We shall now consider the most characteristic LKŽK utterances (or shorter contexts) in which the names of interest to us perform a purely descriptive function, and thus directly serve as the generic nominators of one dialect or another. As already mentioned, these and similar cases will help define more precisely the geographical distribution of the names for the “hook” figure. We shall therefore add another column to the table: it will list the places where the names discussed can denote any tool shaped like a “hook,” and occasionally simply an object with a curved shape. 2.10.1. We shall begin with pure predicative descriptions. Here are a couple of examples: 1. Vašiukai – wooden KUKIČIAI for hanging clothes (Šunskai). 2. Vāgis – KUKIS for hanging clothes or other things (Daukšiai). There are not many such utterances in LKŽK. In them, either the respondent defines the name of the tool asked about by the word collector, or the word collector defines a name used in the utterance that follows. In the latter case, we can use the definition only if we know reliably that the word collector is a speaker of that dialect. First, we should note that, structurally, such sentences are peculiar equations in which the meanings of the names occupying the subject position are identified with those of the names occupying the nominal part of the compound predicate. Semantically, such identification is possible because a predicative word with only signification as its meaning actualizes the same concept in the meaning of the subject. The denotational extensions of both names are equated by predicatives indicating purpose or material 108 | ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS by attributes. For simplicity, we could replace them with identifying arthroids. We could then rewrite the sentences as follows: 1°. *Vašiūkai – SUCH little hooks. 2°. *Vāgis – SUCH a hook. From the communicative point of view, however, these sentences are not equations of equality or tautologies—they contain a message expressing the speaker’s intention to describe one name by means of another. Formally, this description or characterization takes place indirectly: the denotatum introduced by the subject’s name is assigned to a hyperonymically higher class of tools. Kūkis in these utterances represents any tool belonging to the “hook” class. However, assigning an object to a higher class or establishing a genus–species relationship between names, as we have already noted, is not the ultimate aim of the utterances in question, but merely a means of characterizing the denotatum of interest. Therefore, in order to establish the meaning of similar utterances, attention should be paid not so much to the fact that the signified meaning of the name in predicate position points to a hyperonymically higher “hook” class as to the fact that essential features of the objects in that class are manifested in this way—curved shape and the general purpose of hanging things. These features then serve to qualify the denotatum introduced into the utterance in subject position. 2.10.2. Sometimes the hyponymic-hyperonymic relationship between two names becomes clear from a minimal fragment of conversation, for example: 3. – It must have had a name, THAT kobinėsys? – Vāšas (Kantaučiai). The first speaker, unable to recall the name of the Samogitian device for hanging a cauldron (which has now become archaic), substitutes a general designator for it. The second speaker reminds them of the name: vāšas. The communicative situation in which the utterances are generated is the previously mentioned equalization of an imbalance in knowledge, but here in the reverse direction. In the conversation fragment presented, the descriptive function of the general name is not so obvious, since the relationship between the generic names becomes clear from the intersection of the two speakers’ utterances. However, it is easy to reduce this conversation between two people to the predicative description already discussed. Let us take as our starting point the second participant’s full reply: (the name of that kōbinys is) vāšas, which implies that vāšas is SUCH kobinėsys. In rearranging the conversation fragment in this way, the demonstrative pronoun tas in the first sentence, which here in fact functions as a definite arthroid, has to be replaced by another demonstrative pronoun, toks, which, as a result of the inversion of theme and rheme, now becomes an indefinite arthroid. In both cases, these arthroids have an existential meaning, the essence of which is that they identify the denotatum of kōbinys as a representative of a certain subclass of kōbiniai. In other words, by means of them (in the examples given earlier, attributes did this), the denotation of kōbinys is narrowed to the denotation of vāšas, which here is equivalent to the class of devices for hanging cauldrons. Only after the extensions of the concepts expressed by the names have thus been equalized does an adequate predicative description become possible; as we have seen, it may be expressed either explicitly or implicitly. Such an im- „KABLIO“ FIGŪROS NOMINACINĖS SISTEMOS RAIŠKA | 109 Implicit, or “inverted,” predicative description may also be contained in a single utterance, e.g.: 4. And if you hang a bigger pot, then WHAT KIND OF hook, we used to say (Notėnai). For simplicity, let us rewrite this utterance as follows: WHAT KIND OF (suitable for hanging a larger pot) hook did we call a waxų, or, more simply: WHAT KIND OF (larger) hook did we call a waxų. The latter utterance implies that waxas is WHAT KIND OF (larger) hook or simply that waxas is SUCH a hook. 2.10.3. As we have already mentioned, the general dialect name performs a descriptive function when it serves as an uninflected modifier (5) or an appositive (6, 7), e.g.: 5. They make combs for combing wool from kobinys wood (Židikai). 6. They cut off the flax heads, comb them with combing tools, that is, with 6–7 kobinys (Varniai). 7. You know, sickles, little hooks SUCH (Daugailiai). These names, correlated with a demonstrative word, are functionally close to predicatives; indeed, cf.: Kōbinio medis → tree that is (like) a kobinys. Sickles, little hooks SUCH → sickles that are (like) little hooks. Along the same lines, let us examine a couple of typical cases of substitution, cf.: 8. They scraped out the whole inside with chisels, and hollowed it out with SUCH hooks (Juodupė). 9. If there were SOME kind of kūkis, then maybe you could hook it (Alksnėnai). According to the Atlas of the Lithuanian Language, in the first sentence the name of the tool referred to by the name hook, used in Juodupė and its environs, is vedegà (see LKA₁ 87 (map no. 33)). In the second sentence, kūkis replaces the specific name prikis for a tool used in similar situations (a borrowing from German). We may suppose that what prompts the use of the general dialectal name in the latter utterance is not so much the communicative situation (the speaker and listener having different levels of knowledge) as the very nature of the activity envisaged. Any tool resembling a prikis would serve to carry out the desired action here, for example, a peštukas or a kanabēkas. In these cases, the general names for the “hook” figure, by substituting for the names of specific tools, also serve a descriptive function with respect to those tools. Their use often also seems to appeal to a “common fund of knowledge.” Alongside these names, indefinite pronouns with existential meaning (artroides) are most often found; by defining the denotation of their nouns, they thereby identify it with the denotation of unspoken members of the hyponymic-hyperonymic relation. In fact, such utterances also contain predicative descriptions. For instance, the part of the first utterance that concerns us, they would scrape out the inside with SUCH hooks could easily be expanded as they would scrape out the inside with vedegos, which are SUCH hooks. 110 | ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS 2.10.4. Sometimes common nominals are used in predicative descriptions not to reveal generic-specific relations between objects designated by two names, but as models for describing various other objects in reality. These names, which occur as the nominal part of the predicate, are expressed not in the nominative but in the instrumental or locative case. The meaning of such descriptions is close to that of comparisons, cf.: 10. Already the rye is like krūkel iuosa, and they still haven’t cut it (Armōniškės); ≈the rye is already like krūkeliai35. 11. Krūkel ių [there is] his dziūbas (beak) (Žietela); ≈his dziūbas is like krūkelis. As in comparisons, common names are used here non-referentially, that is, without a specific denotation. 2.10.5. In utterances, common names that occur in comparative expressions serve as the standard of comparison (for a fuller discussion of the structure of comparative expressions, see Ambrazas, ed. 1996: 634). The comparative expressions themselves then serve a descriptive function. In our case, based on similarity to a curled object (represented by the generalized image of a “hook”), they describe the subject of an action (12, 13, 14), the object (instrument) (15), or the result of the action itself (16, 17, 18). In a sentence, these expressions can accordingly function as nominal parts of predicates, attributes, or adverbials of manner. Cf. the utterances: 12. Your nose is like vąšiūkas (Ketūrvalakiai). 13. The fingers are just like kebėkliai (Kvėdarna). 14. The daughter was left with a hump, like kobinȳs (Žagarė). 15. They used to cut with sickles just like kabliais, perhaps you’ve seen it? (Saldūtiškis). 16. That Motka is all curled up like kriūkutis (Lėipalingis). 17. He walks bent over like kriūkas (Jiežnas). 18. That pig was dried up like kobinȳs (Klȳkoliai). In the first four utterances, the comparison applies in every respect. In other words, both things (and persons) expressed by nouns are compared in every respect; or we may say that the nose, fingers, daughter, sickles serving as the basis of comparison are simply identified with the vašiūkas, kebėkliai, kobinys, kabliai that express the standard of comparison. Clearly, this comparison, or identification, is based on a semantic feature shared by both terms of comparison: a curled shape. In the last three utterances, the predicates is curled up, (walks) bent over, was dried up state the criterion for comparing a person or animal with a curled implement. This criterion is a curled shape (in the last case, the criterion of comparison is indicated indirectly—the verb to dry in our minds is always associated with such actions 35 In another dialect, this characteristic of overripe grain is predicated differently; cf.: 1. The rye has become completely shriveled; there is no one to cut it (Nemajūnai). 2. The barley has already shriveled up like that (Pilviškiai). „KABLIO“ FIGŪROS NOMINACINĖS SISTEMOS RAIŠKA | 111 with names such as to curl, to bend, and so on). Looking from the speaker’s, the utterance generator’s, perspective, we would say that the property of being curved is predicated of the subjects denoted by the first nouns through verbs and additionally fixed (defined) by general terms denoting the standard, namely, names for the “hook.” It seems that in this way these utterances take on the form of a comparative construction. All three elements of this construction—the comparison partners—form a coherent semantic combination. On the other hand, from the listener’s, the utterance comprehender’s, perspective, the combination in question is possible (or the comparison makes sense) only if there is semantic compatibility among its elements. This means that the three words representing them share a semantic feature. 2.10.6. Essentially, we also find a comparison, but with a greater degree of certainty, in the utterance: 19. Dried up, curled up—an absolute hook (Kuršėnai). The descriptive function is also performed by the verbal hook-derived verb sukablėti in the utterance: 20. He had become bent over like a chicken, but now he has made up for it (Antašava). Here we encounter the so-called minimization of semantic actants, whereby they are incorporated into the meaning of a predicative word (see Jakaitienė 1988: 68). Indeed, the first part of this utterance can readily be expanded as he became like a hook or he became like a hook. Thus, this utterance too contains a comparison. 2.10.7. The descriptive function is performed by an adverbial of manner, expressed by the instrumental case of a general term or by a case with a preposition (in dialects this may be the illative), e.g.: 21. The cranes fly like a hook (Kuktiškės). 22. That slowpoke sits there on a hook (Švenčionys). 23. It blackened, curled up into a hook while burying DunŽ (Kuršėnai). 24. She is already old, has bent into a little hook ZtŽ. 25. Would I have become bent over like a hook if I had gone to the doctor? (Judrėnai). 26. When a person grows old, all the fingers bend into hooks, so that they cannot even be straightened (Laukuva). These manner adjuncts describe (or specify) the predicate’s action and, through it, the subject, along a path similar to that of comparative phrases—by analogy with the “hook” figure. In effect, the same semantic correspondence exists among the three sentence constituents—the subject, predicate, and manner adjunct—as in a comparative phrase. Here the predicate often directly indicates the basis of the semantic correspondence, as does the aspect of comparison in a comparative phrase—that is, a curved shape. Cf. the predicates in utterances 23–26: curled up, bent over, (bučio) hunched over, bends down. These utterances can easily be transformed into comparative phrases—the only change will be in the degree of certainty or possibility with which the property is predicated. Cf.: curled up into kōbinį while digging → curled up like kōbinys while digging. 2.10.8. So-called determinative compounds (for more on these, see Urbutis 1978: 173–174) may also be regarded as contexts close to comparative phrases. In fact, such compounds are based on entire comparative phrases. For example, kablianōsis is someone whose nose is like a kablýs. Thus, the function of the first constituent of these compounds is to serve as the standard of comparison 112 | ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS The object being described (or the basis of comparison) in such compound words is usually a person’s nose, cf.: 27. That old man is so ugly, kablenosis (Ėriškiai). 28. Oh, how ugly, what a kukianosis (Prienai). 29. How could I marry you when you’re kriūkanosis and so ugly! (Pelesà). 30. And the father had a vaškanosis nose, and all the children are like that (Veliuona). However, this kind of resemblance is sometimes found in other body parts, and not only in humans; cf.: 31. That kabliadantis won’t do a thing! (Krekenavà). 32. Hey, you kriūkagalvis, where are you going! (said of a horse) (Rudaminà). The examples show that such compounds have a pragmatic orientation and carry negative connotations. Nevertheless, their first constituent most often has a signifying meaning of a general designation that is neutral in this respect. It does not denote a particular curved implement whose salient feature might motivate a pragmatic nomination, but represents the general “hook” figure. Naturally, each larger terminological area has its own representative here, as the examples provided show. Designations of the most general meaning, based on one or two essential features of the referent, are best suited to describing it figuratively. However, the determinative compounds formed from these designations are not memorable in terms of expression—their negative connotation apparently stems from the speaker’s pragmatic stance and previous corresponding usages. Perhaps for this reason, dialects often form analogous compounds with first constituents denoting specific curved implements. For pragmatic reasons, more distinctive representatives are, understandably, chosen. It seems that this is how the compound designations gembnōsis, -ė, oknošà arose in the Samogitian dialect, vaškamōsis, -ė in the Western Aukštaitian dialect, and kabelanōsis, -ė in the Eastern Aukštaitian dialect. We have also already mentioned that these specific designations and the general designations that occur in analogous contexts develop synonymous relations. For this reason, the reference of some narrower-scope designations, such as gembė or kabelis, may expand, and they may occasionally or regularly be used to name various other curved implements⁳⁶. 2.10.9. The spread of a general designation is also evidenced in its own way by compounds of a different kind—vaškarà, vaškaras, which in the Western Aukštaitian Kaunas subdialect denote a device for suspending a cauldron over an open hearth while cooking (the second may also mean the pole of a well sweep with a “hook- 36 For example, in the Western Aukštaitian Kaunas subdialect, vaškarà (vaškaras) acquires the general meaning of a standard of comparison not only in compounds such as vaškamōsis, -ė, but also, correspondingly, in comparative constructions or metaphorical nominations; cf.: 1. A nose like a vaškarà (Sintautai). 2. Stop sticking your vaškaròs in there, please! (Lukšiai). Here vaškarà (vaškaras) performs functions of figuratively modeling objects in reality, just like the much more frequent vašas in analogous contexts. However, the broader range of meanings of vaškarai (vaškarui) is not characteristic here. Apparently, because the derivational meaning is still active, the general designational potential remains unrealized. „KABLIO“ FIGŪROS NOMINACINĖS SISTEMOS RAIŠKA | 113 liu“). As we already know, for Samogitians vašas means a device for hanging a cauldron. In the western part of the Western Aukštaitian Kaunas subdialect, vašu can designate any curved tool that, moreover, can usually be manipulated freely. It is therefore clear that the name vašo is not suitable for the aforementioned cauldron-hanging (or similar) device for at least two reasons: because of its polysemy, or broad reference, and because of the device’s specific nature—its stationary attachment. We may therefore reasonably assume that there arose a motivation to create a more suitable name through compounding. Thus vašk aras ar vaškarà came into being. We could define their derivational meaning as follows: ‘a device for (pa)hanging (suspending) something with a vašu at the end’. Here the first component of the compound’s derivational base, vašas, has the general meaning of a hanging tool, which, of course, necessarily implies the semantic feature of a curved shape. Thus, in this case, the seme of curvature is expressed indirectly. In this respect these compounds differ from those examined earlier (specifically, vašanósio), in which this seme was expressed directly by an analogous component37. 2.10.10. Compounds of this type, such as mėšlakablis (Šimónys) or mėšlakriukš (Léipalingis), occur less frequently. They also attest to the spread of general designations in their respective dialects. The reasons for their emergence may be explained as in the case of the compounds discussed earlier: general names with an overly broad reference are not always suitable for designating tools with a narrow purpose, so their scope is narrowed through compounding. 2.10.11. A general name embodying the feature of a curved shape may be used metaphorically to name an object distinguished by that feature. Metaphors, of course, are created and used in language for pragmatic reasons. Their purpose is not to represent the denotata named in speech acts, but to describe them in some respect. This description, however, is not direct, but relies on the conventional name of another object (or class of objects). This is possible by establishing relations of similarity, or, in everyday terms, by perceiving a certain resemblance between the two things in reality. Metaphors are therefore essentially hidden comparisons (cf. Nikitin 1983: 56; 84). In our case, the range of objects named metaphorically is quite narrow—most often these are the very things used as the basis for comparative expressions: the human body, some of its parts, and, less often, other things (e.g., a line of flying cranes); cf.: 33. What hands there used to be, and now hooks (Šaukotas). 34. That hook (of the dried-up old man) I can’t see without glasses. DuÑŽ (Raudėnai). 35. The cranes’ hook clattered off southward (Eriškiai). The shared feature of a curved shape is especially obvious when comparing a nose with a curved tool. Therefore, it often becomes the basis for semantic transfer, when vašas, kablys, and so on, come to mean a nose (or beak) directly. For example, in the sentence Why have you lowered your hook? (Šiauliai), the familiar phrase lower one’s nose ‘become dejected’ is replaced in this way; cf. also: 37 Quite different things are attested by formally similar compounds used in the Western Aukštaitian Šiauliai subdialect. As mentioned earlier, here vaškans, vaškaris ar vaškarýs mean the hoop or handle of a cauldron or bucket. Thus, the derivational meaning of such compounds is ‘a place by which a vašas is hung (suspended)’. The latter name is hardly attested in the dialect, but most likely, when the compound was formed, the Šiauliai speakers, like their Samogitian neighbors, used it to refer to the aforementioned device for hanging a cauldron. 114 | ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS 36. I hang a hook over the cradle [by the little sisters] (Surdegis). Riddles are often constructed on the basis of shared semantic features. In this way, their essential denotata are encoded through metaphors. Once those features are guessed, the riddle is solved. Cf. two variants of the same riddle from different locations: 37. At one end a fork, at the other a whisk, and the middle like a ball (Didvyžiai) [a swallow]. 38. At one end a fork, at the other end a little hook, Latin clothes, a dialectal way of speaking (Pilviškiai). For our study, it is important to note that, in these variants of a single riddle, the common names represent distinct areas of dominance. Common names can also be used metaphorically to designate corresponding graphic figures, for example, letters; cf.: 39. It’s hard to read in Russian—it’s all just little hooks (Priekulė). 40. He wrote such a little hook, drew a little bird, and taught that child (Tauragė). Some of these names serve as the basis for verbal derivatives, e.g.: 41. I’ve scribbled the letter in this way, but I couldn’t do it well or neatly [write] (Endriejavas). Having discussed how common nominators occur in terminological expressions, we can finally present the complete table, which clearly shows the geographical distribution of the nominative systems they dominate. The areal distribution of common names is even clearer on the map compiled from the data in this table. Locations where these names are recorded as being used with all six regular meanings, and locations where they are attested as having only a significative meaning, are marked with identical symbols on the map. More regular cases of substitution are also marked. 3. CONCLUDING REMARKS 3.1. The suitability of the dominant names in nominative systems based on figurative similarity for designating the concepts of spatial figures follows from the ISOMORPHISM of their semantic structures to those figures. The core of the meaning structures of such names consists of essential features of the figures being named (i.e., features important to members of the speech community). These features shape the nominative (primary) meaning of the names, which language users recognize as their signifying sense. The nominative meaning of a name plays a principal role in speech acts when denoting objects in reality that are linked by figurative similarity. The regular meanings of words that form from these denotations are to be regarded as secondary (derived) in relation to the nominative meaning. 3.2. The dialectal general names for the “hook” figure are dominant names for tools of the same shape that have developed through INCLUSION. From a synchronic perspective, the greatest designative power (nominative potential) of general names derives from their occupying the highest position in the system hierarchy, which in turn depends solely on the adaptation of their semantic structures to represent the “hook” figure appropriately and is independent of their origin or internal form. The derivational relations implied by the latter can be activated at the level of the realized text by using these names alongside the verbs that form their derivational bases. Thus, these derivational relations are more significant to the recipient (addressee) of an utterance than to its producer (addresser). For the latter, the taxonomy of names stratified on the basis of the figurative similarity of denotata seems more useful. „KABLIO“ FIGŪROS NOMINACINĖS SISTEMOS RAIŠKA | 115 to occupy the highest position in the system hierarchy, which in turn depends solely on the adaptation of their semantic structures to represent the “hook” figure appropriately and is independent of their origin or internal form. The derivational relations implied by the latter can be activated at the level of the realized text by using these names alongside the verbs that form their derivational bases. Thus, these derivational relations are more significant to the recipient (addressee) of an utterance than to its producer (addresser). For the latter, the taxonomy of names stratified on the basis of the figurative similarity of denotata seems more useful. 3.3. The boundaries of larger dialects or subdialects are of greatest importance for the spread of general designations for the “hook” figure. For example, the boundary between the Northern Samogitian Kretinga and Telšiai subdialects is decisive for the territorial distribution of the names used by Samogitians, kebėklis (kibėklis) and kobinys. Correspondingly, the distinction between the Zanavykai and Kapsai ethnic groups is significant for the geographical distribution of the names vąšas and kūkis, used by Western Aukštaitian Kauniškiai speakers. From a historical perspective, it can be argued that the same political, administrative, physical, and other factors that determined differences in dialect phonetics also shaped their distinctive nominative systems. From a synchronic perspective, the fact that certain nominative systems, despite the characteristic fluidity of vocabulary, remain more or less within dialect boundaries should be explained by the fact that dialects exhibit features of a closed language system. Thus, with respect to nominative units, they function as separate languages. This means that people whose speech differs markedly from that of their neighbors identify themselves as a distinct ethnic group, as “one of us,” who in communicating with one another use the names for real-world objects familiar to them and do not unnecessarily admit equivalents used by others, by “outsiders,” in their place. The distinctive nominative system of a dialect determines that analogous names from other dialects (or languages) are not accepted without greater or lesser adaptation. In other words, if the latter are borrowed, they must find their place (occupy a certain position) in the hierarchy of the corresponding nominative subsystems. ABBREVIATIONS Dūnž–Vitkauskas, V. 1976: Šiaurės rytų dūnininkų šnektų žodynas, Vilnius: Mokslas. LKA₁ – Atlas of the Lithuanian Language 1. Lexicon, ed. K. Morkūnas, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1977. LKŽ – Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language 1–19, ed. J. Balčikonis, J. Kruopas, K. Ulvydas, V. Vitkauskas, 1941–1999. LKŽK – Card index of the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language: Institute of the Lithuanian Language. ZtŽ – Vidugiris, A. 1998: Zietelos šnektos žodynas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. LITERATŪRA Ambrazas, V., red. 1996: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Arutjunova, N. D. 1977: Номинация и текст. Серебренников, Б. А., Уфимцева, А. А., ред., Языковая номинация: Виды наименований, Москва: Наука, 304–357. Greimas, A. J. 1989: Semiotika. Darbų rinktinė, sudarė R. Pavilionis, Vilnius: Mintis. Jakaitienė, E. 1988: Leksinė semantika, Vilnius: Mokslas. Karaliūnas, S. 1997: Kalba ir visuomenė: Psichosociologiniai ir komunikaciniai kalbos vartojimo bruožai, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Mikulskas, R. 1995: Žodžių vōkas, vokūoti kilmė onomasiologiniu požiūriu. Lituanistica 4 (24), 58–74. 116 | ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS 1 LENTELĖ. BENDRŲJŲ „KABLIO“ FIGŪROS PAVADINIMŲ PAPLITIMAS TARMĖSE Riestos formos Įrankis įrankio pavadinimas Mėšlui iš Šienui iš kūgio Kam traukti Meškeriojimo (pp. mažybinė forma) vežimo versti ar šalinės galo pešti pakabinus mažybinė forma kablys SRv, Km, Ds, Kp SKp, SDk, SLK Nj, Krč, Ut, Lel, Kp; Klp, Nd, Jrb Sur; Jnš, prk.: SRv, Bsg, Skrb, Všk, Ppl, Vb, Slm, Alz, Kp, Šmn, SKp, PnmR, Rk, Č, Km, Dkk, Žr, Aln, Kkl, Ukm, Pg, Er, Tr, An, Sb; Jrb važąs Erž, Vdk Snt, Jrb, Skr; Rmš, Nmj, prk.: Pjv, Plv, Pžrl, Pnma, Al, Mrs Všt, Gs kūkis Krok, Pun, Jz Zp, Drs Ss, Ūd, Jz, Prn Bgt, Skrd, Šil, Jz, Ūd, Ldvn kebėklis (kibėklis) Klvrž, Plt, Slnt, Grsl, Ms, Šts, Yl; Žr, Žd Tž, Kv, Slnt, Šts Plt; Nm kobinys Vkš, Škn; Šl, Btg Akm, Rdn, Lk, Žr, Tl, Als, Klvrž, Šts Brs, Žr, Varn, Vkš, Trk; Vn, Šl, Kv Sd, Trk, Krš, Žr kriūkas Vs, Lš, Lz, Dv; Aps, Brsl Drsk, Mrc Krsn, Smn, Srj, Rud, Nč, Žt, Lz, Dv; Švnc, Skdt, Plv Sn, Mrk, Žt, Auk; Švnc, Rš, Upn Pastabos: 1) vietų santrumpos tokios pat kaip LKŽ; 2) po kabliataškio pateikiamos vietų, esančių toli nuo kompaktiško pavadinimų vartojimo ploto, santrumpos; 3) po pažymos prk. pateikiamos vietų, kuriose užfiksuoti tokie veiksmažodiniai vediniai kaip kabliuoti ar vašiuoti santrum- „KABLIO“ FIGŪROS NOMINACINĖS SISTEMOS RAIŠKA | 117 Nėrimo (ppr. mažybinė forma) Įtaisas virvėms vyti (gali būti mažybinė forma) Gembė, vagis Bet koks riestos formos įrankis Tarmės BSG, SKP, PC PS, SKP, JDP, ZR, ŽL SML, PAĮ, PS, SLM, KP, SKP, JDP, RK, DS, TRGN, SSK, KUR, AN, SUR; ŽSL KRKN, UPT, ĖR, MŽS, PPL, KPR, ANTŠ, PLVN, ŠMM, PND, JDP, DGL, SLD, KTK, SUG, ALN, KKL, ŠR, PG; ŠVNČ, ŠKT, ŠL Rytų aukštaičiai: panevėžiškiai, kupiškėnai, anykštėnai, širvintiškiai, uteniškiai ErŽ, PnmŽ; Grd, Nmn Šn, Mrj, Kt, Gž, VlkV, Grš, Vlkj, Jd, Grk, Btg, Vdk; Jsv, Ldv, Gdž, Grl, Vv, Krok Jrb, Snt, Mrj; Tlž Kt, Gs, Gž, Grš, Lkš, Snt, Slv, Erž, Vdžg, Rs, Grk, Stak, Ar, Jd, PnmŽ, Rdd, Lkč, Vlkj, Vl, Plk; Jsv, Prn Vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių vakarinė pusė Al, Brb, Mrj, Gž Rmš, Nmj, Brb, Gdl, Šil Vv, Gž PnmA, Prn, Ūd, Krok, Dks, Mrj, Klvr, Alk, Plv, Šn, Grl Vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių rytinė pusė Klp, Sg, Vn, Kv, Kl, Plt, Slnt, Lkž, Ms, Yl, Brs, KlvrŽ, Sd; Lpl, Lž Vyž, Šll Als, KlvrŽ, Sd, Šts, Nt, Pln, End, Jdr, Kv, Šll, Prk Vakarų žemaičiai, pietų žemaičių vakarinė pusė, šiaurės žemaičiai kretingiškiai Sd, Šts, Žr, Užv, Rdn, Škn, Krp; Rd Žlb, Krš; Slnt, Prk Šts, Žd, Sd, Trk, Akm, Klk, Žg, Škn, Krš, Rdn, Krkl, Lkv, Knt; Kv, Trg, Šlv, Mšk Šiaurės žemaičiai telšiškiai, pietų žemaičių varniškių rytinė pusė Klvr, Kpč, Drsk, Vrn, Vlk, Dsm, Dg, Pun Rdm, Bd, Pns, Sn, Srj, Lš, Drsk, Pls, Zt, Lz Klvr, Vrn, Pls, Zt, Lz; Sdk Rdm, Bd, Lzd, Švn, Sn, Kpč, Lp, Rud, Pls, Zt, Arm, Dv, Rūd, Dsm, Jz Pietų aukštaičiai (išskyrus šiaurinį kampą), kai kurios rytų aukštaičių vilniškių salos pos. Ppr. jie turi perkeltinės reikšmės ‘godžiai (kabinat) valgyti’ ar ‘skobti’ ir taip netiesiogiai nurodo į savo pamatinius daiktavardžius, kaip bendros paskirties kabinimo įrankių pavadinimus. 118 | ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS 1 PAV. BENDRŲJŲ „KABLIO“ FIGŪROS PAVADINIMŲ PAPLITIMAS TARMĖSE „KABLIO“ FIGŪROS NOMINACINĖS SISTEMOS RAIŠKA | 119 Nikitin, M. V. 1983: Лексическое значение слова: Структура и комбинаторика, Москва: Высшая школа. Nikitin, M. V. 1988: Основы лингвистической теории значения, Москва: Высшая школа. Rosinas, A. 1996: Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos įvardžiai: Funkcijos ir semantika, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Telija, V. N. 1977: Вторичная номинация и ее виды. Серебренников, Б. А., Уфимцева, А. А., ред. Языковая номинация: Виды наименований, Москва: Наука, 129–221. Ufimtseva, A. A. 1977: Лексическая номинация. Серебренников, Б. А., Уфимцева, А. А., ред. Языковая номинация: Виды наименований, Москва: Наука, 5–85. Urbutis, V. 1978: Žodžių darybos teorija, Vilnius: Mokslas. Rolandas Mikulskas Lietuvių kalbos institutas P. Vileišio g. 5, 2055 Vilnius, Lietuva Gauta 2002 05 07